Tehran, 29 June (AKI) - Qari Mohammed Yousuf, who was appointed spokesman for the Taliban in October 2005, has told the Tehran-based Fars news agency in an exclusive interview that Afghan militants are preparing a new offensive against the government of Hamid Karzai. "Anarchy reigns in the country and only we can be bring back stability," the spokesman told the news agency, considered close to Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The Iranian government tacitly supported the US-led coalition which removed the Taliban from power in late 2001 but Tehran's traditional hostility towards them appears to be changing.
The new Iranian government of president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who was elected last year, sees Karzai's cabinet as too pro-Western and the US and Western presence is now considered a threat by Tehran, which feels itself surrounded by US troops. This is perhaps why some Taliban leaders have reportedly moved to Iran in the past few weeks. The leaders could include Yousuf, who was appointed spokesman after the arrest of the Taliban's former media link, Latifullah Hakimi in the Pakistani city of Quetta in October 2005. Fars said the interview had been conducted outside Afghanistan and not in Pakistan.
Yousuf last year became the new spokesman along with two other militants. Abdul Hai Mutmain, culture and information chief for Kandahar during the Taliban regime, was named head of the media section. Another man commonly referred to as Dr Hanif was appointed with Yousuf as spokesman on militant activities. Mutmain said at the time they were appointed directly by Mullah Mohammad Omar, the leader of the Taliban.
In the interview to Fars, Yousuf describes the situation of forces loyal to president Karzai as "chaotic and out of control." "The United States have invaded Afghanistan and overthrown an authentic Muslim regime to replace it with a group of traitors and pro-Western servants who have no right to govern the country and are unable to do so," said the Taliban spokesman. Karzai's government, Yousuf told Fars, is acting at the behest of the West and "has organized presidential and parliamentary elections, tribal assemblies and meetings while pursuing only one objective, the de-Islamization of Afghan society to transform the country in a land to be conquered." However, he added, "the Afghans have uncovered their plot to destroy the country and, as they did with the Russians in the past, this time too they have reacted with courage and strength kicking Western invaders out."
The Taliban spokesman went on to tell the Iranian agency that "Western invaders" have already been "punished by Allah" defining the September 11 terror attacks on the united States as a "divine punishment" and a "response of the Islamic community to the anti-Muslim plots of the United States."
After claiming that the US are "responsible for all the evils and disgraces that afflict Muslim societies" and that Washington had planned its military intervention in Afghanistan before September 11, Yousuf denied that the Taliban played a role in the attacks on New York's Twin Towers and the Pentagon. "The Taliban have never carried out an initiative out of Afghanistan's borders and aren't even capable of such attacks," he said. The spokesman also denied that Mullah Omr was aware of al-Qaeda's plan against the US. "We gave hospitality to a group of Muslim brothers who were at the time in a difficult situation," he said. "We did it in the name of Muslim charity and don't feel therefore in the least responsible for their plots and actions."
Though he distanced the Taliban from the September 11 attacks, Yousuf however justified them saying that "if the Islamic ulema authorized such actions, they had their good reasons." "It is not my role but that of the ulema to indicate the means and roads to vindicate the wrongs suffered by the Islamic community." "The fact that only few ulemas condemned these attacks means that Al-Qaeda's strategy is not that wrong."
Posted by: Steve ||
06/29/2006 08:47 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
In the interview to Fars, Yousuf describes the situation of forces loyal to president Karzai as "chaotic and out of control."
which is why you're hiding in a foreign land, right, pussy?
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/29/2006 9:58 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Hey Yousuf, where are you going to go after your stint as the Talibunny spokesthug? I'm going to Yale!
Posted by: Captain America ||
06/29/2006 10:05 Comments ||
Top||
More Middle East countries should follow this example ...
KUWAIT CITY - Kuwaits Shias, around a third of the native population of the Sunni-ruled emirate, are vying to ensure their votes in Thursdays legislative elections do not serve extremist Sunni candidates, a former minister said on Wednesday. Naturally, the Shias want to be represented by Shiite deputies, Ali Al Baghli, former oil minister and a member of the Kuwaiti Association of Human Rights, told AFP.
But if this is not possible, they would prefer to be represented by liberal Sunnis and not fundamentalists, he said. The Salafists (a fundamentalist Sunni current) deny the others their rights and accuse them of apostasy, which is totally in contradiction with the constitution, said Baghli, himself a Shiite and a former MP.
That's pretty much what Salafists do. And behead people.
In constituencies where there are no Shiite candidates, Shiite voters will definitely cast their ballots in favour of liberal, independent and moderate (Sunni) candidates, in order to deprive the Salafists of these votes, he said.
But Baghli underlined fears of a dispersion of the votes of his community in districts with a high Shiite density and many Shiite candidates. The Shias do not form one tribe or one current. Some are moderates, while others are extremists. It is not like in tribes, where all votes go to one candidate, he said. Votes could thus be scattered between many (Shiite) candidates without ensuring the victory of any of them, serving a Salafist candidate who would also gather the majority of Sunni votes in the district, he added.
We used to have the 'bullet vote' in Illinois; something the Kuwaitis might want to implement (in a way) for the Salafists ...
Both Baghli and Mahri believe that Shias could gain six out of the 50 seats up for grabs on Thursday. The outgoing parliament had five Shiite MPs. The outgoing government, which should resign on Saturday after the expected announcement of the election results, included two Shiite ministers -- Yussef Al Zalzalah (commerce and industry) and Maasouma Al Mubarak (planning).
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/29/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#3
Bullet vote explained: in Illinois we had, at one time, 59 legislative districts, from which we elected one senator and two legislators. When you voted for the House, you got three votes, which you could apply as you wished -- all to one candidate or split as you want between two or three candidates. The Doinks and the Pubs would each (generally) put up two candidates for each district. This was the 'bullet' vote, and you could vote three times for the same person legally!
Of course, if you lived in Chicago your precinct captain managed to collect all the unused bullet votes and put them to good use.
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/29/2006 9:54 Comments ||
Top||
Tony Blair is ready to announce that he will step down next year, probably around his 10th anniversary in Downing Street in May. Senior Blairite MPs said that high-level discussions were going on to prepare for a transition to an expected Gordon Brown premiership. If Mr Blair announced a timetable at or shortly before Labour's annual conference at the end of September it would defuse the growing restlessness in the party over the succession. Mr Blair could use the conference to acclaim his record while paving the way for a new leader to take on the challenge of the rejuvenated Conservative Party led by David Cameron.
Yesterday the Prime Minister brushed aside Charles Clarke's accusation that the Government was lacking leadership and direction. He described the former home secretary as "a disappointed man" and rejected claims that the attack could hasten his exit from No 10.
He dismissed suggestions that the attack was Mr Clarke's "Geoffrey Howe moment", a reference to events that brought about Margaret Thatcher's downfall in 1990. He described it as "surface noise" that governments always faced. "What we should do is just calm down, hold and get on with governing," he said. Labour MPs feel certain that Mr Blair has made up his mind to go next spring. Everybody at No 10 believes that he will be gone within a year and acknowledges that power and authority is haemorrhaging away.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/29/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Godspeed, Tony, however it works out. You were a true friend to us in a time of need.
The BBC has rejected a call made by an independent panel studying charges of bias in its coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to change its editorial policies on the use of the word "terrorist" and appoint a senior editor to oversee its Middle East coverage.
