RIYADH - Three Saudi nationals held by the United States in Guantanamo Bay have been handed over to Saudi authorities, Saudi Arabiaâs state television said on Wednesday. It gave no details of the three detainees but said their families had been informed of their return to the kingdom.
"Hi honey, I'm home! Did my little girl miss her big daddy?"
"Baaaahaaahaaaa!"
Posted by: Steve ||
07/20/2005 15:34 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Great, they will no doubt recieve a heroes welcome. I think we should send them back in a plastic bin.
Three Saudi Suicide bombers blew themselves up today outside an Iraqi hospital, recruitment center, and elementary school. Officials believe as many as 80 were killed.
Saudi authorities deny reports but say if true, they have no control over citizens that choose to wage Jihad in Iraq. "It is their religious freedom to choose, and we in the Kingdom respect religious freedom," said Minister of Interior Prince Nayef. When asked if that principle of freedom applied to non-Muslims in the Kingdom, Nayef abruptly ended the conversation.
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia, July 20 (UPI) -- Saudi King Fahd accepted the resignation of Saudi ambassador in Washington Prince Bandar bin Abdul Aziz who served in the post for more than 20 years. An official source at the foreign ministry said Wednesday Bandar expressed his wish to be relieved from his responsibilities earlier this month.
"After all these long years of devoted service as Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States, which exceeded 20 years, Prince Bandar solicited King Fahd to be released from his post for personal reasons," the source said.
He said the king appointed Prince Turki al-Faisal, the current ambassador to Britain, to replace Bandar. The source did not say what prompted Bandar to resign.
Rumors are: ill health, wanting to spend time with the family, wanting the vacant post as head of intelligence and needing to be close to home when the power struggle for the throne gets ugly.
How exactly did Fahd accept his resignation -- drool on the right spot on the form?
Posted by: Steve ||
07/20/2005 10:58 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
My theory?
US investigators are getting close to his and his immediate family's activities in supporting terrorism. He bugged out while he could.
Just how well would diplomatic immunity protect someone involved in terrorism?
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
07/20/2005 11:17 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Just how well would diplomatic immunity protect someone involved in terrorism?
Unless the government he's a diplomat for cuts him loose, my understanding is that the most you can do is declare them "undesirable" and boot them out of the country.
Posted by: Steve ||
07/20/2005 11:32 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I still want to know who gets his sweet, sweet pad along the Potomac...
#7
I'm with Robert C. and Mrs. Davis, Prince Bandar is getting out while the getting's good.
My take is that our whole relationship with SA is about to make a real sea change and that it's not very pro-Saudi, if you know what I mean.
Bandar *loved* being the Saud go-to guy in D.C....the sh*t must really be about to hit the fan for him to give up his very luxurious life in the West.
#10
#6 Aspen ?
- How does a woman ski in a black burka?
Posted by BigEd
Looks like a lump of coal in an avalanche
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/20/2005 14:18 Comments ||
Top||
#11
I am pulling this out of my posterior. The US has made repeated request for SA to actually do someting about the "foreign fighters" problem. SA has given lots of lip service but no concrete acts have been taken. The fecal matter is about to hit the fan at home and here in the US but for different reasons. The Ambasador wants to avoid it all. I bet he moves to some nice villa he owns in the EU untill that resolves it's self.
#13
lol, Frank and Ship! Remember, kiddies, don't eat the black snow!
Posted by: BA ||
07/20/2005 15:18 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Unless the government he's a diplomat for cuts him loose, my understanding is that the most you can do is declare them "undesirable" and boot them out of the country.
That's all the government can do.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
07/20/2005 15:54 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Host governments grant diplomatic immunity to bona fide diplomats and others. In theory its discretionary although a very long standing practice. Something really bad would have to happen for this tradition to be broken - caught smuggling a nuke or similar.
The following are excerpts from an Al-Jazeera television interview on the London bombings, with Palestinian National Council member Mamoun Al-Tamimi and reformist author and journalist 'Adel Darwish of the U.K. paper Daily Mail. The interview aired on July 12, 2005 on Al-Jazeera TV.
Host: We heard the British Home Secretary say that what happened in London has nothing whatsoever to do with the British policies or Iraq. What do you have to say to him?
Al-Tamimi: "Obviously, he wants to defend himself, because this operation will bring down the government. Blair will fall just like Aznar did. When Spain was attacked, Aznar immediately tried to pin it on ETA and the Basques. Then it turned out that Al-Qaeda was behind the attack, and he immediately lost the elections. Blair will follow Aznar. This is certain. Therefore they want to cover up...
"First of all, they prevented the media from filming the attacks. The attacks were enormous, a thousand times greater than what was reported. Why did they do this? Because of the fear that overcame the British people and government, and because they know that they are paying a steep price for the mess Blair got them into. They understood that this is because they treat the Arabs and Muslims with disdain and spill their blood. They understood that this is war. In war, you hit and get hit. That's the equation. It is just like Albright said when she was asked whether two million Iraqis were killed because of the decade-long siege on Iraq. She responded, 'That's war.'
"Since this war is ongoing, the people you strike have the right to strike back at you, in your home, your country, anywhere. That's the equation."
A sample only. More at the link...
Posted by: Fred ||
07/20/2005 22:14 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
The British government has reached an agreement with Jordan that will allow Britain to deport Jordanian terrorism suspects, a move that could lead to the explusion of so-called hate preachers, most immediately the Jordanian-Palestinian cleric Abu Qatada. The preacher is currently under a control-order in Britain and has been convicted in absentia in Jordan. Several European countries are believed to be trying to extradite him.
Britain's cabinet office said it had reached a "memorandum of understanding" with the Jordanian authorities that will remove a ban on the government deporting people to countries where they could face torture and mistreatment or the death penalty. The deal is part of the government's security crackdown following the deadly 7 July bombings of London's transport system, and it is seeking similar deals with various other countries, many of which are in North Africa.
Besides Qatada, there are other Jordanian nationals who may be subject to deportation as a result of the deal, a cabinet office spokesman said, without giving any further details. Deportation of any individuals under the accord will have to be approved by British courts.
The government said it will also step up efforts to expel individuals form Britain if their presence is deemed not conducive to the public good. This would include sermons preached by Qatada and the Syrian cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed, amongst others.
Qatada has been described by a UK judge as "a truly dangerous individual, heavily involved in al-Qaeda". British authorities say 18 videotapes of Qatada's sermons were uncovered in an appartment in the north German city of Hamburg, used by some of the 11 September hijackers. Qatada fled to the UK claiming persecution and was held in Belmarsh Prison without charge, as part of the government's 2001 Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act. In March, Britain's Prevention of Terrorism Act replaced the indefinite prison detention of terror suspects with control orders.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
07/20/2005 14:57 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
This is near the end of the Telegraph article on Ken Livingstone's claim that Western policies are to blame for Islamofascist terrorism.
Anjem Choudary, the UK leader of the militant Islamist group al-Muhajiroun, interviewed for BBC Radio 4's Today programme said Muslim leaders should not meet Mr Blair. "The British Government wants to show that they are on the side of justice and of truth, whereas in reality the real terrorists are the British regime, and even the British police, who have tried to divide the Muslim community into moderates and extremists, whereas this classification doesn't exist in Islam," he said. The moderate Moslem doesn't exist. We suspected as much.
"Either you are a practising Muslim or a non-practising one, and I cannot envisage that any practising Muslim would sit with the Government, ..." And a non-practising Moslem is an apostate, deserving of death according to Islamic Law.
Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever) ||
07/20/2005 12:09 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Well, then there's the screen! Line 'em all up, and if they won't "sit with the government", let them sit on a slow boat home.
If you don't recognize the government where you live, why are you there?
Hey! That applies to you, Fat Mikey!
Posted by: Bobby ||
07/20/2005 13:05 Comments ||
Top||
#2
This is why I think Hewitt is wrong about his comments regarding Tom Tancredoâs statment about hitting Mecca. We are in a war with the destructive force of Islam. Now, if there are "moderate" forces at work, they either need to step up and take down the zelots, or get out of the way. Keeping Mecca on the target list shows we are willing to go ALL-THE-WAY if nessisary. If we have to, we will wipe out every trace of your corrupt and evil civilization, including your prized mosques. We value our lives and children. You value your books and Mosques. We will take yours to preserve ours. Period. If there are "Moderate" Islamic forces, they need to start denoucing and taking care of the zelots in their countries, or we will. You haven't fully pissed us off yet and you had better pray you don't.
#3
Well I like TGA's idea of just taking all of their assets. Let them have Mecca. Who wants it. Don't forget that the wahabbists actually look down on revering muslim holy places as a form of idoltary. They've destroyed lots of big-Mo's life sites. I want to know when the muslims are going to get disgusted with their so-called religion and decide that another path is better.
#4
My new policy, sttarting today, is to post any photos of these thugs we can. Let the world see the face of evil...
Mr Livingstone also defended Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the controversial cleric who visited London at his invitation last year and who had been scheduled to attend a conference in Manchester next month.
He said Mr al-Qaradawi was a "leading progressive Muslim" who was not actually going to the conference and who had condemned the London attacks.
Asked about Mr al-Qaradawi's apparent support for Palestinian suicide bombers, Mr Livingstone said the cleric's views had been misreported.
#5
I want to know when the muslims are going to get disgusted with their so-called religion and decide that another path is better.
Hmmm. Let's see...it's 2005, Mo had his first vision in 611, carry the 1, subtract from 5, why that's almost 1400 years of head-chopping, wife-beating, honor-killing hijinks.
#7
And a non-practising Moslem is an apostate, deserving of death according to Islamic Law
--
Not exactly true. Most moslems consider apostasy only if a person publically renounces Allah or the Koran or Mohammud - you can be an atheist in private. If a person practices a type of Islam you don't like, it is also sometime called apostasy but that is less common. Simply neglecting to pray 5 times a day, etc. is not punished. In fact, you can conveniently redeem yourself by participating in jihad.
#8
Apostasy is public disloyalty towards Islam by any one who had previously professed the Islamic faith. Blasphemy is showing disrespect or speaking ill of any of the essential principles of Islam. There is no sharp distinction between these concepts, as Islamic Law teaches there can be no blasphemy without apostasy.
Don't you think al-Muhajiroun's point is precisely that Moslems who show themselves cooperating with the UK government are disloyal to Islam? "Non-practising" is their code for "watch out! or you'll be deemed an apostate."
Actually, I think the recent terrorist attack on children may cause Zarqawi to revise his theological thinking.
His current position is that, while regrettable, the death of innocent Iraqis is an acceptable sacrifice given the importance of the goals at stake (e.g., reimposing the Caliphate, destroying Shiitism, killing American) and, in any case, the innocents who die in this cause will go to paradise. This (minus the paradise stuff) is essentially the same rationalization as the Communists had during their mass murders.
The recent atrocity was so unpopular, even among the jihadis, that Zarqawi denounced the particular action. He has not, however, yet come up with a theological theory that justifies other suicide bombs but not the one that killed the two dozen plus children.
The problem of deciding which suicide bombings are OK and which are forbidden has been a subject of much discussion amongst the jihadi theorists. Hezbollah, for one, has developed the theological position that suicide bombers have to be personally assigned a job by an iman (I don't know what kind of flexibility the suicide bomber has - this may be part of the instructions).
#12
yah, al muhajiroun thinks the moderates are just apostates. So what? why the hell should we buy off on what al muhajiroun thinks? Theyre like, the enemy, man.
If you want to say that there are no moderate muslims, only muslims who think that they are moderate, but that the salafi-jihadis think are apostates, I wouldnt object. I dont see that tells us anything useful though.
#13
yah, al muhajiroun thinks the moderates are just apostates. So what? why the hell should we buy off on what al muhajiroun thinks? Theyre like, the enemy, man.
If you want to say that there are no moderate muslims, only muslims who think that they are moderate, but that the salafi-jihadis think are apostates, I wouldnt object. I dont see that tells us anything useful though.
#14
So what? I don't see any Moslem leaders arguing for and defending moderate interpretations of Islam. That's what.
Completely missing are the Mythical Moslem Moderates who would speak out and denounce the extremists and affirm that there are variant interpretations of Islam, compatible with freedom and republican institutions --and they, the MM Moderates, will by God stomp on the extremists.
Instead of that, the only people who claim that there are Moslem Moderates seem to be Deluded, Modern-Liberal Westerners.
Maybe the time has come to re-read Patrick Henry's speech on the Illusions of Hope.
#15
When they start exposing the radicals, I'll believe in moderates. I still have some hope, but it's running thin.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
07/20/2005 16:08 Comments ||
Top||
#16
RC,
I think the issue with the "moderate" Muslim is not that they don't exist; it's the level of their influence.
As an example, I have a coworker who is a Shia, who homebrews beer in his basement. No doubt he's moderate and has no use for jihadis (who would probably kill him first for his fondness for beer), but he's moderate to the point where he'd have just as little idea what's going on at the local mosque as you and I. He's of no use to us in the fight for the heart and soul of Islam because he's taken himself out of it.
Think of mainstream Protestant and evangelical churches that attract a completely different type of worshipper. Neither has much influence on the other. Likewise, I think the hope of some optimistic folks that moderate Muslims are going to stop their murderous brethren is seriously misplaced.
I don't think we are yet ready for the war against Islam. For now, the war is against terrorist Islam and we have moslem allies in Iraq.
I'll grant you that the moderate muslims in the west are too afraid of their more vicious coreligionists to give effective resistance and that even the moderate muslims generally oppose the global war on terrorism, pray for the death of Israel, support the terrorists in Iraq (except for the Iraqis) etc. But all that might change if Iraq really turns around. It is possible it may not change - we will have to see.
#18
Patrick Henry: The Illusions of Hope, aka The War Inevitable, aka Give Me Liberty, or Give Me Death!
For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery ... it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope... Are we disposed to be of the numbers of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the [Moslems] for the last [1400] years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. ...
#19
mhw, the war has already been declared, by Moslems against non-Moslems. They have been waging it for almost 1400 years. Bin Laden has repeated in 1998 that Islam is at war against the West (with reference to all sorts of things Moslems dislike, such as the liberation of Spain in the 15th century).
The Moslem "allies" you claim we have in Iraq are mainly of two kinds: those who wish they were free from Islam, and those who wish to rule Iraq with Islam but without Saddam. About as useful as our "allies" in Pakistan in the long-term.
The point made by Anjem Coudary is that there is no such distinction as moderates vs extremists in Islam -- either you're a Moslem or you aren't. Either you submit, or you die. That is the very specific message and ideology of Islam.
And, granting your premise that there are moderate Moslems who would rather live in peace with the West, were there not "moderate Germans" in Nazi Germany? should we have waited for them to save the world from Germany?
I observe that Islam as such is a death cult, and we have no option but to fight Islam if we value our lives and freedoms.
#20
"And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the [Moslems] for the last [1400] years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. ..."
During most of the last 1400 years most muslim regimes were corrupt, cynical monarchies - ie they were like all NON muslim regimes. They used christians and jews in positions of high power, despite the koran. There muslim thinkers who were distinctly not fundamentalists. There were also fundamentalist movements that took power from time to time.
Now these regimes were NOT democratic, and did NOT give equal rights to all. But those are enlightenment notions, from the 18thc century.
Now these notions orinated first in the west and were established in the west. So the west is better - YAy, west. OK?
Over the course of the 19th century many muslims attempted to come up with forms of islam compatible with ideals of equal citizenship. Some bitterly fought these changes. Most were to removed from modern life to care.
In the 20th century more muslims left traditional forms - though many or most adopted secular ideologies that were authoritarian, often borrowed from the west.
Today muslims are wrestling with the future - a large minority are looking to enlightenment notions - a VERY large minority are fighting enlightenment vicisiouly - many are distrustful of both sides - and some are still too removed from modern life to care.
#21
"were there not "moderate Germans" in Nazi Germany? should we have waited for them to save the world from Germany?"
We shouldnt wait for moderate muslims to save us. And we're not. But Germany was a state, which could be attacked - we have a different problem now.
We could rely on moderate muslims less, I suppose. We could decide to fight the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq without afghan and iraqi troops for example. Are we willing to expand the military to do that? we could stop relying on the Pakistani state to run Pakistan. I dont think its feasible to expand the US army enough to occupy Pakistan. I suppose we could hope India would take over Pakistan. Im not sure they would, or that they would run it in our interests if they did.
As for finding radical islamists in the west, I think we should use all reasonable intell methods, and not just rely on moderate muslims - but they could certainly be a big help
#22
"The point made by Anjem Coudary is that there is no such distinction as moderates vs extremists in Islam -- either you're a Moslem or you aren't. Either you submit, or you die. That is the very specific message and ideology of Islam."
Yup, you either say "there is no god but allah and muhammad is his prophet" or you dont. If you do youre a muslim, if not, not. But some of those who are muslims follow different schools of law, some requir women to wear veils, some dont, some believe in killing jews and christians, some dont, etc, etc. Its seems logical to me to call some of them moderate muslims. Of course the fundie denies their true muslims, thats what fundies do.
Fundie christians deny that members of certain churches are actually christians. Fundie jews deny that what i practice is judaism (they acknowledge me a jew only cause judaism is determined in part by birth)
#23
I kinda-sorta commented on this thread on the thread about Mohammed Atta's father, here.
Posted by: Phil Fraering ||
07/20/2005 18:46 Comments ||
Top||
#24
liberalhawk, are you aware of the Magna Carta and John Locke's treatise?
Your revisionist history aims to ridicule the West and ignores early achievements of Anglo-Saxon civilization. Further the Enlightenment was the fruit of the Renaissance, which was a rebirth of Roman and Greek ideals --something the Moslems had almost managed to erase completely.
Spare me the Moslem myth that they somehow saved ancient literature for our sake. They didn't. A few fragments came out from the reconquista but the Western rediscovery of ancient literature had been well on its way since the 11th century thanks to Byzantine monks seeking refuge in Italy. Refuge from Moslem invaders in the East. And these monks didn't bring Arab fragments with them.
#25
In the long history of combating violent ideologies I can't recall a single example where patience, understanding, and cultivation of a moderate core within the group resulted in the downfall of the group itself or the group's renunciation of its ideals. It doesnât really matter if you apply that statement to Bushido Japan, Nazi Germany, the Klan, Soviet Communism or any other group. Successful strategies have always employed force, credible threat of force, containment by same and/or aggressive prosecution to either weaken the group as a whole or make association with it so unpalatable as to drive the moderates away from the core and back into mainstream society and theyâve always done it with a very clear intent to contain or destroy the source of the ideology itself.
Thereâs little doubt that few Germans would have supported the overall actions of the Nazis had they been aware of them, the majority of Soviet citizens would likely have preferred to live under American style democracy rather than Soviet communism, most members of the Klan in the organizationâs heyday likely affiliated with it to fit in and socialize with their neighbors rather than from any deep belief in the correctness of the violent acts it perpetuated. And yes, thereâs little doubt that some percentage of Muslims, most especially those whoâve fled their homelands to settle in the west, probably donât agree with the actions of some of their brethren. But it took decades of open and cold warfare and economic isolation to bring Soviet communism to heel, a worldwide conflict to thwart the Nazi ideology, and decades of aggressive prosecution to attenuate the influence of the Klan here in the US.
This discussion highlights our sheer ineptitude in dealing with Islam. As any Muslim will tell you, just before they begin to fight amongst themselves, there is only one Islam. Are we physically containing the ideology to the parts of the world it already infects? Attempting to destroy it by force? Peeling away members to push them back into mainstream society while exposing the rotten core group beneath? None of the above, unfortunately weâre stuck at a point where weâre absolving the Islam for its sins rather than forcing it to confront them.
Somehow, despite clear historical lessons, we continue to absolve members of the Muslim community for the ideology their community bred and perpetuates. We canât hope to contain Islam as we did Soviet communism if we canât even begin to admit that itâs the ideology itself and the religion that bred it thatâs the enemy. Nor can we openly war against it as we did Nazi Germany when the religion is continually absolved of its own wrongdoing. Neither can we engage in an aggressive prosecutorial campaign to forcibly disassociate moderates from extremists while we continue to allow moderates to assert that Islam does not give rise to the ideology of terror.
Of course one is either Muslim or not but finish the thought that is always thrown in our faces following the latest Islamofascist atrocity, â⦠but these terrorists were not Muslim.â Thus Islam is absolved in the minds of âmoderatesâ whoâd rather not deal with the problems their faith has thrust upon the world and we continue to handcuff ourselves by refusing to believe that yes, Islam that wonderful, peaceful, and tolerant religion, is the source of the problem. Clearly this problem cannot be effectively dealt with until and unless a vast majority of both Muslims and non-Muslims can agree that, yes Islam IS to blame. I am not optimistic.
Your mention of methods by which we defeated various violent enemies in the last century is a useful perspective, as we need to find the appropriate lever to shatter the death-grip of Islamofascism on the Moslem world.
#28
Kalle IMHO the first tiny step in that journey will occur when we stop absolving Islam of responsibility for the problems it has created in the world. That doesn't mean we should be biggoted against Muslims, it merely means that we will make no progress with the problem so long as we refuse to acknowledge the truth and require that others acknowledge it as well. Admitting one has a problem is the first step towards recovery, no?
#29
Yes, Moslems have to do it. Hard to do when their central claim is to be the final, eternal, immutable truth --and those who disagree deserve death.
BRITAIN is to draw up a list of "unacceptable behaviour" which encourages terrorism and foreign nationals who contravene the rules will be automatically banned from the country, interior minister Charles Clarke said today.
The power to exclude foreign nationals from Britain is already granted to the Home Secretary under law, but it would be implemented more vigorously following the London bombings, Mr Clarke told Parliament.
"In the circumstances we now face, I decided that it is right to broaden the use of these powers to deal with those who foment terrorism or seek to provoke others to terrorist acts," Mr Clarke said in a statement on the follow-up to the July 7 attacks.
"To this end, I intend to draw up a list of unacceptable behaviour which would fall within this, for example preaching, running websites, or writing articles which are intended to foment or provoke terrorism.
"The list will be indicative rather than exhaustive. We will consult on the list, because I think it is important we work with the communities on this."
#2
May I suggest the Mossad approach to tackling these clowns.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
07/20/2005 11:19 Comments ||
Top||
#3
i favor mullah cold cuts w/salt & jalapeno myownself.
Posted by: H. Lecter ||
07/20/2005 11:21 Comments ||
Top||
#4
make those rules sufficiently loose to cover Red Ken and George "I'd sell my own child" Galloway
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/20/2005 12:03 Comments ||
Top||
#5
So-called Moderate Muslims⢠better get Islam's act cleaned up, or someone else will. Getting away with the London attacks will only embolden others to do the same. There will come a time when the just-plain-joes get tired of terrorism treated like a criminal act by the government. Then it gets ugly and people attack with a broad brush against anyone Muslim.
Like the Fram Filter guy said, "You want to pay me now, or you want to pay me later?"
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
07/20/2005 22:59 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Oops, wrong department....My bad.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
07/20/2005 23:00 Comments ||
Top||
London Mayor Ken Livingstone, whose city was devastated by Islamic suicide bombings earlier in the month, lashed out at Israel Tuesday, comparing the Likud to Hamas and accusing Israel of "crimes against humanity."
At a London press conference, Livingstone, who has a long record of anti-Israeli diatribes, drew a connection between the London blasts and the Middle East. He said Israel had "done horrendous things which border on crimes against humanity in the way they have indiscriminately slaughtered men, women and children in the West Bank and Gaza for decades."
Livingstone expressed understanding for the motivations of Palestinian suicide bombers, saying that since the "Palestinians don't have jet fighters, they only have their bodies to use as weapons. In that unfair balance, that's what people use."
I seem to recall that Muther Luther King didn't need to encourage splodydopes to get civil rights for all Americans, but I might not be remembering correctly.
Livingstone, who in March wrote a piece in The Guardian saying that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was "a war criminal who should be in prison, not in office," this time compared Sharon's party to Hamas. "I think the Israeli hardliners around Likud and Hamas [members] are two sides of the same coin; they need each other to drum up support, they point to the excesses of the other to recruit and I don't make any distinction because I believe the taking of human life is wrong. In particular, when you think of the illegal invasion of Lebanon, the illegal invasion of Egypt and Jordan in the Six Day War, all these exercises of going into Palestinian refugee camps and indiscriminately destroying homes simply because a bomber came from that area," Livingstone said. "I don't believe in an eye for an eye. I don't believe in that punishment."
Make sure you tell Hamas that.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev, in response to Livingstone's comments, said, "It is a pity he made no differentiation between murderous terrorists and between those trying to protect innocent civilians against the terrorists." Except for Regev's remark and a similar statement issued from the Israeli Embassy in London, Israel adopted a pointedly low-profile approach to Livingstone's comments, not wanting to give the mayor more importance than officials in Jerusalem said he deserved. "There is no need to start a debate with him," one official said. "Everyone knows the man is an wacko extremist, with problematic positions and hatred problematic attitudes toward Jews."
#2
This man is a first class cock-on-a-stick. STFU already, Ken. It is not the time to advocate fascism when the population of your city is under threat. I really hope you, Shama Chakrabati, Anjem Choudary, Omar Bhakri and Hookboy are all on the next tube that gets hit. You utter utter c*nt.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
07/20/2005 10:53 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Well... he got the buses running on time.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
07/20/2005 10:54 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Mr Livingstone said Western governments had been so terrified of losing their fuel supplies that they had kept intervening in the Middle East.
He argued: "If at the end of the First World War we had done what we promised the Arabs, which was to let them be free and have their own governments, and kept out of Arab affairs, and just bought their oil, rather than feeling we had to control the flow of oil, I suspect this wouldn't have arisen."
"Lloyd George lied, people died!"
Posted by: Steve ||
07/20/2005 11:42 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Red Ken is proof that you can't make your city safe from Islamic terrorism simply by praising Islamists, denouncing Israel and ignoring Islamic terrorism elsewhere.
#8
And isn't this the same kind of race hate that the Brits want to deport people for? I think he would make a wonderfull test case. Deport him to Haiti or something.
#12
Ignore anti-semites that don't have the ability or where with all to carry out their heatful acts.
Livingstone is a typical Socalist (National) politician so he can't be ignored. He consorts and supports enmies of the US and Israel and would turn the UK into a gulag if he had the power.
Socialism is the natural hand maiden of anti-semitism. To be a leftist today means being an anti-semite. After the Joos control all the money right? I have a brother who is a MoveOn Democrat. He has been a leftist since the 1960's. He is a full blown anti-semite just like all his fellow travelers and raised all his kids to be anti-semites too. Red Ken is just as my commie brother is, a waste of skin.
It's not about Israel. It's about the jews. He lies when he says that. He can't cant be trusted.
A disturbing development. Three British servicemen are to stand trial under international war crimes legislation for alleged inhuman treatment of detainees in Iraq, Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General, announced last night.
The three soldiers were among 11 charged yesterday in relation to the treatment of two Iraqi civilians who died in British custody in separate incidents in 2003. It comes less than a week after six former chiefs of defence staff claimed that the handling of prosecutions in Iraq was motivated by political correctness.
Col Jorge Mendonca after collecting his DSO last year
All the soldiers, including those charged under the International Criminal Court Act, will be tried by courts martial in Britain rather than in The Hague.
The most senior serviceman concerned is the former commander of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment, Col Jorge Mendonca, who is accused of negligence of duty. He is highly decorated, with awards including the Distinguished Service Order.
Two Intelligence Corp interrogators who investigated one of the incidents have also been charged with negligence.
Seven soldiers, including Col Mendonca, 41, will stand trial over incidents surrounding the death of Baha Mousa, a 26-year-old hotel receptionist arrested in Basra in September 2003. He was taken to British Army headquarters where he died the following day.
A post mortem examination found strangulation marks, a broken nose and three broken ribs.
Cpl Donald Payne, 34, Lance Clp Wayne Crowcroft, 21, and Pte Darren Fallan, 22, all of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment, have been charged with inhuman treatment under the International Criminal Court Act, as well as with perverting the course of justice. Cpl Payne is also accused of the manslaughter of Mr Mousa.
Three others charged in relation to Mr Mousa's case are Sgt Kelvin Stacey, 28, also of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment, accused of assault; and Warrant Officer Mark Davies, 36, and Maj Michael Peebles, 34, both of the Intelligence Corp, are charged with negligently performing a duty.
The remaining four soldiers have been charged with the manslaughter of Ahmed Kareem in Basra in May 2003. Mr Kareem was one of four suspected looters who were allegedly punched and kicked before being forced into a canal. Mr Kareem, who could not swim, drowned.
Sgt Carle Selman, 38, now with the Scots Guards, Guardsman Martin McGing, 21, of the Irish Guards, and Guardsman Joseph McCleary, 23, also of the Irish Guards, have all been charged with manslaughter. A fourth guardsman, a 21-year-old lance corporal, has not been named because he has not been informed of the manslaughter charge against him.