Using the word "terrorist" to describe attacks on civilians, BBC management argued in a paper released June 19, would make the "very value judgments" it had been asked to eschew.
An independent panel in May found the BBC's reporting from Israel did "not consistently constitute a full and fair account of the conflict but rather, in important respects, presents an incomplete and in that sense misleading picture." However, the 38-page report commissioned by the BBC's governors to "assess whether the BBC's coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict meets the required standards of impartiality" found that apart from "individual lapses" there "was little to suggest systematic or deliberate bias" in its reporting.
The panel found that BBC reporting displayed "gaps in coverage, analysis, context and perspective" and failed to "maintain consistently the BBC's own established editorial standards, including on language." They recommended a senior manager be appointed to oversee BBC coverage of the Middle East, that its reporting provide a "full and fair" account of the "complexities" of the conflict, that its complaints procedure be revised, and that it reform its use of language.
The report chided the BBC over its reluctance to use the word "terrorist" or "terrorism" and recommended it describe violent attacks upon civilians that had the intent of causing terror for political or ideological reasons "whether perpetrated by state or non-state agencies" as "terrorism."
The BBC's Board of Governors "welcomed the finding of no deliberate or systematic bias" noting, "most viewers and listeners" in the UK "regard the BBC as unbiased." However, they said they had "not been persuaded to change the Editorial Guidelines" on the use of the word "terrorist."
Using the word "terrorist" in the manner defined by the panel, BBC management argued, "would exclude attacks on soldiers" and would make "the very value judgments" the Editorial Guidelines "ask us to avoid." The BBC management stated that they do permit the use of the word "terrorist," but cautioned its reporters "against its use without attribution."
However, appointing a senior manager to provide "more secure editorial planning, grip and oversight" in its Middle East coverage would add an extra layer of management that "could undermine the independence and accountability of BBC editors."
To improve its coverage the BBC stated it would appoint a correspondent to cover the West Bank and give its current Middle East editor a greater role "in helping to formulate the BBC's overall coverage strategy." Monthly editorial meetings will now be held to oversee thematic coverage of the region.
The BBC conceded that more could be done to "explain the complexities of the conflict" and tackle its viewers' "high level of incomprehension." To help give perspective and context to the conflict the BBC news Web site will launch a podcast series entitled "Undercurrent Affairs" focusing on the region.
Trevor Asserson, director of BBCWatch, however, noted the only way for the BBC to put "its house in order" was to "improve its systems; senior editors must be given the responsibility of systematically imposing impartiality and an independent complaints system must be set up that tells the BBC when it fails."
#2
Wel whoop de do - the BBC is afraid of making "very value judgements". This sort of stuff incenses me - yes I pay for the bloody 'licence fee', but mainly watch cable!
The BBC conceded that more could be done to "explain the complexities of the conflict" and tackle its viewers' "high level of incomprehension." To help give perspective and context to the conflict the BBC news Web site will launch a podcast series entitled "Undercurrent Affairs" focusing on the region.
Yes, I have a 'high level of incomprehension' when I hear of a pregnant woman kiled and then shot in the stomach...
And great, a podcast, with one of those utterly annoying BBC nobodies, chosen for the 'diversity' rather than any semblence of talent or intelligence.
The good news is that there's an increasing chance that the conservatives will win the next election, and they are *not* happy about the very obvious left-wing bias in the BBC.
Posted by: Tony (UK) ||
06/29/2006 2:05 Comments ||
Top||
#3
We had a similar problem with The ABC in Oz. The Howard government threatened to cut their funding if they didn't rein in their biased reporting.
It worked but only for Oz domestic issues. They are still wildly biased on international issues. I hardly ever listen to or watch the ABC.
Probably thelast time I watched an ABC current affairs show. There was wildly biased piece of President Bush bashing. They then had an American on, suposedly to give balance and he continued in the same vein. Out of curiosity I googled his name and the institute he worked for, turns out he was a full time employee of the Democrat party.
#4
If someone were to target BBC staff in the same way, you can bet your ass these fuckers would call them terrorists faster than you could say "fucking leftie scum"
#6
I don't remember the Beeb having a problem using the 't' word when it was white people committing terrorist acts or white people being shot in anti-terrorism raids. Paddy and Seamus would have loved the Beeb's current attitude.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
06/29/2006 8:38 Comments ||
Top||
#7
'tis true Howard, 'tis true. After much committee we and the lads have decided we like the BBC to refer us as Irish Insurgents or Catholic extremists, that whole "terrorist" label was just too biased like. Begora, clearly anyone who puts a bomb in a crowded mall amongst innocent people is just an insurgent.
#10
If the terrs, by some inexplicable accident, should ever set-off a carBOOM too close to BBC H.Q. with the subsequent deaths of several BEEB employees, would the outlet change it's tune?
#11
Terrorism is a tactics of attacking civilians to achieve political ends. Terrorists are those that use that tactic.
There really is no bias to either term (as opposed to goat-screwing psycho murders), the term terrorist is very descriptive and the BBC really shows their true colors with this nonsense.
When will someone invent a javascript/cookie that allows an automatic find and replace on certain websites so the BBC can be read without mindnumbing pain? Even the dullest stories could become funny with the proper replace.
#15
Ah Blondie, ya wee lass, the lads and us have decided after much deliberation and a few pints of Guinness mind yee, on the "Almighty Super Secret Hibernian Order and Liberators of Erin" (ASSHOLE). That would be our official title, our nickname to the Brit bastards who will come to fear us will be the Almighty Shillelagh's of Death(tm)! In the arsenal we've already put together three shotguns, two pair of brass knuckles, an old luger great-uncle Declan had from the war and an ultra-light for air reconoitering!
A big majority of Germans are against allowing Turkey to join the European Union, a poll published on Thursday showed.
Some 63 per cent of Germans oppose giving Turkey EU membership, said the Emnid Institute poll conducted for a magazine published by the Greenpeace environmental group.
People living in former communist eastern Germany were more pro- Turkey, with 51 per cent opposing Ankara's EU membership compared to 65 per cent in western Germany.
The biggest reason for rejecting Turkey joining the EU is "fear of a growing influence of Islam in Europe," the poll revealed. Fears of high costs of subsidizing Turkish membership and expected Turkish migration were also top reasons cited for rejecting Turkey as a possible EU member.
Germans have reversed their views on Turkish EU membership in recent years, a statement issued with the poll said. A similar survey in December 2002 showed 60 per cent of Germans backing Turkish EU membership.
#3
I'd bet that in the next 20 years you're a lot less likely to see Turkey IN than all Europe's seething Muzzy bastards OUT. And those will be the lucky ones who escape the long-overdue retribution.
Posted by: mac ||
06/29/2006 18:03 Comments ||
Top||
The Dutch cabinet was in crisis talks on Thursday as a row over the citizenship of Somali-born politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali led to calls for the dismissal of Rita Verdonk, the hard-line immigration minister.
D66, the junior member of a three-party centre-right ruling coalition said it would quit the government leaving it to govern as a minority or call a snap general election - unless Mrs Verdonk resigned.
The threat came as politicians sought to establish whether Ms Hirsi Ali was put under pressure to sign a declaration accepting blame for the passport affair, thereby vindicating Mrs Verdonk.
Verdonk is a huge liability at this point.