The three charges of inhuman treatment are the first to be brought against British servicemen under international war crimes legislation, which resulted from Britain backing the establishment of the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
The trials would only have been held in The Hague, however, if Britain had been unable or unwilling to investigate the allegations itself.
America refused to sign the treaty establishing the court because it did not want its soldiers to be liable to prosecution.
A spokesman for the Attorney General's Office said that the war crimes legislation had been used because of the gravity of the alleged offences. The charges were announced in the House of Commons.
The former chiefs of staff, speaking in a House of Lords debate last week, accused politicians, lawyers, the Ministry of Defence and the military police of ignoring the realities of fighting.
The most recently retired, Admiral Lord Boyce, said that the Armed Forces were under "legal siege". "They are being pushed by people not schooled in operations but only in political correctness," he said.
They were particularly concerned about Col Mendonca, who was 13 miles from the incident.
#1
The Beeb are wanking themselves into a frenzy over this. Hold all other news i.e. arrests in Pakistan.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
07/20/2005 10:23 Comments ||
Top||
#2
We should offer them political asylum and US citizenship pronto. If ever there were an excuse for such a thing as a grant of political asylum, this is it.
#3
Just another good reason for the U.S. not to join the World Court. Can you imagine how many "trials" there would have been against Americans? I really feel for those soldiers, maybe we should offer them asylum?
#4
I am disappointed, but not surprised, that the British government is going along with this. PM Blair has been a good ally in the conventional wars, but he's still Labour.
Though I have to disagree with: They were particularly concerned about Col Mendonca, who was 13 miles from the incident.
I don't know anything other than what's in this article, but if the Colonel is in the direct chain of command, and if this is a result of orders he gave, and a bunch of other ifs (like if the whole thing is not a crock), then it would make sense to go after him, too.
#5
I'm all for offering asylum. One question. The article states they were civilians, but were they really? If they were firing upon the Brits, and/or held info on the "insurgents", they could be unlawful enemy combatants. Of course, I'm using U.S. definitions for this, but it begs the question...Were these "civilians" truly civilians or just more jihadis dressed up to blend in?
And, oh yeah, I expect that Zarq and his boyz will be brought up on charges too? Including beheading real civilians?
Posted by: BA ||
07/20/2005 11:01 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Does the ICC have some kind of warrant out for Zarq and Co for their evil deeds? I mean, equal time and all that...... We must be fair and balanced. Zarq's activities are just a criminal matter, right?
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
07/20/2005 11:17 Comments ||
Top||
#7
AP, but the ACLU lawyer will point out that the Z-man is not covered by the Geneva or Hague Conventions and therefore not subject to the ICC, as he is not a legitimate representative or agent of a recongized government. That's just before the ACLU files papers demanding Gitmo detainees be treated in accordence with the Conventions. Heh.
#11
The attitudes in Allied countries were largely the same before WWII as they are now. Last time our collective foolishness cost the world sixty million lives, left half of Europe under the iron boot of the communists for half a century, and ushered in the first use of nuclear weapons in war. Before the present conflict ends I fully expect our current collective foolishness to earn us even more serious consequences.
July 20, 2005: Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez seems to be working on several fronts to keep his armed forces in line. He's done some shaking up of the command structure, replacing older officers with ones who may perhaps be more beholden to him. He has also raised pay considerably, probably as a way of keeping the troops happy, and has undertaken the development of the "Bolivarian Militia," an alternative likely to be more useful in the event of a coup than in the less likely event of an American invasion. And he has been investing a lot of the country's oil money in new toys for the troops.
The recent purchase, at corruption-inflated prices, of a large lot of Russian assault rifles, will apparently be followed-up by the purchase of CASA maritime patrol aircraft from Spain and Amur Class submarines and Su-30 Flankers maritime strike fighters from Russia. This will cost an enormous amount of money, particularly since corruption will undoubtedly inflate the price, but the expenditure seems to be in keeping with several other recent developments that have boosted the Venezuelan Navy. The recently appointed chief of the national military staff is an admiral, a unique development in a nation in which the Army is considerably greater than the other two services.
Posted by: Steve ||
07/20/2005 11:05 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
What logical reason would a country like Venezuela have to acquire submarines?
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
07/20/2005 11:20 Comments ||
Top||
#2
What logical reason would a country like Venezuela have to acquire submarines?
To threaten shipping coming through the Panama Canal.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
07/20/2005 11:23 Comments ||
Top||
#3
"bolivarian Militia", Sounds like the South American version of Hitlers SS army.
#4
What logical reason would a country like Venezuela have to acquire submarines?
Well, they have a coastline and all their oil is shipped by tanker, so they would have a reason for a small sub force to protect their shipping lanes. That, and the "threaten their neighbors" part.
Posted by: Steve ||
07/20/2005 12:01 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Prestige. Perhaps they need an aircraft carrier too. Any old big ass Soviet gun cruisers left to sell?
#6
After he has gorged himself on military hardware he will probably destroy what's left of a capitalistic free-economy. Then the system will implode on itself and we will be blamed for it.
A defector claiming to have been in the North Korean parliament said the communist state has produced a nuclear bomb and attempted to sell missiles to Taiwan, a South Korean magazine reported.
South Korean intelligence authorities declined to comment on the report in the Monthly Chosun, which said that the defector, a man believed to be in his 70s using the alias Kim Il-Do, defected to the South in May.
"North Korea has built a one-tonne nuclear bomb by using four kilogrammes of plutonium," he was quoted as telling the National Intelligence Service (NIS), South Korea's spy agency.
The North was now seeking to miniaturize the bomb to make it more reliable as a weapon, he reportedly said. The man claimed he had been in the North's parliament and had worked for the Marine Industrial Institute.
"We interview escapees from the North to verify their IDs and check their motives but we don't comment on any other specifics about them," an NIS spokesman said.
But a spokesman for North Korea's foreign ministry dismissed the report, according to Pyongyang's official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA).
"The fiction is a sheer fabrication as there is no such institution in the north as the marine industrial institute to which he allegedly belonged. The statement allegedly made by him was full of lies," the spokesman said.
The United States says North Korea may possess one or two crude nuclear bombs and may have reprocessed enough plutonium for half-a-dozen more, from spent fuel rods at its Yongbyon nuclear complex.
More than 4,000 North Koreans have defected to the South since 1953. The number has shot up in the past four years, with more than 1,000 having reached South Korea last year.
Many defectors have arrived in South Korea, mostly via China, to escape famine caused by natural disasters and failed economic policies in their Stalinist homeland.
Professor Kim Young-Soo of Sogang University, an expert on defectors from the North, said he could not confirm the existence of the defector.
"However, the allegation that North Korea has produced a one-tonne nuclear bomb sounds plausible," he said.
A new round of six-nation talks aimed at bringing about the dismantling of North Korea's nuclear programs is due to be held in Beijing next week.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
07/20/2005 15:18 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
attempted to sell missiles to Taiwan
That doesn't make sense -- Taiwan isn't a member of the Axis of Evil.
EFL and News. Good to see national security interests stay in American hands
U.S. oil producer Unocal Corp. endorsed a sweetened $17 billion takeover offer from Chevron Corp., preferring it to a higher bid from China's state-run CNOOC Ltd. <0883.HK>.
Chevron , the second-largest U.S. oil company, raised its stock and cash bid to $63.01 per share from roughly $60, turning up the heat in an international battle for energy assets as strong demand and tight supply hold crude oil prices near record levels.
The improved offer for Unocal, which has assets stretching from Myanmar to the Gulf of Mexico, sets the stage for CNOOC to raise its $67 a share cash bid further.
"We're likely to see CNOOC increase its bid, which it has been signaling for a while," said Duane Grubert, an analyst with Fulcrum Global Partners.
A CNOOC spokesman said the company remained "comfortable" with its $18.5 billion bid and believed its offer had a "distinct advantage." A person familiar with the matter said CNOOC had anticipated a higher Chevron bid and was reviewing options on how to react.
But Chevron still remains the favorite to win Unocal, whose board has favored Chevron's bid partly due to concern U.S. regulators might reject the CNOOC deal based on national security grounds or the deal may be stuck in long review process. It recommended shareholders accept the sweetened offer at a shareholders' meeting already scheduled for Aug. 10.
"We're still making the bet that Chevron will prevail," Grubert said. "The politics against the Chinese bid are so severe."
CNOOC will try to convince shareholders that its deal would be approved by the U.S. government, the source familiar with the matter said.
"Price is only one issue on shareholders' minds. The other issue is to make people understand the 'certainty issue'," said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "CNOOC is absolutely committed to the transaction and determined to win."
CNOOC has made some concessions in an attempt to woo Unocal. It agreed to set aside $2.5 billion in a U.S. escrow account that could be tapped by Unocal shareholders if CNOOC walked away from a deal. CNOOC also put $500 million in escrow to pay a break-up fee attached to the Chevron-Unocal deal.
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/20/2005 14:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#4
Let this little takeover bid by the ChiComs be a warning to all of us. There are those US citizens that will sell this country down the river for 30 pieces of silver or so. They were doing it with Germany and Japan pre WW2. Make no mistake, the ChiComs are buying assets worldwide to feed their economic (and military) machine. They are going for strategic positioning. Notice that they get a pass from the LLL while the LLL rails about the Big Bad US⢠doing the same thing as the ChiComs. Take a look at what the ChiComs are doing in acquiring assets in Canada.
Bottom line, we must be vigilant for the loss of strategic assets for our country. Most of our politicians are not, so the people must be.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
07/20/2005 14:34 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Interesting point, AP. Where are all the "anti-globalization" protestors?
SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea may be one of the most reclusive states on the globe, but a growing number of its citizens are taking a common test to measure their proficiency in American English as a second language. English entered North Korea's education system in the mid-1960s as a part of a "knowing the enemy" program: phrases such as "capitalist running dog," imported from fellow communists in the former Soviet Union, were part of the curriculum.
But South Korean officials say that scoring well on a test for English proficiency is now increasingly seen in the North as a way to secure a good job that requires international communication skills.
Another blow to the French language
The number of North Koreans taking the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) has risen almost fivefold in less than five years, and scores for North Koreans have also improved, the U.S.-based Educational Testing Service said earlier this month.
The number of North Koreans taking TOEFL hit 4,783 in the July 2003-June 2004 period compared to about 1,000 North Korean test-takers before 2000, it said in a press release. "The North Korean government has acknowledged the increasing importance of teaching its students English since about 2000," an official from South Korea's Unification Ministry said.
The official, who asked not to be named, said English may soon supplant Russian as the top foreign language studied in North Korea. This comes despite repeated blasts in North Korean official media that vilify the United States, and a lack of native English-speaking instructors.
"Kim, we're running short of English teachers. Go kidnap a few, will you?"
"But Kim, the Japanese are on to us, the Americans hate us, and the Brits talk properly funny!"
In the past North Korea's elite students were taught English translations of its late founder Kim Il-sung's collected works. In 2000, the North started broadcasting a 10-minute weekly segment called "TV English" that focused on rudimentary conversation.
"And now for today's "Capitalist Running Dog" phrase of the day". (bonus points for whoever tells me where that line came from)
One North Korean defector in Seoul said English is also taught in the military, along with Japanese. Soldiers are required to learn about 100 sentences such as, "Raise your hands." and "Don't move or I will shoot."
Other popular phrases: "I give up", "Kimmy made me do it", "Got any food" and the ever popular "You take me to big PX, GI?"
TOEFL is not administered in North Korea, which has no diplomatic relations with the United States. Most of the test-takers are North Korean residents in Japan, North Korean students in places such as China and the children of diplomats overseas, officials said.
TOEFL, introduced in 1964, measures the ability of non-native speakers of English to use and understand North American English as it is spoken, written and heard in college and university settings, ETS said on its Web site.
Posted by: Steve ||
07/20/2005 12:11 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
A SECURITY review will examine whether overseas-born supporters of terrorism and hate groups should be expelled from Australia - even if they have citizenship.
The Government currently has the power to expel terrorists if they are here on visas. However, Attorney-General Philip Ruddock said yesterday a review announced last week would consider all reasonable options to enhance national security. "Australia's legal proceedings in relation to those suspected of or charged with terrorism offences will be considered as part of an overall assessment of Australia's counter-terrorism powers," a spokeswoman for Mr Ruddock said. The National Security Committee will then consider any proposals.
Currently, the Government can kick out visa holders, even permanent residency visa holders, if they fail so-called character tests. These can include criminal conviction, inciting discord, vilifying groups and "the collecting and making of documents likely to facilitate a terrorist act". Deportation has been raised as an issue worldwide following the London terror attacks, which were carried out by young, home-grown bombers apparently influenced by outsiders.
The bombings provoked a range of Islamic spokesmen who scoffed at evidence al-Qaeda was involved, or they blamed the victims. Sheik Mohammed Omran, an Australian citizen, said they could not have been carried out by Muslims and suggested the US was involved.
One British firebrand, Omar Bakri Mohammed, has told the British people they are to blame as they re-elected Mr Blair after Britain's entry into the Iraq war. Under existing British law, Mr Bakri, who is on welfare and living in subsidised housing, cannot be returned to his native Syria as the British Government cannot guarantee his safety there, as required under European Union law.
Australian law directs that those born abroad who are then granted Australian citizenship cannot be expelled if they break the law. They can only be deported if they have been convicted of a serious crime here or overseas before becoming Australian citizens.
Citizenship can also be taken away if it has been gained by immigration fraud or the applicants lie in their applications. However, immigration and legal experts question where those with citizenship would be removed to, if they were expelled.
#1
Under existing British law, Mr Bakri, who is on welfare and living in subsidised housing, cannot be returned to his native Syria as the British Government cannot guarantee his safety there, as required under European Union law.
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? I thought there was no EU "laws," as the Constitution was shot down. Am I just missing something or are the Brits putting the cart before the horse?
Australian law directs that those born abroad who are then granted Australian citizenship cannot be expelled if they break the law.
They can only be deported if they have been convicted of a serious crime here or overseas before becoming Australian citizens.
And what is this shinola about? I thought the Aussies (of all people) would be the most common sensical. Just another proof that those in charge are COMPLETELY out of touch w/ the populace.
Posted by: BA ||
07/20/2005 11:07 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? I thought there was no EU "laws," as the Constitution was shot down. Am I just missing something or are the Brits putting the cart before the horse?
The earlier treaties and their empowering legislation. Like the one requiring all shops to use metric-only, or the bizzare banana-curvature regulations.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
07/20/2005 11:24 Comments ||
Top||
#3
One British firebrand, Omar Bakri Mohammed, has told the British people they are to blame as they re-elected Mr Blair after Britain's entry into the Iraq war.
Omar Bakri Mohammed
source : BBC
Ok Omar... Let's get your ugly mug out there in case any victims of the 7/7 attacks are on this blog, and would like to have a few choice words with you in person, you piece of shit.
I am against bothering innocent Moslems, but this bastard is the classic Islamofascist, and should be known as such...
#4
..Mr Bakri, who is on welfare and living in subsidised housing, cannot be returned to his native Syria as the British Government cannot guarantee his safety there,..
Why should anyone in the UK give a rat's ass about this particular idiot's safety? Send the bastard away and be done with him.
PARIS, July 19 (AFP) - - France's tough-talking Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy promised "zero tolerance" Tuesday for Muslim leaders who encourage attacks such as the bombings in London on July 7 and said he would strip them of their French nationality. "We have to be much stricter against those who indoctrinate young suicide bombers," he told Liberation newspaper. Intelligence officials told AFP that "around 10" imams have been identified and are being monitored in Paris, Lyon and Marseille. "Most are from north Africa, but there are also some Turks," an official said.
"It is going to be zero tolerance," said Sarkozy, 50, who is also head of the ruling Union for a Popular Movement (UMP) party and a likely candidate in presidential elections in 2007. "I am going to launch proceedings to deprive French imams who preach violence and fundamentalism of their nationality; systematically expel those who do not respect our values and are not French; and step up monitoring of places of worship where extremist activities have taken root," he said.
There are some 1,500 Muslim places of worship in France of which under 40 are under the influence of radicals, the intelligence official said. "Their preaching extends from classic fundamentalism to more violent ideas," he said. Fewer than 20 percent of the country's 1,100 imams are French, he said.
The imams regarded as potentially dangerous were identified by the content of their sermons but also by their association with known extremists. Some have nurtured contacts with Islamists recently released from prison, the official said. "The radicals know that we are listening to their sermons and are careful. The real action takes place in the corridors," he said.
Posted by: Steve ||
07/20/2005 12:01 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I'd much prefer it if they lost their lives, but that's just me...
#4
This fellow Sarkozy is apparently much more popular than Chirac (although that's not saying much - toe fungus is more popular than Chirac in many parts of France).
If only the British interior ministry would say this same thing maybe the WoT in Britain would be a mite easier.
#5
Well our French posters have said in the past he is a good talker but doesn't deliver very well. Thos 1000 no go areas controled by mislim gangs in France don't speak for much action on his part.
In France we have time seen time and again how the action of tough ministers of Interior (Pasqua, Chevenement, Sarkozy) was nullified by bleeding heart ministers of justice and/or judges
After scrapping a EUR 4.9 billion deal with EADS for 60 Eurofighter Typhoon fighters, Greece's center-right government announced that it has decided to buy 30 Lockheed Martin F-16 Block 52+ jets from the U.S. instead, with an option for 10 more. The order would cost approximately EUR 1.1 billion (USD $1.32 billion) based on current prices, and is designed to address the nation's air defense needs over the next 15 years. The jets would join 50 F-16 Block 52 aircraft already in service with the Hellenic Air Force under a 2000 contract. The new contract's exact figures will depend on negotiations, and will include industrial offset benefits and support for the rest of the F-16s Block 52s and earlier models belonging to the Hellenic Air Force.
The deal is another blow to the Eurofighter's export campaign. The Typhoon was recently bounced from Singapore's future fighter competition in favour of Dassault's Rafale or Boeing's F-15E Strike Eagle. Greece's traditional rival Turkey had also expressed some interest in the Eurofighter earlier this year, before signing a $1.1 billion contract in May to upgrade its own F-16 fleet to a Block 50+ equivalent instead. Nevertheless, the Greek market is not completely closed to EADS. "Our next order for fourth-generation jets will be reviewed by another military council meeting. It does not exclude any company from Europe or the U.S.," said defense ministry spokesman Stefanos Gikas.
While no company is excluded, the 3rd generation F-16 fighter aircraft is unlikely to be eligible under those criteria for the next 30+10 plane order in 2009. Even so, Eurofighter manufacturer EADS could still end up competing with cheaper 4th Generation options like the JAS 39 Gripen, the Russian Sukhoi SU-30 family, an offer for Greece to match its rival Turkey as a participating nation in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, or even an F-15E Strike Eagle variant or F/A-18E/F Super Hornet order if those upgraded American jets are declared eligible. The global fighter market to 2015 is expected to be a lively place.
Posted by: Steve ||
07/20/2005 11:42 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
HAHAHAHAHA!!!
I think a new arms race is coming about....
#2
Jeez, when did Turkey get in on the F-35 program? It's gonna absolutely dominate the airspace in that part of the world. Looks like Greece has already decided on their next gen fighter. Now to get an invite to buy it.
Posted by: ed ||
07/20/2005 12:15 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Holey Moley.... didn't see that coming at all.
Something gone real bad with the EuroFighter?
#8
What happened, Pappy? Did he accidently bite down? ;-p
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
07/20/2005 13:31 Comments ||
Top||
#9
ouch Barb! Wish I'd said that... :-)
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/20/2005 14:10 Comments ||
Top||
#10
JAS 39 Gripen is a great platform. Worth considering in any airforce. The Eurofighter is not such a great plane when you take everything into consideration. The Greeks are being frugal with their money. That has to hurt EADS.
Looks like the lifetime of the Eurofighter will be limited due to it's falure to garner much market share.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
07/20/2005 16:30 Comments ||
Top||
#14
F/A-18E/F Super Hornet
Best multirole US Aircraft in existence these days. F-22 might top it for air superiority, but the higher thrust engines (fantastic >1 TW ratio now, unlike the old A/B models), upgraded electronics, and added airframe improvements (perfomance enhancements and radar reduced visibillity) make the F/A-18 better than the F-16, F-15E, and the F-22 (excepting the Air-to-Air role for the F22). The updates also give the new F18 longer legs.
The USAF ought to be picking up F/A-18's if it were not for their parochial attitude against naval fighters.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
07/20/2005 21:50 Comments ||
Top||
#16
I love the Electric Jet (F-16), my dad was a GD Veep (and it's weird to see it referred to as a Lockheed Martin jet) and in the traveling roadshow that sold the co-development contract to the NATO members, but that was loooong ago. OS is dead right: The F-18 Super has been upgraded constantly and is surely the best platform out there, AFAIK.
Can the F-18 accelerate in a pure vertical climb, now? I though that was solely an F-22 claim to fame.
#17
Old Spook,I beg to differ regarding the F-18E(so-called)Super Hornet. It is inferior in performance in every category to the F-18A/C it is supposed to replace. Yes it has better range-w/2 450 gallon drop tanks in use compared to 2 300 gallon tanks used on F-18A/Cs. W/300 extra gallons of fuel it should have better range! The stealth advantage is minimal for an aircraft costing 2-3 times as much as an F-16. The only edge the F-18E has is the latest electronics,which could be retrofitted to F-16/F-18A/C a/c.More importantly,the F-18e electronics suite was designed before the GPS revolution in smart bombs,rendering its systems irrelevant. The F-18 family has very short "legs" for a US a/c and in Afghanistan the F-14 had to be used to bomb distant targets. In the initial phases of the Iraq War,on a carrier that had both F-18Es as well as Cs,the TF commander had the Es used as airiel refuelers,while the Cs conducted the strike missions! The E version had such a reputation as a dog and so many vet navy pilots were doing all they could to keep from getting assigned to E squadrons,that the Navy had to take the drastic step of offering accelerated promotions to experienced pilots to get them into E squadrons. New pilots had no choice-they were assigned to the Es automatically.(The US Navy officer assisgned to oversee the E program told a bunch of retired naval aviator admirals that other than being slower,less manueverable,slower to accelerate and not being able to roll as fast as As and Cs that it was a better airplane. Needless to say,he has since been promoted.) The USN has unofficially conceeded the E is a dog by scrapping plans for all E Carrier Air Wings. Now thet plan on 2 E and 2 C squadrons. IMHO,the it would be much smarter if the USN cancelled the F-18E program and started making updated F-14s until they decide what the future will hold for aviation. New avionics,updated Phoenix,new engines as in F-15/16 and the Phoenix weapons pallets made permanent universal weapons stations and the fleet might have a chance at stopping a mass Chinese attack on a CV group.(As to the F-16/F-18 debate,count the number of F-16 users vs F-18 users. It is also noteworthy Japan,Taiwan and China all used the F-16 as the pattern for their new fighters-Japan an F-16 w/bigger wings,the other two,mini F-16s.
The F-35 is a strike a/c. It is optimised to attack ground targets. Its' wing is not designed to engage in aerial combat. It is inferior to F-15/16/18 a/c in dogfighting abilities. The F-25 is the 21century F-105. In the 50's when F-105 was designed,speed was that era's stealth and a tactical nuke was that era's smart bomb. The plane was designed to go like a bat out of hell and drop its' nuke and then run,it wasn't going to have to get dirty and dogfight because that was a thing of the past. Just as today the F-35 is going to sneak in in a cloud of stealth,drop its PGMs and if anybody should dare to interfere will dispatch them w/its Amraams. Nice theory,until radar jamming comes into play and the bad guys send up a bunch of planes,not one or two and then the pilots better be good,because Mig 29s,Su 35s,Rafales,Eurofighters as well as any US built a/s are all better air-to-air fighters.
In the sad event I was runnimg Pentagon,the F-35,F-19E and Ospreys would all be cancelled. The AF would get more F-22s,the Nat Guard would get F-16s w/larger wings to restore manueverability lost w/weight gains,updated F-14s would be built,the Navy and AF would have to jointly build a 2seat F-117 replacement that could carry bunker buster bombs(and have the ability of back seater to fly/direct tag along UAVs)and an A-10-type UAV w/long loiter and large payload would be on the way for USMC and Army and existing A-10s would get a service life extension and conversion into OA-10s,and an order of reinforced C-17s that can-and will-actually carry M1s.
Posted by: Stephen ||
07/20/2005 22:41 Comments ||
Top||
#18
OldSpook, I thought the AF was going to buy some F-18's modified to act as jammer aircraft (as was the Navy).
Posted by: Phil Fraering ||
07/20/2005 22:42 Comments ||
Top||
Canadian businessman Maurice Strong has lost his job as top UN envoy for North Korea amid investigations into his link to a suspect in the UN oil-for-food scandal.
Whoopsie.
Strong has not been accused of any wrongdoing but was questioned by investigators about his links to South Korean lobbyist Tongsun Park, who has been accused by federal prosecutors of bribing UN officials with Iraqi funds. "His contract expired last Thursday and was not renewed," UN spokeswoman Marie Okabe said Monday."If he is cleared of any involvement in the oil-for-food program, the secretary-general will consider availing himself of his expertise on an informal basis."
"He's a real hot potato right now. We'll wait 'til the Klieg lights go away. But we still have his mobile number in the Rolodex, if you catch my drift."
Strong also broke United Nations rules by putting his stepdaughter on his diplomatic payroll, the UN says. Kristina Mayo worked as her stepfather's UN assistant for two years before she resigned April 21, 2005, after the international organization learned about the family relationship. UN staff regulations in most cases prohibit the hiring of immediate family members.
You're only supposed to assist your relatives by inviting them to dinner with contractors...
Strong, who had been the UN point man on six-country talks aimed at persuading North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons programs, took temporary leave from his post on April 20 during a probe of his ties to Tongsun Park. Park, a native of North Korea and citizen of South Korea, was charged by the U.S. Attorney's Office in April with allegedly accepting millions of dollars from Saddam Hussein's government to lobby illegally for Iraq in the United States on behalf of the oil-for-food program, which allowed Iraq to sell oil while it was under UN sanctions between 1996 and 2003. He was also accused in the 1970s of trying to buy influence in the U.S. Congress. Strong said Park had advised him on Korean issues but denied any involvement and has not been implicated in the $64-billion US humanitarian program in Iraq. He pledged to co-operate with an oil-for-food probe led by former U.S. Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker. Prosecutors contend Park met with an unnamed UN official in an apparent effort to influence the design of the oil-for-food program, and invested $1 million in a company run by that official's son.
Strong has acknowledged that Park invested money in Cordex Petroleums, a Calgary oil company that was run by Strong's son Frederick. Strong had been involved in UN environment and development issues since 1970, and in January 1997, was appointed a senior adviser to Annan on reforming the United Nations. He was also a former adviser to the president of the World Bank and has led several power companies in Canada, including Petro-Canada, Ontario Hydro and Power Corp.
Subway riders may face random police checks of their bags under a security measure being considered in the nation's capital, the latest city to look for ways to deter terrorism on rail systems. No decision has been made on the idea for the city's 106-mile Metrorail system, and the logistics would be difficult. But "it would be another tool in our security toolbox," says Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority spokeswoman Lisa Farbstein.
The possibility is one of many ideas being floated here and elsewhere while the terrorist threat level for transit systems remains at "high" after the July 7 terrorist suicide bombings in London's underground rail tunnels. Many of the USA's commuter rail and subway systems are much more difficult to secure than airports because they are vast and open. Several cities have bolstered security by adding to what's already available: more cameras, more bomb-sniffing dogs and more announcements reminding people to report suspicious behavior and packages.
Last year, after terrorists bombed rush-hour commuter trains in Madrid, the Homeland Security Department tested explosive detection equipment on some rail passengers at stations in Maryland and Washington, D.C. But because subway systems have so many entrances and exits, it would be impossible to deploy and staff enough of the machines to secure the system. Some transit systems are looking at random searches and increased inspections by bomb-sniffing dogs.
In Boston, which has the oldest subway system in the country, police officers and dogs are conducting random checks on commuter trains heading into the city center, Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority spokesman Joe Pesaturo says. The canine teams are patrolling the trains but are "not asking anyone to open their bags," he says. Last summer, when the Democratic National Convention came to town, Boston security chiefs approved random passenger checks for several weeks using explosives-detection swabs - high-tech equipment that must be run over the outside of a bag. Officers also stopped all trains before they went under the convention center and checked passengers' bags. Must've been a real treat to regular riders. Can't we get Frequent Rider ID cards? Whaddaya say, ACLU?
The American Civil Liberties Union had objected to random searches at all stations - and likely would do the same in Washington. John Reinstein, legal director of the ACLU of Massachusetts, says there's no fair way for transit systems to conduct random searches. "The suggestion that we're just going to do it randomly literally invites abuse and focusing on people who for subjective and unverifiable reasons are more suspect, which means that their skin is a different color," he says. Remember Tim McVey was not a minority, but the majority of boomers appear to be - what?