Six weeks ago Mrs Verdonk threatened to strip Ms Hirsi Ali of her citizenship because she gave a false name and age when she applied for asylum in the Netherlands in 1992. That meant her naturalisation five years later was unlawful, Mrs Verdonk said.
but in fact, using her grandfather's name can be construed as legal since it is one tradition in Somalia
Ms Hirsi Ali resigned her seat with the VVD party, to which Mrs Verdonk also belongs, and brought forward the date of a planned departure to the US, where she has been offered a job with the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think-tank.
The affair caused international outrage and embarrassment for the government.
Foreign media branded the Netherlands intolerant and accused it of expelling Ms Hirsi Ali. She had renounced her Muslim faith to campaign against radical Islam, and scripted the film Submission whose director Theo van Gogh was murdered, triggering death threats that forced her into hiding.
Ordered by the government and parliament to resolve the affair, Mrs Verdonk on Tuesday said Ms Hirsi Ali could keep her passport. Inquiries had established that she was entitled to use the name Ali which was her grandfathers name. The question of her age was of minor concern.
Mrs Verdonk survived a motion of no-confidence, with the support of her own free-market VVD and the Christian Democrat Alliance party of premier Jan Peter Balkenende, in an all-night parliamentary debate which finished at 5.30am on Thursday. That did not satisfy D66, which insisted that Mrs Verdonk resign anyway. The cabinet was in crisis talks to try to resolve the situation on Thursday afternoon. Both the CDA and VVD parties back Mrs Verdonk.
Ms Hirsi Ali had told the VVD in 2002 prior to her selection as an MP, that she had given a false name in her asylum application. Gerrit Zalm, deputy prime minister and a VVD politician, has confirmed he was aware of her status.
However in her declaration this week, Ms Hirsi Ali said she regretted misleading Mrs Verdonk who she said could not have known the facts.
She later told Dutch television she had signed the declaration for pragamatic reasons because resolving the issue speedily was much more important for me than a bit of pride.
Wouter Bos, leader of PvdA called the affair a white-wash. The minister behaved shamefully in order to save face, he said. Femke Halsema, leader of the Green Party which tabled the no-confidence motion, called Mrs Verdonk's actions an "abuse of power".
Mrs Verdonk, a former deputy prison warden, refuted the suggestions. However her cause was not helped when Mr Balkenende told parliament the declaration had to be expressed in terms that Mrs Verdonk could live with. He later withdrew that comment, which he said had been misunderstood.
#3
The cabinet has fallen. Strange how immigration is both an issue in Europe as it is in the USA. On both sides Corporates favour the immigration as it increases the cheap work labour and increases the number of consumers. In Europe immigration has brought and is still increasing the influence of Islam in Europe. We will see further islamification of the Netherlands if the socialist will come in power after the coming elections. Demographically the larger Dutch cities (Amsterdam, Rotterdam) will have muslim majorities in the next 10 years.
In an emotional show of defiance against the outside world, the Serb Prime Minister has insisted that Kosovo will always belong to the Serbs.
You can always count on the Serbs
Vojislav Kostunica made his declaration outside a 14th century monastery on Wednesday, the holiday of Vidovdan or St Vitus' Day when Serbs remember a centuries-old battle.
Does anyone hold a grudge longer than a Serb?
He spoke to an anxious crowd of about 1000, some of the few Serbs remaining in the province since NATO invaded in 1999 to rescue the Albanian majority. "Kosovo has always been and always will be part of Serbia," he said to cheers in the town of Gracanica, in a Serb enclave of Kosovo. However, he emphasised his "willingness to talk, to negotiate and to compromise".
Serbia is in the midst of a diplomatic offensive aimed at retaining sovereignty over the province, which it regards as the cradle of the nation. Mr Kostunica, a nationalist but also a sincere democrat, has just been in London to meet British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Belgrade's offer of autonomy has failed to attract any support from the 90 per cent Albanian population, who are increasingly frustrated at their lack of progress towards full independence.
The Serb Government has been accused by the UN, which administers the province, of promoting ethnic tensions in an attempt to hang on to Kosovo.
Serbia - promoting ethnic tension since 1400
On the grimmest day in the Serb calendar, one Bosnian Serb recalled his nation's epic defeat more than 600 years ago as if it occurred within his memory. "We were defending all of Europe, trying to save Christianity," Dejan said of the 14th-century battle of Kosovo, at which the Balkans fell to the Turks. "We were betrayed."
"We was robbed!"
Montenegro abandoned its union with Serbia last month and declared independence. Kosovo is also being taken away. The country's negotiations to join the European Union have been suspended. The country is at a crossroads.
Posted by: Steve ||
06/29/2006 10:31 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
The incitement to hatred of Islam should be considered a crime against humanity, Turkeys Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said in a speech before the Council of Europe in Strasbourg yesterday.
Just as anti-Semitism is a crime against humanity, so should Islamophobia be regarded, Erdogan said. Erdogan warned against the growing phobia against Islam and foreigners in the world in which we Muslims feel increasingly under siege.
Referring to the row over blasphemous cartoons that were originally printed in a Danish newspaper, he said freedom of expression should not be confused with the freedom to insult.
The row showed not only a lack of respect for religious convictions, but was also a sign of a growing and dangerous polarization between the Western and Islamic world. The Turkish prime minister called on Western countries to integrate the Muslims living among them to a much greater degree.
With a (Muslim) population of between 10 and 25 percent in Europes largest cities, it is important to follow a policy of social integration to ensure a peaceful coexistence, Erdogan said. This was a great challenge that could, however, be overcome with the joint efforts of the host countries and Muslim communities.
Erdogan did not deal with questions from members of the European Parliament about the protection of human rights and religious minorities within Turkey. The parliamentary session of the Council of Europe was debating a decision on freedom of expression and religious tolerance in connection with Erdogans visit.
Meanwhile, the Turkish Parliament voted late Tuesday to contribute 17 soldiers and a C- 130cargo plane to a European military force that will police the first free elections in the Democratic Republic of Congo, parliamentary sources said yesterday.
According to the motion that was voted unanimously, the soldiers will serve in the African country from July 30to Nov. 30 to provide air defense and are expected home before the end of the year. This will be Turkeys first European military operation outside the scope of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, of which it is a member, Defense Minister Vecdi Gonul told Parliament.
In another development, Turkish police said yesterday they had detained two more people over the killing of a senior judge last month which shocked the country and fuelled tensions between the government and secularists.
Yes, we have detained two people over the Danistay attack and we are still questioning them, an anti-terror police official at Ankaras police headquarters told Reuters. He declined to comment on the identity of the two men.
#2
The incitement to hatred of Islam should be considered a crime against humanity... One has to ask, "Who is responsible for the terrorism going on in the world? Who is performing atrocities? Who is beheading soldiers and innocents? Who killed more than 3000 U.S. citizens on 9/11. Who blew up the subways in GB and Spain? The list goes on and on and on and on. It is they who are commiting crimes against humanity. It is they who hate everything and everybody in the West. It is they who want to take over the world and make it over in their image. The islamofacists are doing it to themselves--they need no help.
#5
I'm guilty as charged. However, I became an Islamophobe by simply watching the news. For punishment, shouldn't I be allowed to blast a mosque with an m60 or something until I feel better ?