In New York City, where police have dramatically stepped up patrols in the subway since the London bombings, Metropolitan Transportation Authority spokesman Tom Kelly says there are no plans to conduct random searches. If someone is acting suspicious or a bag is left unattended, the system would take a closer look. "But do we just stop people walking through the door? The answer is no," Kelly says.
Posted by: Bobby ||
07/20/2005 15:13 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
ACLU objects to Bomb Searches
Subway riders object to bombs. Which involves a higher potential cost?
"The suggestion that we're just going to do it randomly literally invites abuse and focusing on people who for subjective and unverifiable reasons are more suspect, which means that their skin is a different color,"
OK, I'm not up on translating leftist twaddle doublespeak, but did this anus just say that random searches are discriminatory?
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
07/20/2005 19:24 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"The suggestion that we're just going to do it randomly literally invites abuse and focusing on people who for subjective and unverifiable reasons are more suspect, which means that their skin is a different color,"
What did you think, asshole? They're going to single out 80-year-old Norwegian grandmothers?
I've got a great idea. If the ACLU will guarantee that all their members will travel around DC exclusively by Metro for, say, the next 10 years, the authorities can guarantee no searches on any trains that ACLU members are on.
Think they'd go for it?
Nah, me neither.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
07/20/2005 19:53 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The ACLU has gone beyond making a laughingstock of themselves. This is a first: my gut response is "Fuck 'em." I think I shall make myself a cup of tea and have a bit of a lie down until the feeling passes.
#5
Yeah, trailing wife, my gut response is "Fuck 'em" too. But I'm not making myself a cup of tea and having a bit of a lie down until the feeling passes.
Posted by: Neutron Tom ||
07/20/2005 20:44 Comments ||
Top||
#6
NT - tw's method is actually an excellent response - as long as the lesson is not forgotten. It doesn't pay to stew, it pays to Fuck 'em, lol!
#7
I say we send men, 19-32 with dark complexion and dark hair and beards to carry backpacks through all the ACLU's headquarters. Think they would be at all nervous? If they are, they are guilty of predujice by their own standards.
#9
Nothing will change until the ACLU Lawyuhs are personally affected with harm or potential harm. This is the way of the psychopath. They are unable to feel empathy for others. If it hurts THEM then they will change their tune, not before.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
07/20/2005 22:44 Comments ||
Top||
#10
I like your thinking mmurray, but with the added chants of allah ackbar, die kufr, and jirka jirka. Maybe a personal visit to their homes.
Posted by: ed ||
07/20/2005 22:51 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Odd, isn't it? The ACLU and their reprehensible neo-morals are certainly more offensive to muslims than your average white christian walking down the street. It is a love-hate relationship to be certain. I'm sure the dune loons would love to blow them to hell-and-gone. They probably wouldnt even stop to think that the ACLU is doing their best to help them pull off another attack.
July 20 (Bloomberg) -- Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil exporter, said it plans to appoint former intelligence chief Prince Turki al-Faisal as ambassador to the U.S., the kingdom's first change in the post since Ronald Reagan was president.
The Saudi Foreign Ministry announced today that Prince Bandar bin Sultan resigned as Saudi envoy to Washington for ``private reasons'' after rendering ``outstanding services'' to the Arab country since 1983. Bandar cultivated deep access to the White House, including regular visits to the Bush family homes.
Turki, who is ambassador to the U.K., was educated in Washington and has a history of working with the U.S. intelligence community. He will come to the U.S. as the Bush administration attempts to spread democracy in the oil-rich Middle East as a counter-weight to violent Islamist movements.
Ned Walker, president of the Middle East Institute in Washington and a former U.S. diplomat, said in an interview that Bandar was a symbol of ``the close, warm, fuzzy ties with the administration. Turki is not that person and will not have that relationship.''
Turki, 60, met several times with Osama bin Laden in the context of Saudi support for Muslim fighters in Afghanistan in the 1980s. He later mediated between the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the Saudi government.
EFL
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
07/20/2005 16:27 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
FoxNews said:
Turki is comming to Washington with 16 suitcases of dirt on the President's father.
Turki had prior knowledge of 9-11 and made billions off of shorting US airlines before the attack.
#3
In addition to Prince Turki transferring money to al-Qaeda, he is also the brother of Princess Haifa al-Faisal (wife of Prince Bandar) who was discovered to have tranferred a large sum of money to two of the principle 911 terrorists (Midhar and Hazmi) via Osama Basnan a known alQaeda sympathizer who also setup and paid for Midhar and Hazmi's living expenses in California. Princess Haifa transferred at least $100,000 to Basnan. How generous the Saudi Royals are to their subjects. They all have bloody hands and should be hung.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0211/25/cct.00.html
RON MOTLEY, ATTORNEY FOR 9/11 VICTIMS AND RELATIVES: Yes, ma'am. We were able to establish, by sworn testimony, the act of participation of Prince Turki in the facilitation of the funding of al Qaeda directly in Afghanistan.
CHUNG: Are you saying that Prince Turki, with whom I just spoke and who claims no one in the royal family is in any way connected to or funding al Qaeda, are you saying that he is indeed not only a funder, but a facilitator for al Qaeda?
MOTLEY: There is absolutely no question about it. We spoke with senior Taliban officials who were in the room when he indeed did facilitate the transfer of large sums of money directly to al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
CHUNG: Who was present and how can you verify that Prince Turki was involved?
MOTLEY: Well, Prince Turki hasn't appeared in the suit yet. But when he does, if he does, we will be able to take his testimony under oath.
But Prince Turki was in Afghanistan on numerous occasions facilitating the transfer of funds and equipment to al Qaeda. And the people who gave us these sworn statements were in the room when it occurred. And these were senior Taliban, former Taliban officials.
Posted by: ed ||
07/20/2005 17:31 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Hanged, let's reinstate the old Old Incan "welcome ceremony" for our new Saudi guest. You know the one where we tie um to a tree, split their gullet, pull a few feet of intestine out and wait for the wild dogs to eat their entrails while they helplessly watch. Takes hours, even days depending on how hungry the dogs are.
#6
Doesn't the new Ambassador have to present his credentials to the President or Sec. of State or somebody according to diplo custom or some inane thing. How about we reject his credentials and tell him to GTFO (in courteous diplo talk of course)?
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
07/20/2005 22:48 Comments ||
Top||
TAMPA - Internal fighting among Palestinian Islamic Jihad members had reached a boiling point and the movement was in financial trouble in 1994.
Sami Al-Arian, then a University of South Florida professor, distributed a proposed resolution, called ``an internal reform project,'' to members of the Islamic Jihad's majlis shura, or governing board.
In it, he proposed creating a committee to control Islamic Jihad money. It would include himself, his brother-in-law Mazen Al-Najjar and Islamic Jihad founder Fathi Shikaki.
A translation of that proposal was among more than 80 exhibits entered into evidence Tuesday during Al-Arian's trial on charges of racketeering and providing material support to terrorists. The exhibits include translations of secretly intercepted telephone calls involving Al-Arian, Shikaki and others. The faxes contain repeated references to the majlis shura, and Al-Arian often refers to himself as ``the secretary.''
FBI agents were able to listen in on the calls and obtain copies of the faxes through warrants obtained under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which authorizes monitoring of people suspected of being agents of a foreign power or terrorist group.
The documents are pivotal to the prosecution's case because they show Al-Arian helping to keep Jihad together when it almost fractured. Assistant U.S. Attorney Walter E. Furr III repeatedly has said that ``for a time, [Al-Arian] was the most powerful man in the world in this organization.''
In a Jan. 22, 1994, call with Shikaki, Al-Arian expresses frustration that the internal power struggle ``is very embarrassing. It's embarrassing in front of the people and embarrassing in the interior and embarrassing everywhere.''
Al-Arian criticized Shikaki's proposal and encouraged him to work toward a consensus.
``When the majority is against it,'' Shikaki responded, ``then I will think about what I will do.''
Other members were upset, Al-Arian said. ``If they didn't have a level of commitment, they would all have left, frankly, among them our brother Ahmed.''
Bashir Nafi, a defendant from England who has not been arrested, used to write under the name Ahmed Sadiq. It is not clear if this reference is to Nafi.
In a handwritten note about two weeks later, Shikaki tells Al-Arian that ``the essential or practical matter is the position of the North, which is more complicated than you imagine.''
Prosecutors say ``the North'' is a coded reference to Iran, which has been the Islamic Jihad's primary financial benefactor.
``What's important,'' Shikaki wrote, ``is that the official communication come from you.''
According to the indictment, other calls deal with Islamic Jihad payments for defendant Sameeh Hammoudeh, Al-Najjar and Ramadan Shallah. Shallah assumed command of the Islamic Jihad in 1995 after Shikaki was gunned down in Malta.
Jurors did not learn details of the transcripts or other translations but are expected to soon. Two FBI contract translators testified Tuesday about how they created English versions of the communications and determined the speaker's identities.
Those details were required to provide a sufficient legal foundation to get the exhibits into evidence. The second translator, Camille Ghorra, continues testifying this morning. Defense attorneys have not had a chance to cross- examine him to challenge any of his speaker identifications.
Al-Arian long has denied any connection to the Islamic Jihad. In his opening statement, defense attorney William Moffitt indicated Al-Arian left the organization after the internal feud. Al-Arian also suggested creating a nonpolitical, nonviolent branch, Moffitt said, and left when he could not make that happen.
Prosecutors also entered into evidence a series of telephone calls involving defendant Hatim Fariz and his brother, in addition to conversations with fellow defendant Ghassan Ballut. Many of those calls involve efforts to solicit donations, including conversations about securing receipts to gain donors' trust and financing the purchase of an ambulance in Palestine.
In a September 2002 call, Fariz tells Ballut he is worried about Shallah's well-being. ``It's been a month since he has appeared anywhere, not after the assassinations, not after the operations, not after everything,'' Fariz said.
Fariz does not name Shallah but refers to him as Abu Abdallah. Prosecutors say that is a reference to Shallah's oldest son, a pseudonym common among Muslim men. They also claim Fariz later called Shallah in Damascus, Syria, to check on his health.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
07/20/2005 14:43 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
July 20, 2005: The U.S. Navy feels it is in need of more âsoldiers of the sea.â But since the U.S. Navy has lost control of the U.S. Marine Corps, the navy is assembling a new force of naval infantry. This is not really new. For example, the toughest troops in the Navy Department are not the marines, but the sailors who belong to the SEALs, an organization formed in the 1960s. But the process of regenerating the American naval infantry is accelerating. There was a time, not too long ago, when the marines where what marines had always been, soldiers who belonged to the navy and served on ships. But since World War II, the U.S. Marine Corps have developed into a truly separate force, no longer available to the navy.
While marines like to think that the Marine Corps has, since 1798, been a separate service, this did not actually happen until quite recently. Until World War II, the Marine Corps was so small, and dependent on the navy (for amphibious ships and, well, work to do), that in practice, marines tended to do whatever the navy asked them to do. But after World War II, the much larger marine force became, gradually, a truly independent service. The marines were still intertwined with the navy, but increasingly, able to defy the admirals. Thus we have the navy forming the SEAL commandos, in the early 1960s, using sailors, rather than marines. Over the next few decades, the navy slowly stopped using marines for their traditional job of providing onboard ship security. By the end of the century, the navy was content to let the marines be whatever they could get away with, and the navy would basically do without them.
After September 11, 2001, when the navy sought to increase its security force for ships in port, it did not turn to the marines (who long had taken care of that sort of thing), but greatly expanded the number of âMasters at Armsâ (previously a job category, not a force). Now comes the ECG (expeditionary combat battalion) of high quality sailors who could fight on water or land in coastal operations. The ECG would obtain its manpower from those who apply to join the SEALs, but donât make it. The SEALs are a very selective organization, accepting less than one in ten of those who apply. Now the navy wants to do something with those high quality rejects. The recent navy announcement that it is putting together a âbrown water (coastal and rivers)â force mentioned an infantry component, and that these troops would be sailors, not troops from the Marine Corps. This new force also makes it clear how much the navy and marines have grown apart.
But the ECG is expected to be higher quality than the marines, something close to U.S. Army Special Forces. The ECG would be trained in foreign languages and cultures, and be part of the force that provided training to foreign navies. But the ECG would also take over some SEAL functions, like providing boarding parties for dangerous interdiction missions. Most of these boarding operations are not dangerous, and are handled by specially trained sailors and Masters at Arms. These folks are also doing a job that has traditionally belonged to âmarines.â But since the U.S. Navy no longer has control of the U.S. Marine Corps, and needs marines, it has to rebuild the force under a new name. Or, rather, several new names.
The new marine force will be only a few thousand strong, which is more in line with the proportion of marines in other navies. The U.S. Navy lost its original marine force because the U.S. Marine Corps got so large during World War II that it was no longer a part of the navy, but a truly separate entity. This new force of naval infantry also revives another old navy tradition; infantry training for sailors. Until about a century ago, infantry training for sailors, and even infantry exercises on land, were a regular feature of navy life. All this had faded away by the 1930s. The navy stopped issuing field manuals for naval infantry in the 1960s. But the war on terror, and increased emphasis on brown water operations, has returned many sailors to the old ways. The new naval infantry will perform many of the traditional marine functions, without being called marines.
Posted by: Steve ||
07/20/2005 11:25 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Wouldn't it just be easier to assign a battalion from Uncle Sam's Misguided Children to these duties??????????
#5
Of course, having marine-type individuals on board is also very useful in maritime raids, too. Can you imagine the hilarity if some guided missile cruiser came into New York harbor with a pirate "prize ship" alongside?
July 20, 2005: About 35,000 non-citizens are currently serving on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces, while another 12,000 serve in the Reserve Components. The navy has the largest proportion of non-citizens on active duty, almost 16,000, nearly half the total. The Marine Corps has about 6,500, the Army about 5,000, and the Air force about 3,000.
I believe these figures include enlistees from US territories such as Puerto Rico, Guam, etc.
The differences are the result of variations in the service regulations governing the re-enlistment of non-citizens. The Navy and Marine Corps place no restrictions, while the Army allows them to stay in for only 8 years of service, and the Air Force limits them to no more than 6. This is to encourage the non-citizen troops to become naturalized citizens. But naval tradition, the world over, has long tolerated non-citizens serving on ships for their entire careers.
The Navy had a lot of sailors from the Philippines back in the day, don't know if they still do or not.
All services encourage non-citizens to apply for citizenship at the earliest opportunity, and many do. Some aliens in the service have been granted U.S. citizenship posthumously.
Non-citizens appear to make better soldiers and sailors. This can best be seen by their lower attrition rates. During their first three months of service, the attrition rate for citizens was nearly 11-percent, while that for non-citizens was just under 6-percent. At the 36 month mark, the attrition rate for citizens was approximately 32-percent, as against slightly under 19-percent for non-citizens.
Posted by: Steve ||
07/20/2005 11:14 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The first thing I thought of when I saw the headline was a huge-eyed gray wearing a flak jacket and holding an M16. Gotta quit looking at those UFO sites.
#2
Military service is an appropriate start to citizenship or permanent residency I think. The prospect is sound and they have to learn the language at least. And, the worthless bastards get to serve a purpose for at least a few years of their miserable lives.
#5
Foreigners have been a contribution since Lafayette. Irish and Germans made up a marked portion of the old volunteer army in the 19th Century. Too many germans trying to avoid the military draft back home disembarked the ships in places like New York in the early 1860s only to find themselve serving in the Army of the Potomac. Made up practically an entire corps. The nationality may change, but the process is as old as America.
#6
Those from US territories are already US citizens and are not counted in these figures. The largest group are immigrant children, such as Mexicans, who have not yet taken the citizen oath. Following them are Caribbeans who see this as a great paycheck and entre into the US, and Filipinos, who have traditionally joined the US Navy.
Posted by: ed ||
07/20/2005 12:45 Comments ||
Top||
#7
The first thing I thought of when I saw the headline was a huge-eyed gray wearing a flak jacket and holding an M16.
They don't need Flak Jackets friend. But they are down on endurance in cold climates. The good news is that the extra 6 limbs allow them to be Medics, FAC and SAW crew at the same time.
#8
How about that new movie Stealth? Controlled by evil infiltrator alien?
Posted by: Captain America ||
07/20/2005 13:23 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Worthless bastards
I've had sailors working for me who came from Colombia, Ghana, Israel (tank driver in the Yom Kippur War), Trinidad, Korea (a former ROK marine), Dominican Republic, India, Ireland, and the Philippines (three former marines and an MD). With few exceptions, they were among my best and proved it when the time came.
Bigjim, you are a stupid, parochial, son of a bitch. You clueless bastard. If you don't know what you're talking about, perform a rare courtesy and shut up.
#10
It should be the policy of the United States of America that "service guarantees citizenship". That is any resident alien who enters the the armed forces of the United States of America and completes their term of service should attain U.S. Citizenship regardless of their legal status upon entry. They should also attain citizenship it they are injured such that they are forced to leave the service by their dutys as a Airman, Sailor, or Soldier. If they should die in service to the United States they shold be granted citizenship posthumously and any spouse and children should be fast tracked throught the citizenship process.
Those who serve in our armed forces deserve all our respect and loyalty regardless of their citizenship status. I honor all though those who make the sacrifice to serve in the Armed Forces of teh United States of America.
BigJim please take your xenophobic, racist crap and stuff it up your ass.
#12
EXPEDITED CITIZENSHIP THROUGH MILITARY SERVICE
Under current immigration law, non-citizens must serve in the U.S. military for three years before they are eligible to apply for U.S. citizenship. However, during times of war, a President can issue an executive order, allowing non-citizens on active duty to become eligible for citizenship before completing the three-year service, senior administration officials said.
President Bush issued such an Order in July 2002 that allows certain non-citizens serving honorably in active duty status in the Armed Forces of the U.S. in the war against terrorism to be eligible for expedited naturalization. Expedited naturalizations are permitted under a section of the law that eliminates residence and physical presence requirements under certain conditions. In order to be eligible, a person must have served on active duty status on or since September 11, 2001 in the war against terrorism. The President will set the end date of eligibility, likely when the hostilities end.
Posted by: Steve ||
07/20/2005 14:20 Comments ||
Top||
Certain applicants who have served in the U.S. Armed Forces are eligible to file for naturalization based on current or prior U.S. military service. Such applicants should file the N-400 Military Naturalization Packet.
Lawful Permanent Residents with Three Years U.S. Military Service
An applicant who has served for three years in the U.S. military and who is a lawful permanent resident is excused from any specific period of required residence, period of residence in any specific place, or physical presence within the United States if an application for naturalization is filed while the applicant is still serving or within six months of an honorable discharge.
To be eligible for these exemptions, an applicant must:
have served honorably or separated under honorable conditions;
completed three years or more of military service;
be a legal permanent resident at the time of his or her examination on the application; or establish good moral character if service was discontinuous or not honorable.
Applicants who file for naturalization more than six months after termination of three years of service in the U.S. military may count any periods of honorable service as residence and physical presence in the United States.
Naturalization Applicants Who Have Served Honorably in Any Specified Period of Armed Conflict with Hostile Foreign Forces
This is the only section of the Immigration and Naturalization Act that allows persons who have not been lawfully admitted for permanent residence to file their own application for naturalization. Any person who has served honorably during a qualifying time may file an application at any time in his or her life if, at the time of enlistment, reenlistment, extension of enlistment or induction, such person shall have been in the United States, the Canal Zone, American Samoa, or Swains Island, or on board a public vessel owned or operated by the United States for noncommercial service, whether or not he has been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence.
An applicant who has served honorably during any of the following periods of conflict is entitled to certain considerations:
World War I - 4/16/17 to 11/11/18;
World War II - 9/1/39 to 12/31/46;
Korean Conflict - 6/25/50 to 7/1/55;
Vietnam Conflict - 2/28/61 to 10/15/78;
Operation Desert Shield/ Desert Storm - 8/29/90 to 4/11/91
Operation Enduring Freedom â 9/11/01 to (open);
or any other period which the President, by Executive Order, has designated as a period in which the Armed Forces of the United States are or were engaged in military operations involving armed conflict with hostile foreign forces.
Applicants who have served honorably during any of the aforementioned conflicts may apply for naturalization based on military service and no period of residence or specified period of physical presence within the United States or any State shall be required.
Posted by: Steve ||
07/20/2005 14:25 Comments ||
Top||
My introduction to the US in 1969 came through the effective if imprudent strategem of enlisting in the US Army. I had a tour in Vietnam and a Purple Heart before I took the oath of citizenship on July 9, 1974.
I stayed on in the Army Reserve and saw combat again in DS1 and Somalia, eventually retiring at O-6.
That is full-bird Colonel for those of you unfamiliar with the rank system in the US.
#16
I thank you, AC - and all others who've become Americans by serving, you're one of the prime reasons for America's amazing success and viability. I know your posts here at RB are also highly respected and valued. Thx, bro!
I think bigjim-ky had a brainfart. A momentary lapse. A simple apology would end it AFAIC.
Anyone who contributes and assimilates is welcome, IMO.
UNITED NATIONS â The secretive Volcker inquiry into the more than $110 billion United Nations Oil-for-Food scandal plans to issue a third interim report later this month â to tie up âloose endsâ from the previous two reports, as a committee spokesman recently put it. Having spent more than $30 million over the past year, the U.N.-authorized Independent Inquiry Committee has so far confirmed reports previously documented in the press that the man appointed by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan to run Oil-for-Food, his longtime colleague Benon Sevan, engaged in a conflict of interest in soliciting lucrative oil allocations from Saddam Husseinâs regime. Beyond that, however, the investigation headed by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker has offered up little more than the censure of a few third-tier U.N. officials, while allowing Annan to claim, without apparent basis in fact, âexonerationâ from a conflict of interest involving his son Kojo, who received money from a major Oil-for-Food contractor, Cotecna Inspection S.A..
Now, even the Volcker committeeâs wrap-up of loose ends may need more work. The latest question mark looms over the committeeâs âadverse findingsâ released five months ago against a retired U.N. official, Allan Robertson. Formerly the head of the U.N. procurement department, Robertson was censured by the Volcker inquiry this past February based on testimony that appears to have come from a tainted U.N. source.
Robertson protested at the time that he was innocent. His claims were sharply dismissed by the Volcker inquiry, which declared it had âcompelling evidenceâ that while running the U.N. procurement department, Robertson had willfully violated U.N. procedures in 1996 to award an inspection contract to Saybolt Eastern Hemisphere B.V., a Dutch firm that monitored Saddam's oil exports from Iraq under the Oil-for-Food program.
The problem here is that the Volcker committeeâs âcompelling evidenceâ came from Alexander Yakovlev, another longtime U.N. procurement official who handled tens of millions of dollars worth of U.N. supply contracts annually, and was portrayed as an advocate of integrity in the two Volcker interim reports that examined the awards of the Oil-for-Food inspection contracts. Yakovlev was the U.N. officer in charge of awarding both the Saybolt and Cotecna contracts, and the Volcker committee relied on his claims that in both cases, but particularly that of Saybolt, he had fought against the violation of U.N. rules.
But Yakovlev, a Russian native, abruptly resigned from the United Nations late last month, after a FOX News investigation revealed that he was involved in an apparent conflict of interest with a regular U.N. supplier, IHC Services Inc., which had hired Yakovlevâs son Dmitry between 2000 and 2003, according to Dmitryâs own resume. Yakovlev left the United Nations the day after the world body announced its own inquiry into his activities, and the Volcker committee then took charge, sealing his office to all but its own investigators. A day later, the executive director of the Volcker investigation, Reid Morden, told the New York Times that the committee, on unrelated grounds, had been harboring its own suspicions about Yakovlevâs âveracity.â None of those suspicions, however, are evident in the two Volcker reports released to date. In the first of those documents, issued Feb. 3, Yakovlevâs testimony served in part to condemn another U.N. official, Joseph Stephanides â who was fired four months later by Kofi Annan on the basis of Volckerâs findings. Stephanides says he is innocent, a claim backed by a wide array of Western diplomats and by the U.N. staff union, and he is appealing his firing.
In the same report, the committee briskly dismissed Robertsonâs claim that some of the evidence against him had likely been trumped up by Yakovlev. Robertson was not even sent a copy of the report. None of this was corrected, or even addressed, in the second Volcker report, released March 29. Robertsonâs claims of innocence simply slipped from view. He had retired from the United Nations in 1998. There was nothing for Robertson to appeal, except the loss of his good name. But a closer look at Robertsonâs case reveals a great deal about the Volcker committeeâs peremptory methods in fingering some lower-level U.N. staffers, while providing far gentler handling to top officials -- including Annan and Iqbal Riza, Annanâs then chief of staff.
Riza abruptly left the post in January, after investigators discovered that he had shredded three yearsâ worth of Oil-for-Food documents, which he claimed were only duplicate records. But he was retained by Annan as a special advisor and has since been appointed to a new, high-level U.N. position dealing with âworld peace." By contrast, both Robertson and Stephanides describe a kangaroo-court process, in which they say they were allowed no reasonable chance to defend themselves.
Told abruptly just a few days before the release of the damning report that they were about to be charged with âadverse findings,â they were allowed to view evidence only under close supervision in the Volcker committeeâs offices, and given less than a week to prepare written rebuttals before the report was released. Both the accused officials say the Volcker committee then published its report only a day after they had submitted their defenses. âIt was obvious to me that they had made up their minds,â Robertson told FOX News.
In Robertsonâs case, the committee relied heavily on documents written by Yakovlev and found by investigators in U.N. procurement office files. These documents, referred to in U.N. jargon as ânotes to file,â were memoranda of the sort that U.N. staffers can place in official records to note their objections to actions taken over their protest. U.N. procedures require that such memoranda be copied to any U.N. officials involved in the decision at the same time that they are placed in the permanent files.
In Robertsonâs case, the Volcker committee cited two such memoranda from Yakovlev, dated July 22 and July 25, 1996, which claimed, in effect, that Robertson â then head of Yakovlevâs department â was bending the rules and overlooking a lower-priced bid from another firm in order to give the Iraq oil inspection contract to Saybolt. The first of the memos, Yakovlev also testified to the committee, summarized a meeting between Yakovlev and Robertson where Yakovlev made the same objections face-to-face. Robertson says the face-to-face meeting Yakovlev summarized in the ânote to fileâ never took place. Nor, says Robertson, had he ever seen the damning ânotes to fileâ themselves until the Volcker committee confronted him with them this past February â as Robertson says he also told Volcker investigator, Susan Ringler. Robertson protested at the time that Yakovlevâs notes appeared âself-serving,â and pointed out that if they were generated back in 1996, when the contracts were awarded, then both he and at least one other U.N. official in the chain of command should have received copies. FOX News has since learned that this other U.N. official also does not recollect having received copies of Yakovlevâs ânotes to file.â The Volcker committee, in its report, judged that âMr. Robertsonâs efforts to attack the credibility of Mr. Yakovlev are as unsupported as they are unconvincing.â The committee had no further comment about Robertson and Yakovlev when reached by FOX News.
In a series of in-depth interviews about his treatment during the Volcker investigation, Robertson said, âI feel I was probably a soft target,â because he had been retired from the U.N. for years by the time Volcker started his investigation. âI have been treated unfairly," Robertson declared, âand if this is how they approach people like me, what kind of reporting or investigation is really involved on their part?â George Russell is Executive Editor of FOX News. Claudia Rosett is a journalist-in-residence with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
Posted by: Steve ||
07/20/2005 16:03 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I'd still stay away from those elevators Benon. Somebody always doesn't get the word...
#5
Fascinating how a few journalists like Claudia Rosett are taking the lead in this investigation, dragging Volker and his team kicking and screaming behind them. Justice may yet be seen to be done.
KUALA LUMPUR, July 20 (Bernama) -- Indonesia, whose waters are prone to pirate attacks, will deploy four Japanese patrol vessels along its side of the Straits of Melaka by end of this year.
First Admiral Budhi Suyitno, Indonesia's chairman of the Malaysia-Indonesia Maritime Operation Planning Team (Malindo), said Wednesday his government was still discussing Japan's offer but stressed that the vessels were solely for non-military purpose...
"The vessels will be received by non-military agencies like the Customs department, Indonesian marine police or the Indonesian sea information agency," he told reporters after attending the 14th Malindo meeting here.
He said the vessels, measuring about 40m and with a speed of 30 to 40 knots, would be given free to Indonesia but on a condition that they were strictly used to maintian safety along the busy straits.
The safety of the Straits of Melaka, an international sealane where some 400 ships ply the waters daily, had come under international scrutiny in recent years due to constant threats from marauding sea pirates who rob vessels and kill their crew in the high seas.
Tuesday, the International Maritime Bureau (IMB), in its 2005 half-yearly report on Piracy and Armed Robbery Against Ships, revealed that Indonesia recorded the highest number of attacks, accounting for one third of the world's total with 42 incidents.
About 127 cases were recorded in the first six months of this year...