#9
Isn't a phobia where you have a fear of something? I'm not afraid of muslims, I just hate their f*cking religion and their f*cking culture. Other then that, their okay by me. Maybe "islamohater" is the right term. I'm sure someone here can think up a real pity one.
#11
By extension, the logical step would require that every Saudi Muslim World League sponsored mosque and madarass around the world be closed for inciting hatred against every non-Muslim (and Shia, too), right?
#12
Islamophobia is a crime against humanity. So is being a werewolf or vampire. Now that we're done talking about mythical conditions, let's consider reality.
A phobia is an unreasoning fear of something, like that of heights or enclosed spaces or cats. Ask the people in the WTC if there is nothing to fear from Islam.
#15
If they're so upset about Islamophobia then they need to direct their outrage at the people who cause it. Turkey talks tough against the PUK nutters but they do almost nothing while their neighbor to the South is struggling between becoming a Nation - a nation that Islamic people can be proud of - and devolving into the kind of chaos and violence that Islamophobes assume is the default position of Islamic countries.
#20
What a stupid argument PM Erdogan makes. It isn't antisemitism that's a crime against humanity, nor even acting on it in everyday life, like any other stupid prejudice that people act on. The crime against humanity is that the Nazis attempted murder all the Jews in the territory they controlled, an action heartily cheered by the Arab leadership then, and which they desire to reprise in their own part of the world now.
Mr. Erdogan's argument is as facile as the Arabs' claim that they can't possibly be antisemites when they are a semitic people themselves, completely ignoring the history of the term.
#23
With a (Muslim) population of between 10 and 25 percent in Europes largest cities, it is important to follow a policy of social integration to ensure a peaceful coexistence, Erdogan said.
IE "You'd better behave, kufrs, and become good lil' dhimmis in the new soon-to-be Eurabia (in full effect as soon as turkey joins the EU), or else!"
#4
"And i pray to Allah my sons follow his footsteps Ameeen [Amen]," she writes at the on-line forum she founded for Muslim teens in Mississauga's Meadowvale area. Her avatar -- an on-line symbol used to indicate personality -- is a picture of the Koran and a rifle.
#5
"[And] if he ever refuses a clear opportunity to leave for jihad, then i want the choice of divorce," she wrote in one of more than 6,000 Internet postings uncovered by The Globe and Mail.
#6
I'm starting to wonder if these jihadi wives are so supportive of the terrorist aspirations of their husbands precisely because they prefer being widows. Forget about those that have undergone clitorectomies or infibulation for a moment-let's take the best case scenarios of intact Muslim women who become wives. Which is better, being married to Muslim men who view you as a breeding machine, are clueless about female anatomy (because they aren't allowed to look at it or learn about it) and are fearful and disgusted about female sexual satisfaction, or being a widow which provides you permanent victimhood status as well as "family of a martyr" status, forever obligating the umma to give you sympathy, reverence and perhaps even a financial payout?
#7
Just affirms the fact that these scumbags should not be allowed into western societies. Their only goal is to tear down hundreds of years of progress. Remove these assholes while we can.
#10
"But Ms. Farooq -- the Karachi-born daughter of a pharmacist who now hands out prescription medicine to soldiers at the Canadian Forces Base in Wainwright, Alta."
Another reason we should shun the Canadian health care system. Sure makes ya feel secure, don't it?
Washington, D.C. House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today following the United States Supreme Court decision that trying Guantanamo detainees before military commissions violates U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions:
Todays Supreme Court decision reaffirms the American ideal that all are entitled to the basic guarantees of our justice system. This is a triumph for the rule of law.
The rights ofdue process are among our most cherished liberties, and todays decision is a rebuke of the Bush Administrations detainee policiesand a reminder of our responsibility to protect both the American people and our Constitutional rights. We cannot allow the values on which our country was founded to become a casualty in the war on terrorism.
Any questions?
Posted by: Captain America ||
06/29/2006 17:56 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
so help me God, she's a blithering bug-eyed idiot
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/29/2006 18:06 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Incontinence. Reid has already said he wants to proceed with a legislative work-around of the decision. Of course the grown-ups will have to weed out the stupidity his side of the aisle will try to insert, but at least he didn't pull this idiocy.
#5
The rights of due process are among our most cherished liberties . . ."
How about the "right to life" (and I'm not even talking in an abortion sense. I'm talking "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" sense)? Seems pretty important to me. If these terrorist @ssclowns are set free, our lives could be in danger.
Posted by: Tibor ||
06/29/2006 18:46 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Tranzi Credo: Everyone should have full US citizen rights.
Taliban, al Qaeda, illegal combatants, illegal aliens, Olde Yuropeons, pretty much everybody - except those icky New Yurpeons. She'd like them to have the right to vote in US elections, especially.
#8
The U.S. Constitution is for U.S. Citizens period. It tells the government what the extent of it's powers are period. I'm starting to think we're not always shooting the right nutjobs.
God! Why do you put so many worthless stupid f*king morons on the planet at the same time!?
by Andrew Cochran (bio here, 2d item), Counterterrorism Blog
The news networks are proclaiming that the Supreme Court handed the President a "strong rebuke" in the Hamdan case by declaring the proposed Gitmo trials are illegal under U.S. law and international Geneva conventions.
Oh, really?
The decision is actually a huge political gift to President Bush, and the detainees will not be released that easily. The President and GOP leaders will propose a bill to override the decision and keep the terrorists in jail until they are securely transferred to host countries for permanent punishment. The Administration and its allies will release plenty of information on the terrorist acts committed by the detainees for which they were detained (see this great ABC News interview with the Gitmo warden). They will also release information about those terrorist acts committed by Gitmo prisoners after they were released. They will challenge the "judicial interference with national security" and challenge dissenting Congressmen and civil libertarians to either stand with the terrorists or the American people. The Pentagon will continue to release a small number of detainees as circumstances allow. The bill will pass easily and quickly. And if the Supremes invalidate that law, we'll see another legislative response, and another, until they get it right. Just watch.
Posted by: Mike ||
06/29/2006 12:44 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Hopefully, otherwise the ACLU and other terrorist supporters will gridlock our legal process for the next 150 years.
#2
And the terrorists will wait the 150 years for a ruling before they can go to trial. Happy camping for all at GITMO. As far as I'm concerned they can rot while we figure it out. This debate should have happened three years ago and moved beyond the politics. We need to insure our constitution supports events like this. The ACLU and other anti-American hate groups aside, we need to clean this up and get back on the moral high ground. If GITMO is not legal the send them back to Afghanistan and shoot them in a firing squad. That "IS" legal.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
06/29/2006 13:16 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Seems pretty simple to me....they are NOT subject to our laws OR to the Geneva Conventions PERIOD. Release for target practice in my mind. Of course, I'm not an ACLU attorney, so I don't know all the "nuances" of this issue, LOL.
Posted by: BA ||
06/29/2006 13:39 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Mike -- you got ahead of the press! Just lifted this from Michelle's place:
U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) today issued the following statement on the U.S. Supreme Courts ruling on the Hamdan case:
"We are disappointed with the Supreme Courts decision. However, we believe the problems cited by the Court can and should be fixed.
"It is inappropriate to try terrorists in civilian courts. It threatens our national security and places the safety of jurors in danger. For those reasons and others, we believe terrorists should be tried before military commissions.
"In his opinion, Justice Breyer set forth the path to a solution of this problem. He wrote, Nothing prevents the president from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary.