KUALA LUMPUR, July 20 (Bernama) -- Malaysia Wednesday expressed the hope that the powers under an emergency decree accorded to Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra to tackle the crisis in the southern Muslim provinces of the country would be for the good of the people there. Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar said it was important that with the powers Thaksin was able to restore peace and stability in the southern region.
Syed Hamid said he believed the powers would ensure that the Muslim community in the country's southern region would be able to join the mainstream with the other people of Thailand through economic development...Malaysia would co-operate with Thailand to bring about changes and development through the mechanism that had been worked out.
On the visit of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, who is also Chairman of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), to South Africa next week, Syed Hamid said it would be Abdullah's maiden visit to Africa since becoming prime minister. It was to strengthen bilateral ties in the economic and investment fields as well as to share experiences...
EFL - RTWT
All of the estimated 10 million to 12 million illegal aliens in the United States would have to leave the country under an immigration bill introduced on Tuesday by two conservative Republican senators. Get out!
The bill by Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl and Texas Sen. John Cornyn is a tougher alternative to a rival bipartisan (Kennedy-McCain, bipartisan in name only) bill introduced two month ago that would allow some illegals to get jobs legally and eventually gain citizenship without leaving the country.
The Kyl-Cornyn bill calls for the creation of a machine-readable, tamper-proof Social Security card that would be issued to every American in the workforce to prevent illegals from getting jobs. ooohhh! the racism!
It would also fund the hiring of 10,000 new Department of Homeland Security personnel dedicated to weeding illegal immigrants out of the workforce and an additional 1,000 for detecting immigration fraud.
Companies that hired illegal immigrants would face tough fines.
Additionally, the bill would authorize the recruitment of 10,000 new Border Patrol agents over five years and a $2.5 billion investment in unmanned aerial vehicles, cameras, barriers and sensors along the Mexican border.
The senators did not give a total cost for the bill but a fact sheet distributed with their proposal contained partial costs of well over $12 billion.
"We start with the proposition that we have to enforce the law at the border and in the interior of the country and at the workplace," Kyl told a news conference. wow! what a concept..
Cornyn said the bill contained an orderly and dignified way for illegal immigrants in the country to return home.
They would have five years in which to do so. Illegals who refuse would face fines of $2,000 a year for each year they stayed beyond the deadline if they subsequently left and then tried to apply to immigrate legally.
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/20/2005 16:04 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Illegals who refuse would face fines of $2,000 a year for each year they stayed beyond the deadline if they subsequently left and then tried to apply to immigrate legally.
All very fine and dandy, but how do they plan on identifying these individuals? Any attempt to secure fingerprints or DNA before or as they leave the country will no doubt be met with a storm of protest from the usual groups.
#2
A very good first step. Get this passed and it can be approved upon later. I only wonder, with Senator Clinton playing up to La Raza, whether is can be passed before the 2006 election -- when I expect the percentage of Republicans to increase. (I just saw a candidate ad for some post here in Ohio: retired Marine officer who'd fought in Iraq (Robert Crawford, do you have more details?))
#3
I don't think it can realistically get passed by our current invertebrate Congress barring a disastrous attack proven to have ome across the Mexican border, but it at least defines options to the McCain/Kennedy open-border-bendover. Now there's an alternative to make politicians choose from...
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/20/2005 16:34 Comments ||
Top||
#4
As I keep telling you guys, secure borders is popular and a big vote winner here in Australia for the Howard government, despite a concerted media campaign to portray it as 'unfair'.
#5
Companies that hired illegal immigrants would face tough fines.
Bah, just RICO the executives now. One, two, three companies and everyone will get the message. And you don't need new legislation, just the balls to do it.
#6
same thing here, Phil. It's an issue that I don't think the Administration gets just yet, but W and the rest of the GOP need to get in front of the wave or it'll beat them up. Offer alternatives to the Raza-Donks and you'll win votes. People are upset and the open-borders groups oppose all sane measures. Rove has got to see the rise in polls and will steer W the right (Tancredo) way
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/20/2005 16:38 Comments ||
Top||
#7
GU5996 has a point. Let us first look over the laws we have on the books. Then if they look OK, all we need to do is enforce them.
Congress and the President are ducking their duty. Especially the President, who as the head of the executive branch needs to enforce the laws.
So the real issue is to hold the feet of the Executive to the fire w/r/t enforcing the existing laws. Passing new laws will not change anything if they and the existing laws are not enforced.
[/logical thinking]
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
07/20/2005 16:41 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Also, how about a large wall such as Israel is building, mine fields and good surveillance cameras all along the border?
#10
(I just saw a candidate ad for some post here in Ohio: retired Marine officer who'd fought in Iraq (Robert Crawford, do you have more details?))
The only Ohio candidate I've heard about who is also an Iraqi vet is a Democrat. I don't know much about him; still way too early for me to care.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
07/20/2005 19:14 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Thanks, RC. If the man can bring some sensible thinking to the Democratic Party, that's ok, too. I'll try to stay awake the next time his commercial comes on the tv. ;-)
Despite the high drama of an imminent confrontation, DEBKAfileâs sources in the protest movement report that there are no plans to break through the Kfar Maimon exits Wednesday night, July 20, or risk a clash with the police and the military that could touch off a stampede among the tens of thousands of men, women and children in the encampment. Tens of thousands of anti-evacuation demonstrators are standing eyeball to eyeball at the gates of Kfar Maimon facing 20,000 police and troops in a solid phalanx. The demonstrationâs leaders insist they will march on Gush Katif and the police is equally determined to stop the unauthorized protest. The suspense built up for three days of an imminent collision between the orange mass and the men in blue and khaki is part of a war of attrition the anti-evacuation movement is waging against government forces. New crises will be manufactured every day to wear the troops down in the less than a month remaining until 21 communities are withdrawn from the Gaza Strip. Although so far the demonstration has obeyed the rules of non-violence, the suspense among the caged mass of people in burning heat is such that an unforeseen spark or an impulsive move on either side could torpedo this plan.
Posted by: Steve ||
07/20/2005 16:01 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
When senior al-Qaida officials called a clandestine summit in a remote region of Pakistan in early 2004, an American eager to earn his terrorist stripes was waiting in the wings.
By his own admission, Mohammed Junaid Babar traveled to the province of Waziristan to supply cash and military equipment to the terror network _ a key moment in an odyssey that began in Queens and ended in a federal lockup in Manhattan, where Babar has emerged as a possible link to al-Qaida in the terrorist bombings in London.
At the request of British investigators, the FBI has questioned Babar, 30, about suspected ties between the July 7 attacks and a foiled plot in 2004 by a Pakistani cell to use fertilizer bombs to blow up pubs, restaurants and train stations for which Babar provided support, law enforcement officials in New York told The Associated Press.
The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation, confirmed reports that Babar claimed to know one of the London suicide bombers, Mohammed Sidique Khan, when shown a picture of him. But the officials declined to discuss whether he provided any further information that would be useful to investigators.
Babar, while pleading guilty to terrorism charges and agreeing to cooperate with the government last year, admitted organizing a "jihad training camp" that provided instruction on explosives.
"I was aware that some of the people who attended the training camp had ideas about ... plotting against some targets in the United Kingdom," he told a judge, according to a transcript of his guilty plea.
Before the terror attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, Babar's life was unremarkable. The grandson of Pakistani immigrants, he grew up in a working-class neighborhood in Queens.
In interviews with journalists in Pakistan before his arrest, Babar said he once was a contented Yankee fan and computer programmer earning $70,000 a year. But the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan radicalized him.
On Sept. 11, his mother escaped from the ninth floor of one of the World Trade Center towers. Babar's loyalty, though, was "to the Muslims, not the Americans," he said in an interview broadcast on Canadian television. He also announced his intention to fight U.S. forces in Afghanistan.
"I'm willing to kill Americans," he said in the interview.
Babar quit his job and in the fall of 2001 went to Pakistan, where he hoped to join the Taliban. It was unclear if he ever made it into Afghanistan.
But in 2003 Babar became aligned with members of the Pakistani terror cell in London, providing them aluminum powder and attempting to buy them ammonium nitrate "with the knowledge that it was going to be used for a plot somewhere in the U.K.," he said during his plea.
The 2004 plot was foiled when British authorities arrested eight suspects and seized 1,000 pounds of ammonium nitrate fertilizer _ a key ingredient in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing _ from a storage locker in London.
At his plea, Babar also admitted establishing a pipeline for money and supplies such as night-vision goggles, sleeping bags and waterproof socks for al-Qaida operatives fighting along side the Taliban. In early 2004, he said, he went to Waziristan, where "handed over money and supplies to a high-ranking al-Qaida official." The official has not been identified.
According to news reports quoting U.S. and Pakistani officials, including President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Babar's visit coincided with a summit there of terrorists plotting various attacks in the West. Investigators believe some of those who attended later scouted prominent financial targets in the United States at the behest of Osama bin Laden, the reports said.
In April 2004, Babar returned to New York, where he had been put on a terror watch list based on his inflammatory remarks in news reports. Police and FBI agents put him under surveillance and eventually arrested him.
At the time of his capture, the homegrown terrorist was en route to a school to become a taxi driver.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
07/20/2005 15:05 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
Personally, I think anyone with the name Mohammed anywhere in his name ought to be suspect. Don't mean to sound xenophobic but we have had to deal with terrorism from people with names like Mohammed for 30 years or more.
The father of one of the hijackers who commandeered the first plane that crashed into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, praised the recent terror attacks in London and said many more would follow. Speaking to CNN producer Ayman Mohyeldin Tuesday in his apartment in the upper-middle-class Cairo suburb of Giza, Mohamed el-Amir said he would like to see more attacks like the July 7 bombings of three London subway trains and a bus that killed 52 people, plus the four bombers.
Displayed prominently in the apartment were pictures of el-Amir's son, Mohamed Atta, the man who is believed to have piloted American Airlines Flight 11 into the north tower of the World Trade Center as part of the attacks on the United States.
El-Amir said the attacks in the United States and the July 7 attacks in London were the beginning of what would be a 50-year religious war, in which there would be many more fighters like his son. He declared that terror cells around the world were a "nuclear bomb that has now been activated and is ticking."
The man, who gave his age as "at least 70," said he had no sorrow for what happened in London, and said there was a double standard in the way the world viewed the victims in London and victims in the Islamic world.
Cursing in Arabic, el-Amir also denounced Arab leaders and Muslims who condemned the London attacks as being traitors and non-Muslims. He passionately vowed that he would do anything within his power to encourage more attacks.
When asked if he would allow a CNN crew to videotape another interview with him, el-Amir said he would give his permission -- for a price of $5,000. That money, he said, would not be kept for himself, but would be donated to someone to carry out another terror attack. El-Amir said that $5,000 was about how much it would cost to finance another attack in London.
CNN's crew refused to pay for the interview and left after el-Amir's request. It is CNN policy not to pay people for interviews.
A lawyer by trade, el-Amir had a sign on his apartment door saying he was a consultant. The security guard for the apartment building said el-Amir had been under surveillance by Egyptian agents for several months after the September 11 attacks, but no one had been watching him recently.
Posted by: ed ||
07/20/2005 11:38 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Well, looks like the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree. Something to keep in mind next time some splodeydope's parent is interviewed post-atrocity and claims their kid was a "decent sort driven to extremes by the opressive West" or some other such BS.
#2
I believe the correct term is, "mobile self demolition experts", splodeydopes is old hat, although I still prefer splodeydopes.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
07/20/2005 12:22 Comments ||
Top||
#3
This guy should have an accident.
Posted by: Neutron Tom ||
07/20/2005 12:27 Comments ||
Top||
#4
The question is how representative is he of the "average" muslim? What is the percentage of muslims that feel this way really? Does the percentage vary by region? I think these are the real questions we have to get answers to in order to understand what we are facing. My gut says the is a bit wackier than most, but not much. I just want some sort of evidence of that.
#5
Atta's daddy-boy pimp will always be full of grief... I wouldn't expect him to ever spout anything resembling logic or responsible parenting much-less responsible behavior. He was showered will affection, respect, attention and material gifts after his boy-pimp got drugged and drunk-up to prepare his way to sit and play cards with Satan in the after-life.
#6
Mohammed Sr is merely repeating what he hears at the mosque every Friday. What he reads in the local newspaper every day.
There is no such thing as a moderate Moslem. Either one is a Moslem, or one is not. There is no middle ground. According to Islamic Law, moderation is a form of apostasy, punished by death according to the example set by Mohammed-the-pedophile. (I've posted an article earlier today, linking to statements of a UK-based Islamofascist who makes that exact point.)
#10
I thought he claimed his son wasn't in on the plot and if he was in on the plot he was a dupe of the MOSSAD because no muzzie man would do such a terrible thing act, even though it was a good thing.
There is no such thing as a moderate Moslem. Either one is a Moslem, or one is not. There is no middle ground. According to Islamic Law, moderation is a form of apostasy, punished by death according to the example set by Mohammed-the-pedophile. (I've posted an article earlier today, linking to statements of a UK-based Islamofascist who makes that exact point.)
Well, then how does one classify the civilians in Iraq who are killed in various suicide bombings and other terrorist action every week? Are you going to say that they're the "bad" moslems?
I don't think anyone here can say that the kids blown up in the bombing last week didn't say their prayers every day and trudge off to Sunday, er, Friday School (or whatever the equivalent is) every weekend.
Saying those particular deaths don't matter, or count, puts one in the same belief system as the previously mentioned mullah who thinks the whole situation is crusaders vs. moslems. Or the stalinist mayors in the West who ignore the Iraqi civilian deaths at the hands of the terrorists as well.
Posted by: Phil Fraering ||
07/20/2005 18:30 Comments ||
Top||
#14
So, if this guy is in the phonebook I'd be happy to pay him a short visit next time I'm in Cairo.
#15
What's your point, PF? Kids may go to mosque, church, temple or the river -- that doesn't make them authorities on the meaning and purpose of a given religion.
According to Moslem scripture and tradition, there is no such thing as a moderate Moslem -- it's taqiya, jihad, and sharia for everybody, as well as death to all apostates! They even have an apostasy rule for kids: throw them in jail until they're 18, then ask them if they will submit to the moon-god, else kill them.
#16
As for the Iraqis who are killed by the terrorists, you should pay attention to their words: they justify their action by stating that the dead were apostates.
#17
Sorry Kalle, but PF is right. Muslims come in all shades, like Christians. We can agree on the problematic nature of Islam as such but a large majority of Muslims are not jihadis, are peaceful and just want a career and a family life like we all do. A lot are certainly in denial of the true nature of Islam, but they don't live in the 7th century.
There would have been no point in liberating Iraq if we thought that all were alike.