"We intend to pursue legislation in the Senate granting the Executive Branch the authority to ensure that terrorists can be tried by competent military commissions. Working together, Congress and the administration can draft a fair, suitable, and constitutionally permissible tribunal statute."
#5
Lindsay Graham once again proves RINOs can come from the South.
Congress passed a law that clearly stated the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction for this or any other Gitmo case. That's what Scalia's dissent focuses on. If the court is going to rule for the terrorists on that, they will surely do so again when the ACLU points out all the defects in the new legislation Graham suggests.
However, no one must be brought to trial pursuant to this ruling. Bush has the option of keeping the terrs at Gitmo till the cessation of hostilities, something that will take 40+ years in my estimation. However, I would take one or two of the craziest, most vicious terrs and try them in civilian courts if that's what the SCOTUS thinks should happen. Tell the U. S. Marshalls Service to provide standard security to the court, no more, no less and let the circus begin.
#6
I wouldn't trust "Opie" Graham with anything of value, much less the granting of the al Qaeda Bill of Rights.
Start with Opie's comment on CNN about "working with Congress to make this commendable to the world"
Posted by: Captain America ||
06/29/2006 14:42 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Nimble: RINO? Senator Graham may be a RINO, or not, but I don't think that statement is particular evidence of RINOism. It looks to me like a perfectly rational response--Judge Bryer thinks the current statute doesn't authorize military tribunals, so we'll pass something that clearly does authorize them ("The Clue Bat Act of 2006" maybe?). I think this a good idea for several reasons:
1. As the article points out, it's a political winner. It'll be fun to see liberal Congresscritters who are facing re-election (*cough* Murtha! *cough) contort themselves while explaining that they oppose the bill, but that doesn't mean that they support civil rights for enemy terrorists.
2. The bill is going to pass, and will thereby abrogate the Geneva Convention with respect to the Gitmo bad guys. (When a treaty and statute conflict, last in time controls.)
3. Sure, it'll be challeneged in court, but by the time it gets to SCOTUS, there could well be a change in personnel. At the very least, the SCOTUS (or the mushy moderates thereon) can itself be quite sensitive to the political winds.
Posted by: Mike ||
06/29/2006 14:46 Comments ||
Top||
#8
On the plus side, the donks are already excited about running the 2006 mid-term elections with the bumper sticker "We, the Democratic Party affirm the rights of terrorists who want to kill innocent civilians to be treated equally with all US citizens"
Bela Pelosi has already praised the decision.
Posted by: Captain America ||
06/29/2006 14:46 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Well, to mis-quote Andy Jackson:
"The Court has made it's decision. Now let's see 'em resurrect this dead terrorist bastard here."
Put up the law for a vote. It puts the Dems SQUARELY on the spot - support the President and GTMO, or side with the terrorists. Side with the president and piss off the kos-inspired nutroot base, or side with the nutroot base and hand your opponent a key issue to beat you with.
#12
Mike's right about the Court. This is, at worst, a slight trimming of the power of the Executive branch. After Congress passes a law specifically authorizing what's going on and the President signs it you'll see at least a couple of votes swing the other way.
Personally I'm very worried about the Senate. This is a political gift but only if the Senate has the willpower to remove the wrapping paper. Given their behavior the past couple of years I see no reason to be optimistic. And if legislation should fail to materialize or if said legislation really does turn into something akin to an Al Qaeda Bill of Rights this will be a disasterous political situation.
#13
The Supreme Court acts like these sonofbitch terrorists have the same rights as American citizens. These terrorists would kill any of us in a heartbeat--they don't care whether you are a Supreme Court justice or a MSM reporter or the NYTs or the ACLU or a left-wing demo or one of the other variety of moonbats .
#14
I don't see the any eventual law reversing this decision. Certainly a law will be proposed, but since the president made his initial decision, things have changed.
That is, *some* of what he wants may pass, but he doesn't want all of what he had. On top of that, there is *new* stuff, to be added to the bill, that was not part of the original decision.
The spin will be on one side that he got what he wanted, true; and on the other that he lost, because he didn't get what he used to have, which is a half-truth.
#15
seems to me that they simply have to change the wording of the law from:
"...[N]o court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba."
to
"... Notwithstanding any other provision of any other law, domestic or otherwise, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba."
#16
Get that legislation going quick! Murtha won't have to squirm if it hits after he's voted out!
Can this be timed just right?
Posted by: grb ||
06/29/2006 17:02 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Check out the "Another Reading" post - looks promising, actually
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/29/2006 17:44 Comments ||
Top||
#18
leave off the words "at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.", the focus is too narrow, then you're just opening the same can of worms if another Prison other than Guantanamo is used.
Instead simply stop at the phrase (detained by the Department of Defense ) and it's much clearer.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
06/29/2006 20:10 Comments ||
Top||
#19
Allowing al Qaeda to be covered under the Geneva Convention is a freaking joke. Justice Kennedy and crew are full of shit.
Posted by: Captain America ||
06/29/2006 23:17 Comments ||
Top||
While United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has already dismissed the Oil-for-Food scandal as over and done, within the wood-paneled walls of a Manhattan courtroom it has just come to life. The opening this week of the first federal trial linked to the U.N.s former relief program for Iraq has transformed the distant saga of sanctions busting and stolen billions into an up-close drama, with prosecutors alleging that Saddam Hussein, in his efforts to shake off U.N. sanctions, reached via a secret back channel all the way from Baghdad right into Washington, New York, and the U.N. executive suite.
The defendant, South Korean businessman Tongsun Park, is charged in the Southern District of New York with acting as an unregistered agent of Saddams Iraq which tried through various means, especially the manipulation of the 1996-2003 Oil-for-Food program, to end the U.N. sanctions imposed after Saddams 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Parks lawyer, Michael Kim, says the 71-year-old Park is absolutely not guilty.
Whatever the outcome for Park, his trial expected to last about three weeks looks likely to provide an unprecedented view into the workings of U.N. backroom politics. Not least, this comes as a timely warning to beware whatever might be going on today in any back channels the U.N. might have opened with nuclear-happy, sanctions-threatened, oil-rich Iran.
In an opening statement Tuesday, federal prosecutor Michael Farbiarz told the jury that Iraqi agents had been working since 1991 to try to eliminate the sanctions, to try and create a major exception to them on the way to wholesale elimination. For five years, Iraq worked without success. But starting in 1996, alleged Farbiarz, The Iraqi cash began flowing to Tongsun Park. It flowed all year long. Sure enough, by the end of that year the Iraqis got their multibillion dollar exception to the UN sanctions, the so-called Oil-for-Food program.
Alleging that Cash by the bagful was sent from Iraq to the United States and doled out here by an Iraqi agent to Tongsun Park, Farbiarz outlined a tale of secret swaps of messages and money in New York cafes and restaurants; night-time meetings at the Sutton Place official residence of former Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali; a close encounter with longtime U.N. eminence Maurice Strong, who served as a top adviser to both Boutros-Ghali and then to Kofi Annan; and an episode in which Park in 1997 picked up cash from Saddams number two man in Iraq, Tariq Aziz, and drove out of the Iraqi desert over the Jordanian border. (Boutros-Ghali, Strong, and Annan have all denied any wrong-doing in relation to Oil-for-Food.)
Parks lawyer, Kim, waved aside the prosecutions version of events as sounding like a Tom Clancy novel. Park, he said, was simply a middleman, a facilitator, like everybody else who was involved in the Oil-for-Food program. Positing that the bigger picture was much more complicated than prosecutors would have you believe, Kim promised to map out a web of connections including prominent Republicans who hob-nobbed with the same Iraqi agent alleged to have passed envelopes and bags of cash to Park, and Texas oil companies that saw in Oil-for-Food a huge money-making opportunity.
The biggest eye-opener in the trial so far is the hob-nobbing Iraqi agent, Samir Vincent, 65-years-old, with a shock of silver-gray hair, who on Tuesday took the stand. Born in Baghdad, Vincent became a naturalized U.S. citizen around 1971. Having done substantial business with Iraq over the years, including under Oil-for-Food, he was arrested in January 2005 on federal charges including engaging in prohibited financial transactions with the government of Iraq, and acting as an unregistered agent of Iraq. He pleaded guilty before the same judge now presiding over the Park trial, Denny Chin, and became a cooperating witness.
Speaking in a firm voice, with only a slight accent to suggest his Iraqi origins, Vincent in his testimony on Tuesday outlined a web of connections that led him over many years, via Baghdad and Washington, to Tongsun Park. He came to the U.S. in the late 1950s to attend Boston College, and eventually went into business for himself, in Virginia, just outside Washington. In 1984, he met the then-ambassador of Iraq, Nizar Hamdoon, an alumnus of the same Jesuit high school that Vincent had attended as a young man in Baghdad. They became good friends. Vincent began doing business with Iraq, where Hamdoon by 1990 had become deputy foreign minister. Vincent was in Baghdad when Saddam invaded Kuwait and the U.N. imposed sanctions. In the aftermath, Vincent by his own account became a conduit for messages and money from Baghdad, as Saddams regime sought to slip out from under those sanctions.
In the early 1990s, according to Vincent, this entailed a variety of schemes centered in Washington that simply flopped. In early 1992, he said, he hooked up with a Washington lobbyist, William E. Timmons, who had served as a congressional liaison in the Reagan administration. (Timmons did not return a call yesterday to his office at his Washington firm, Timmons and Company, where he is now listed as Chairman Emeritus). Vincent said that with the help of Timmons, he tried a number of approaches to the State Department, including a request to see John Bolton, currently the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., then assistant secretary for international organization affairs at the State Department. That resulted in meetings with deputies of Bolton, said Vincent, But I never had a chance to meet with Bolton himself.
According to Vincent, Timmons also helped him approach Elizabeth Dole, then head of the American Red Cross, with a proposal that the Red Cross take part in a plan similar to, but on a smaller scale than, what later coalesced under the U.N. as Oil-for-Food. The idea was that Iraq would be allowed to sell a limited amount of oil to buy food and medicine, all coordinated with the Red Cross. Vincent said his understanding, relayed second-hand through Timmons, was that this project died when then-Secretary of State James Baker looked over the proposal and decided it was a no-no because he thought the Iraqis were trying to circumvent sanctions. Bakers view, according to Vincent, was that if this has any chance, it has to be done under the United Nations auspices.
By late 1992, according to Vincent, he and Timmons concluded that the U.S. State Department would not play ball, and Iraq should look directly to the U.N. Thus, Vincent needed access to the upper reaches of the U.N., and it was at that point, he testified Tuesday, that Timmons introduced him to Tongsun Park. Within a few weeks, Park had arranged a meeting for us with the Secretary-General of the United Nations at the United Nations headquarters. On that occasion, according to Vincent, it was only Park who actually went in to speak with Boutros-Ghali; Vincent waited in the outer office. But the stage was set for a series of secret meetings and maneuverings, of which we shall no doubt be hearing more in coming days.
Parks lawyer, Michael Kim, who has not yet really begun to fight, may well produce evidence at odds with the picture that the prosecutors and Samir Vincent have begun to present. For public consumption, Tongsun Park appears to have launched his own website, complete with the information that he is a unique personality known around the world, but remains humble and is always an especially gracious host. (His lawyer, in a phone interview Tuesday evening, could not confirm that this is genuinely Parks website, and Park, who is in federal custody, could not be reached for comment.)
Even after this very preliminary bout, what jumps out is that, in contrast to the folks at the U.N., at least some of the private players who got caught up in the epic scandal that was Oil-for-Food have by now had to tangle with prosecutors, or at least have been required to face inquiries conducted in broad daylight. Also under federal indictment are a number of Saddams former business partners, who face trial in the Southern District of New York this November. In Australia, the Cole Commission has been delving in public hearings into misconduct under Oil-for-Food.
But at the U.N. itself, which actually ran Oil-for-Food, not a single official involved in the administration of the program, from Kofi Annan on down, has been required to come forth and tell, in public, the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Top U.N. officials have declined invitations to testify at congressional hearings and stonewalled questions from the press. They have tucked under the rug of diplomatic immunity and silence a great many loose ends left by Paul Volckers U.N.-authorized probe, which covered some of the material now spilling into the New York courtroom, but did all its questioning in secret and is now hiding from the public its entire archive of underlying documents. No one at Turtle Bay seems even interested that the former director of Oil-for-Food, Benon Sevan, alleged by Volcker to have taken $147,000 in payoffs on Iraqi oil deals, is protesting innocence, uncontested, receiving full U.N. pension and living on Cyprus. Watching Tongsun Park's trial begin on Tuesday, and listening to testimony that is opening one can of worms after another, I had to wonder, were the U.N. subject to a similar standard of law, what might we learn?
#1
Claudia Rosett sets the standard for classy investigative reporting. I look forward to the next installment. It's going to be a bumpy ride... Thanks, ryuge!
June 29, 2006: In Iraq, the Russians are about to show the Americans how it's done. Or at least try to. After four Russian embassy personnel were recently murdered by terrorists, many experienced counter-terrorism professionals expected the Russians to act. Russia, over some two centuries, has developed some very successful techniques for dealing with terrorists. When confronted with terrorist attacks like this, the Russians go in and play by terrorist rules. They terrorize the terrorists.
Back in the 1980s, for example, Islamic terrorists in Lebanon kidnapped a Russian diplomat. The Russians (then the Soviets, a distinction without much difference in these matters) quickly found out which faction had their guy, kidnapped a relative of one of the kidnappers, and had a body part delivered to the Islamic kidnappers. The message was, release the Russian diplomat unharmed, or the KGB (Soviet secret police) would keep sending body parts, and grabbing kinfolk of the kidnappers. The Russian diplomat was released.
Apparently that lesson has been forgotten, at least in some parts of Iraq. This time around, the Russians let the Americans and Iraqis deal with retrieving their four diplomatic personnel. The Russians blame the Americans for not getting their guys back alive, and now say that they will show the Americans how to proceed in these matters. That may be a little more complicated than the Lebanon operation. Back then, Lebanon was in chaos, in the middle of a civil war. These days, there is a pretty strong government in Iraq, with over 250,000 security personnel. And then there are 150,000 coalition troops. All of these people may not have been able to find the four Russian embassy staff, but they can get in the way of Russian secret police searching for the kidnappers. Not that it's impossible for the Russians to do what they want to do, but it will be under more complicated conditions. Then again, the Iraqi government and the Coalition may simply give the Russians a free hand, with the usual admonition to avoid making too much of a mess. Moreover, Russia has developed a lot of contacts in the Middle East over the years, and seems prepared to call in some favors to get the job done. Whatever the case, it's going to be an interesting example of Old School counter-terrorism.