#19
To hark back to my earliest impresson after 9/11... The entire family of anyone involved in that and subsequent attacks should be exterminated. Harsh, but maybe it would get the message across.
Posted by: DanNY ||
07/20/2005 22:16 Comments ||
Top||
#20
Radical cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed warned today (London Times) on a new website that the July 7 bombings âare not the first and will not be the lastâ. His site blames the Government, the British people and moderate Muslims for the atrocities.
NOW where are the "moderate" Moslems who will loudly denounce him, and then demand that he be tried and jailed, or executed? where?
All surveys across the Moslem world show massive support for Bin Laden. Why is that? is he a "moderate"?
According to Moslem scripture and tradition, there is no such thing as a moderate Moslem -- it's taqiya, jihad, and sharia for everybody, as well as death to all apostates! They even have an apostasy rule for kids: throw them in jail until they're 18, then ask them if they will submit to the moon-god, else kill them.
You're assuming that the people shooting at us are right and correct in their interpretation of Moslem tradition, and that those Moslems who the people shooting at us are also killing in much larger number than they are our troops are de facto wrong in their interpretation of the Koran.
I think this is probably a Bad Idea and unuseful to boot.
People like Zarqawi understand that there's an ideological struggle within Islam; that's why they spend so much time blowing other Moslems up, and characterizing their victims as not really being Moslem at all.
You're spreading their propaganda.
IF YOU ARE RIGHT, then please show me the massive numbers of "moderate" Moslems who denounce and hunt down the "extremists" in their midst.
Well, there's an entire TV show dedicated to the exploits of the Wolf Battallion. There's also "Terrorists in the Grip of Justice," which probably isn't what you're looking for, but doesn't really sound to me like it's made by someone who sympathizes with Zarqawi and Bin Laden and their ilk.
Posted by: Phil Fraering ||
07/20/2005 22:31 Comments ||
Top||
#22
I like what I've hard about these two Iraqi TV shows. What about Moslems in the West? what do the "moderates" among them say and do in public?
BTW I am not assuming that Islamofascists are true to Islam. I'm listening to them, I've read the Koran, and I watch as nobody ever makes an argument based on the Koran against them. Lots of hand-waving, yes. But no argument based on reason, their tradition, or their scripture. None.
The moderate Moslem? It's been an illusion, so far. How much longer shall we hope?
#23
I just checked. It seems I counted the same TV show twice, and the title is "Terrorism in the Grip of Justice," not "Terrorists in the Grip of Justice."
So Iraq, which has lots of Moslems, is the good news.
(The bad news, IMHO, are guys like Red Ken, and the PIRA and FARC guys who seem to have found common cause with Zarqawi, despite not being Moslem.)
And Pakistan didn't get its nuclear bomb technology from a Moslem nation.
Posted by: Phil Fraering ||
07/20/2005 22:39 Comments ||
Top||
#24
More on Bakri's new website: The site carried a picture of the wreckage of the No 30 bus in Tavistock Square and condemned the fatwa against suicide bombs signed by 500 imams as âclear blasphemy against Islamâ.
Blasphemy entails death punishment under Islamic Law.
At first glance Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi may look like a western caricature of a fanatical Islamic preacher. But, but, he is the most well known and influential "moderate" imam in Arabia.
But the 79-year-old Egyptian is a contradictory, complex character, whose reputation is as hotly contested in the Arab world as it is in the West. One thing that is clear: the sheikh is one of the most influential men in modern Sunni Islam.
Through his weekly Sunday night spot on Al Jazeera, the Arabic satellite channel, as well as through his prolific use of the internet, his religious pronouncements touch the lives of tens of millions of Muslims every day. His TV show, Religion and Life, receives thousands of letters each week. Videotapes of old episodes are translated and sold as far away as Indonesia and Malaysia. Al Jazeera said yesterday it understood that the sheikh would be coming to Britain on Aug 7, if the British authorities let him. What did lying Red Ken say about the visit?
The sheikh belongs to a school of Islamic thinkers called the New and Improved! Now with 50% more wasabi wahabi. Islamists, who emerged in the 19th and 20th centuries. Faced with the awesome achievements of the industrialised West, the New Islamists tried to find different ways to interpret the Koran to encourage liberal democracy.
As a student in his native Egypt in the 1940s he studied under Hassan el-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, another well known moderate muslim who established the intellectual basis for violent anti-western Sunni Muslim groups, including al-Qa'eda. In the early 1950s he volunteered to fight the British occupation of the Suez Canal Thanks a lot Ike. Should have let the Brits grind this turd into the desert sands.
and in 1954 his connection to the Brotherhood led to the first of several arrests at the hands of the Egyptian authorities.
In 1962, the sheikh was sent by Cairo's al-Azhar University, where he had studied, to be the director of a religious institute in the Gulf state of Qatar. He remained in self-imposed exile in Qatar for the next four decades, where his religious pronouncements often bolstered the sweeping social reforms that have taken place in that country. His academic and media profile swelled until he became the spokesman that he is today.
Echoes of his youth can be heard in his passionate endorsement of Palestinian suicide bombers. In 2003 he issued a fatwa endorsing resistance in Iraq. At which time a LG bomb should have detonated in his mosque durng Friday prayers, to encourage the others.
The sheikh's reputation in the West was ruined and he had his American visa annulled.
Although much of what the sheikh says may be hard to stomach by western standards, by regional standards he is a moderate. Behold the moderate muslim!
He condemned the London bombings, just as he quickly condemned the September 11 attacks. in English. Each act of taqiyya entitles him to another virgin.
He has consistently said that Muslims need to think for themselves Luckily, all the answers are in the koran, which means they need be free of government control. This is not a message that goes down well with Arab governments.
Al-Qaradawi has written at least 50 books attempting to reconcile Islam with democracy and human rights and he is one of the most important proponents of women's rights in contemporary Islam.
All this is utterly at odds like the thumb is at odds with the forefinger with the teachings of fundamentalist imams, who see democracy and women's rights as alien concepts imported from the infidel West. He practises what he preaches: his three daughters are highly educated. Each one holds a doctoral degree in the natural sciences, drives and works.
Yusuf al-Qaradawi on:
Child bombers in Israel
The Israelis might have nuclear bombs but we have the children bomb and these human bombs must continue until liberation.
Killing Israeli civilians
We must all realise that the Israeli society is a military society - men and women. We cannot describe the society as civilian. . . they are not civilians or innocent.
Suicide bombing in Israel
It is not suicide; it is martyrdom in the name of God. I consider this type of martyrdom operation as an indication of the justice of Allah almighty. Allah is just. Through his infinite wisdom, he has given the weak what the strong do not possess and that is the ability to turn their bodies into bombs as the Palestinians do.
Jihad
We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America!
Non-believers
It has been determined by Islamic law that the blood and property of people of Dar Al-Harb (non-Muslims) is not protected. Because they fight against and are hostile towards the Muslims, they annulled the protection of his blood and his property. He's so moderate, I mistook him for an Episcopalian.
Posted by: ed ||
07/20/2005 10:19 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
If this a-hole is a moderate,what do they call a radical?
Sheeesh!
#4
What leads you to believe he didn't vote in the Washingotn State Governaor's race?
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
07/20/2005 12:20 Comments ||
Top||
#5
If this a-hole is a moderate,what do they call a radical?
1. moderates don't have explosives
2. moderates are ok with other muslims blowing themselves up, they just won't do it themselves or allow their own kids to blow themselves up
3. moderates will actually sympathize with westerners in public (though they curse them and consider themselves superior in private)
#7
I am so sick of two terms that have been completely overused in the press: Martyr and Insurgent. Martyrs are people who are killed rather than give up their beliefs, these guys are suicide/murderers. And Insurgents are local populations that rise up against an occupying force. The guys in Iraq are terrorists, not insurgents, as the majority of them are not Iraqi.
Posted by: BA ||
07/20/2005 15:13 Comments ||
Top||
The U.S. Army has an ambitious, and expensive, plan to replace much of its Cold War era weapons and gear with a new generation of stuff. Thatâs what the FCS (Future Combat Systems) is all about. FCS gets a lot of media attention because it promises to incorporate all sorts of neat new technology, and cost over a hundred billion dollars. While that sounds like a lot, itâs not when you consider that the current heavy weapons (armored vehicles, artillery) and other equipment (radios, and all sorts of electronics) are wearing out and will have to be replaced, even if the FCS project didnât exist. Four thousand new tanks, at a cost of $5 million each (current cost of an M1) is $20 billion. But new generations of gear rarely cost the same as the stuff they replace. So you can see how FCS grew into a hundred billion dollar baby.
While commentators, and critics, tend to concentrate on the ambitious proposals for new tanks and other armored vehicles, the true heart of FCS can be seen in every home and workplace in America. What the army wants is a battlefield Internet, with everyone from the individual infantryman, to the highest ranking general, tied into the same, real time, network. Moreover, the biggest problems with all of this are not hardware, but software. This battlefield network has to achieve a new level of reliability, because in combat, a system crash can be fatal to the user. The army is even building its own operating system (SOSCOE, short for âSystem of Systems Common Operating Environmentâ), in an effort to obtain an operating system less lethal than Microsoft Windows, and more reliable than Linux. Already, the software for the new digital radios is causing headaches, as is development of SOSCOE. This is where the real struggle to make FCS work will take place. But with a networked force, the army will be far more lethal, and far less likely to take casualties. This is already being proven in Iraq and Afghanistan, where prototype versions of FCS are in action.
There are some other new wrinkles in FCS. Aside from a new tank, infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) and self-propelled artillery (which, again, will be needed in the next decade or two anyway), there will be some new vehicle types. For example, the old command and control vehicles, which were customized IFVs with more radios and gadgets, will be even more customized, and available down to the company level (previously, battalion level.) In addition to a new armored ambulance (like the current one, based on an IFV, but without a turret), there will be a similar medical vehicle equipped for more extensive treatment of the wounded. Speed saves lives when it comes to treating the wounded. The battlefield Internet would allow the doctor in the treatment ambulance to get expert advice from other surgeons anywhere on the planet.
Another new armored vehicle (based on a rather more limited one used now) will be reconnaissance, surveillance and target acquisition armored vehicles, which will use the growing number of air and ground based sensors to find the enemy and immediately pass the information on to commanders and artillery and bombers.
Another growing category will be robots. Not only more UAVs and ground robots, but also âmulesâ (small, low slung, cargo carrying, golf cart like), which will have sensors and software that enable them to find their own way on the battlefield and, well, do the heavy lifting. Another battlefield robot will be autonomous mines that launch missiles, instead of top-attack anti-tank weapons (like the WAAM has been doing for over a decade). The new âIntelligent Munitions Systemsâ will be tied into a network and act as sensors as well as weapons. Combat robots are a major part of FCS that no one wants to talk about. Probably because combat robots are really, really scary, and the army doesnât want to take a lot of heat for the battle droids before it can show them succeeding in combat. That will happen in Iraq and Afghanistan before too long.
The individual infantryman is getting new weapons, commo gear, sensors and "wearable computers." FCS is also about radical changes for the way all troops operate.
So, when you see any coverage of FCS in the future, remember that the really important stuff is networking, software and combat robots. And don't forget that the army is taking advantage of all the fighting it is doing in Iraq and Afghanistan to implement FCS. The fighting causes equipment and weapons to be destroyed or worn out at a high rate. The new gear is often FCS class stuff. The army is also testing a lot of the FCS ideas in combat. This is nothing new, as wartime always creates a call for new ideas and equipment. The army had actually tested many of the basic FCS commo ideas before 911, or the Iraq invasion, so using the stuff in combat (like Blue Force Tracker and all the UAVs) simply allows the troops to perfect the ideas and gear. Thus FCS is more than the hundred billion dollar procurement contracts that Congress concentrates on. FCS is slowly evolving within the army right now.
#2
We are working on it. Scotty just got a better job offer, so we have been set back several years. PPCs look promising though.
(Particle Projection Cannons)
Two British research firms came out with studies on civilian deaths in Iraq, and concluded that some 25,000 Iraqi civilians had died since the coalition invasion in early 2003. The research was questionable, because it was based on English language news sources. Since the international media has been largely pro-Sunni Arab and against the removal of Saddam Hussein by force, the reporting of the war has emphasized stories that make the United States and its allies look bad. Naturally, this will exaggerate the number of civilian casualties. Reports like this only widen the gap between the reality on the ground (as reported by Iraqi media, and via email and blogs by soldiers and Iraqis), and an imaginary situation reported by foreign media.
One thing the British reports do bring up is the large role criminal gangs play in civilian losses over the last two years. Many of these gangs existed under Saddam , and it will be interesting to compare to the British report numbers to those that come out during the war crimes trials for Saddam Hussein and his cronies. Saddam used gangs and militias to terrorize the population and keep people in line. Many of these gangs survived the invasion intact and still support Saddam, and the forces trying to bring the Sunni Arabs back to power. However, few Iraqis, even Sunni Arabs, care for the criminal gangs. These guys are outlaws of the worst kind, quick to kill and commit any crime if it will make them some money.
While the activities of the criminal gangs is big news inside Iraq, it hardly gets any coverage by the foreign media. Iraqis know that the current violence is a result of the Sunni Arabs, in an alliance with Islamic radicals (al Qaeda and friends), to maintain Sunni rule in Iraq. The coalition invasion of 2003, and removal of Saddam's government, was only the opening battle in this war. But to many foreigners, the war is reported as an armed resistance to foreign occupation. That's a gross distortion of the actual situation. The Sunni Arabs are fighting to get the foreign troops out of Iraq, so that the Sunni Arabs will have a better chance of regaining control of the country.
The reality is that the use of American troops in Iraq is to enable the Kurds and Shia Arabs to build a strong enough force to deal with the Sunni Arabs, who have monopolized military and police power for decades. Oh, and we'd like to avoid a "pay-back" campaign by the Kurds and Shia Arabs. While that might make them feel good, slaughtering Iraqi Sunni Arabs on a large scale really plays into al Qaeda's hands. Another year or two, and the Iraqis will be able to police their problem, not massacre it.
Posted by: ed ||
07/20/2005 10:10 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 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.
Host: We heard the British Home Secretary say that what happened in London has nothing whatsoever to do with the British policies or Iraq. What do you have to say to him? 
The British government has reached an agreement with Jordan that will allow Britain to deport Jordanian terrorism suspects, a move that could lead to the explusion of so-called hate preachers, most immediately the Jordanian-Palestinian cleric 
KUALA LUMPUR, July 20 (Bernama) -- Indonesia, whose waters are prone to pirate attacks, will deploy four Japanese patrol vessels along its side of the Straits of Melaka by end of this year.