Posted by: Steve ||
06/29/2006 09:57 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#4
Isn't that story of the Russian diplomat in the 80s an urban legend? I'd like to see a citation, some names, a place, etc. I don't think it actually happened.
#6
How are they going to do this, exactly? They can't just land a cargo plane at the airport with a battalion of Spetsnaz. Do they have the permission of the Iraqi government to operate freely in Iraq? Don't get me wrong, I have no objection to the Rooskies cracking some terrorist skulls. I just don't get how they're going to do it.
#8
Chechnya is filled with conscripts, basically people who don't want to be there. The chechen terrs bribe their way through Russian checkpoints. Add to this the mountainous/forrested terrain where the terrs have free reign.
Otoh, the Russians can't exactly level an Iraqi village at will to get the job done.
#9
The Russians were in cahoots with Saddam and had Soviet bases throughout the Middle East, so they know who to contact. Just hope they haven't already been rounded up after Zarq's demise. They could really help mop up, but pleaz don't stop in Iraq. They also know the ropes in and around Iran and Syria.
#10
Don't uderestimate the effectiveness and abilities of the Old School.
Were we to use more of that, we'd have an order of magnitude less trouble over there. Arabs love the Strong Horse and see a lot of our payoffs for death & damage and our emphasis on political correctness as weakness to be exploited, not mercy to the vanquished.
#11
Old Spook, your ref to "Strong Horse"....reminds of a joke:
An old Indian was asked what his wife's name was. "Wife Name Three Horse." That's an unusual name for your wife - Three Horse - What does it mean? It's old Indian name, means Nag - Nag - Nag
#12
gromky: The kidnapping of the Russians was in September of 1985. Here is a description of the event, with few details as to the means employed in getting their release:
http://www.tkb.org/Incident.jsp?incID=4384
The Russians used "a full court press", with two different militias doing house to house searches. The rough stuff happened only after the better part of a month, and there are several variants of what that was online. The NYT covered it, but it is all under paid subscriber just about everywhere.
I remember reading it in either Time or Newsweek, to include the KGB resolution.
Eleven Sunni insurgent groups working through mediators have offered to immediately stop attacks on American-led forces in Iraq if the Shiite-led government and Washington set a two-year timetable for withdrawing all coalition forces from the country, insurgents and government officials told the Associated Press on Wednesday. Eight of the eleven insurgent groups that have approached Prime Minister Nuri Maliki's government have banded together under the umbrella of the 1920 Revolution Brigade. All 11, however, have issued identical demands, said the insurgent representatives and government officials. They spoke on condition of anomymity because of the sensitivity of the information and for fear of retribution.
The groups do not include the powerful Islamic Army in Iraq, Muhammad Army and the Mujahedeen Shura Council, an umbrella for eight militant groups including Al Qaeda in Iraq. Most of the 11 groups operate north and northeast of Baghdad in increasingly violent Salahuddin and Diyala provinces. Abu Mussab Zarqawi, the Al Qaeda leader, was killed in a US air strike in Diyala province earlier this month. The total number of insurgents is not known, nor is it known how many men belong to each group. But there are believed to be about two dozen organisations, meaning the 11 that are in contact with the government represent nearly half of the known groups.
A key Sunni politician, however, predicted a big majority of insurgents could be enticed to the negotiation table. If the reconciliation initiative is implemented properly, 70 per cent of the insurgent groups will respond positively, said Naseer Ani, an official with the largest Sunni political group, the Iraqi Islamic Party of Vice President Tariq Hashimi.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/29/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Don't. They'd claim we capitulated and that they drove us out.
Posted by: grb ||
06/29/2006 1:04 Comments ||
Top||
#2
When I first read the headline I thought it was referring to the Donks. I see now it was only talking about terrorists who are killing Americans with weapons and not those US citizens who indirectly kill Americans by aiding and abetting the enemy.
#4
It was General McAuliffe that said "Nuts" to the German demand to surrender at Bastogne, not Patton.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
06/29/2006 2:04 Comments ||
Top||
#5
The Raddies and aligned definitely want a Dem POTUS for 2008, i.e. agandonment = fall of Saigon and Jimmy Carter. Sorry, Sunnis, Dubya isn't leaving - USA didn't leave post-WW2 Berlin and Tokyo and t'aint leaving Baghdad or any other city. Miniseries PETER THE GREAT > Petyor = "You will dragged kicking and screaming iff need be, into the modern world"!
#7
This is a negotiation dance. It's haggling, which is partly an Arab cultural trope, and partially what happens in any negotiated settlement. The Sunni bad guys wouldn't be negotiating if they thought they had a snowball's chance in hell of winning militarily.
So here's how the dance will likely work out:
Opening bid: al-Makili offers amnesty to anyone who hasn't killed anyone.
Round two: where we are today; Sunni bad guys counter with an offer to surrender if the US sets a withdrawal date.
Round three: in a day or two, al-Makili comes back with an offer of expanded amnesty for the cannon fodder, and no timetable
Round four: bad guys drop their demand for a timetable, but insist that the Americans make a nonspecific pledge to withdraw as the fighting subsides (which is what we've intended all along!) and ask for something a little better in the amnesty department (roughly the same deal Robert E. Lee got at Appomattox, which is where civil wars traditionally end)
Round five: al-Makili says he'll take it if the Sunni agree to burn their al-Qaida connections and help in the roundup.
Round six: Sunnis say, "It's a deal, Howie!" Foreign baddies start meeting their 72 virgins.
Posted by: Mike ||
06/29/2006 7:18 Comments ||
Top||
#9
What if we were to pull back "over the horizon", like Murtha wants, to someplace like, oh, Damascus. Then come back in 5-6 months after the asshats have re-clustered into kill zones...
#12
I don't know, Mike. I mean, the article notes that several other groups are NOT agreeing to talks, and we're also talking about insane nutters across the table who have NO qualms about agreeing to something then completely backstabbing you when the time's right. Much like the Israelis having NO sane negotiation partners for the Paleos. Heck, even in the Cold War, we had MAD. That doesn't apply here, as they want to die for Allan. Let's just help 'em get there, in my book.
Posted by: BA ||
06/29/2006 11:55 Comments ||
Top||
#13
BA: Your concerns are valid. In response, I would say that since there are multiple insurgent factions, there are multiple negotiating partners; some sane, some not. Al-Makili will be looking to cut a deal with the sane ones, and only the sane ones. As they begin to come in from the cold, the insurgency loses strength and the holdouts will be incentivized to start joining them, not least by the fact that the ones who do take the deal will start burning them.
Posted by: Mike ||
06/29/2006 12:54 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Perhaps the Iraqi government should talk to them, then follow them home, afterward?
#15
One can hope, Mike, one can hope. I pray it shakes out that way (especially the ratting out others part). Not holdin' my breath though, cause these nutters are usually jihadis first, last and in between...not prone to common sense.
Posted by: BA ||
06/29/2006 13:34 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Gotta figure some percentage of these asshats are seeing which way the wind is blowing...and it ain't up their skirts. As that percentage is peeled off it just becomes tougher for the other guys and the process will continue. Whether or not the sane folks dealing with these scum can control them in the medium to long term is anyone's guess. Certainly worth a shot though.
Iraq is producing an average of 2.5 million barrels of oil a day, its highest level since the war began in 2003, an oil ministry spokesman said Wednesday. Assem Jihad said 1.6 million barrels are being exported daily from the southern port of Basra, while 300,000 are being pumped from the northern city of Kirkuk to the Turkish port of Ceyhan. The other 600,000 barrels produced daily are for domestic use, he said.
Iraq, a founding member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, sits atop the world's third-highest proven reserves. Its estimated 115 billion barrels are exceeded in OPEC only by Saudi Arabia and Iran. But oil production has plummeted since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003 as the system faced repeated insurgent sabotage, attacks on maintenance crews, alleged corruption, theft and mismanagement. The nation was producing an average of just 2 million barrels a day in April.
Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani, a Shiite who assumed the post a month ago as part of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's new government, has promised to increase oil production and give all Iraqis a share. Jihad also said new measures were being implemented and he was optimistic that the situation would improve. "We hope to add 200,000 to 300,000 (barrels per day) before the end of this year," Jihad told The Associated Press, adding he also hoped to double the amount of oil pumped from Kirkuk to Ceyhan in that time period.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/29/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Can't be true. It hasn't been reported by the MSM yet. :-)
Posted by: grb ||
06/29/2006 1:05 Comments ||
Top||
French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy condemned on Thursday the arrest of over 60 Hamas members by Israeli forces early in the morning. He said that diplomacy was the only solution to the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians and that political figures should not be arrested.
Israel stated that the arrests were made as part of a criminal investigation into the Hamas officials' involvement in a terrorist organization. Israeli officials insisted that the detainees would be entitled to legal representation, and would be released if it were to be found that the suspicions against them were unfounded.
Over 60 Hamas members, including ministers in the Palestinian Authority parliament, were arrested overnight Wednesday throughout the West Bank.
Detainees included such senior figures as Finance Minister Omar Abdel Razek, Labor Minister Muhammed Barghouti, parliament member Mohamemd Abu Teir and the mayors of Kalkilya and Jenin. Army Radio revealed that Deputy Prime Minister Naser a-Din Shaer was not arrested, as was reported earlier.
In the cities of Ramallah, Nablus, and Bethlehem security forces arrested the men and took them to a military detention camp to be interrogated under the suspicion of being involved in terror activities against Israel.
OC Central Command Maj.-Gen. Yair Naveh told Army Radio that IDF troops surrounded a building in Ramallah where some 20 Hamas members were staying. They surrendered without a fight, he said. He added that the arrests were to continue in the future days.
Interior Minister Roni Bar-On emphasized Thursday morning, in an interview to Israel Radio, that accusations claiming the men were arrested to be used as bargaining chips to be dealt in exchange for the release of Gilad Shalit were baseless.
Bar-On added that if enough evidence was found tying the men to terror activity, they would stand trial in Israel.
Within the IDF, however, conflicting voices gave the impression that the men could possibly be used as bargaining chips. Other sources said that the detainees would certainly not be released in exchange for the soldier, and that they were arrested for their involvement in a terror organization.
UAL MK Ahmed Tibi on Thursday called the massive arrest operations "a macho display of strength."
He stated that the operation had nothing to do with the release of Shalit and added that it would only lead to a deterioration in the situation and additional bloodshed.
A Hamas military-wing spokesman in the West Bank responded Thursday morning by saying that the arrests would not bring about Shalit's release, and that Hamas was still demanding the release of female Palestinian prisoners, as well as prisoners under the age of 18, from Israeli prisons.
Palestinian sources claimed that the arrests were an Israeli attempt to negate the election results in which Hamas came to power in the Palestinian Legislative Council.
In addition, PA Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh convened an emergency meeting of government members in Gaza. An unofficial response said that, "Israel is targeting Hamas' political wing, which wasn't involved in the kidnapping [of IDF Cpl. Gilad Shalit]."
"Israel is heading in the wrong direction, and will pay for it," the response continued.
#3
I predicted long ago -- perhaps even in these pages -- that Hamas, like the PLO before them, would divide into a political and military wing and play the game of talking out of both sides of their mouth. France wants this game to continue anew, while the U.S. recognizes that doing so will only give rise to more of the same. Hey France, why don't you stick with something your good at, like making crappy, overpriced wine?
#4
Israel needs to keep moving on dismantling Hamas and Gaza, both literally and figuratively. I would not negotiate a thing with the Paleos. They are liars and terrorists. Management theory calls for a highly directive approach, S-1.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
06/29/2006 10:44 Comments ||
Top||
#5
How about we turn Gaza into a nature preserve for the Greenie wackos to live out their "No Humans Allowed" fantasy?
Then neither Israel nor Egypt would have to worry about the border. I'm sure the Greenies can find some nice room for the Paleos somewhere else.
#6
Setting a precedent for the French officials' worst nightmare: being held accountable for crimes committed or permitted while in office. Even if it weren't their pet Palestinians, of course they'd have to object!
#10
He said that diplomacy was the only solution to the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians and that political figures should not be arrested.
Yes Blazing-Douche, they've been giving "diplomacy" a go since about 1948. Not much progress has been made.
Washington, 29 June (AKI) - Ten years after the attack on Dhahran, in Saudi Arabia, the White House has once again blamed the death of 19 US soldiers and the injuries reported by 370 civilians on Iran. US president George W. Bush has issued a statement saying that those responsible for the attack will be brought to justice. On June 1996, a bomb exploded in the northern Saudi city of Dhahran in an attack targeting the housing complex of Khober, in which US military personnel lived. The White House of then president Bill Clinton blamed the attack on Iran. However no evidence was ever provided to either confirm or deny the role of the Islamic Republic as the mastermind.
In the 1990s Iran was also accused of having played a role in two attacks in Argentina, one on the Israeli embassy in March 1992 and another against Amia, a Jewish association in Buenos Aires in July 1994. In September 1992, a commando killed in Berlin's Mykonos restaurant, the leader of the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan (KDPI) and three of his dinner companions. On that occasion, German officials successfully identified the killers and arrested them. A court in Berlin subsequently ruled that then Iranian president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and his intelligence minister Ali Fallahian were the masterminds of the murder. Investigations on the two attacks in Argentina and on the explosion in Saudi Arabia are still ongoing.
With the election of Mohammad Khatami in June 1997, the United States and Europe eased pressure on Iran, hoping that the new reformist president would help shed light on the terror attacks in Argentina and Saudi Arabia. However, ever since Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stepped into power after presidential elections in June 2005, the White House has once again started to openly accuse the Iranian government of being behind the terrorist attack in Dhahran.
According to Ahmad Zeidabadi, an analyst and a BBC contributor, Bush is using the case to put pressure on Ahmadinejad so he will accept a proposal by world powers to halt Iran's nuclear programme, which the West fears is aimed at building nuclear weapons. "The recent statements of George Bush on Iran's role in the Dhahran attack sends a very clear message," says Zeidabadi. "The Americans are warning Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that if he doesn't accept the proposal of the six world powers, old cases implicating the Islamic Republic in terrorist acts will be re-opened."
On 6 June, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council - the US, China, Russia, Britain and France - plus Germany proposed to Iran a package of incentives to stop uranium enrichment activities. Tehran has not responded yet and Ahmadinejad said the government will probably reply by mid-August.
Posted by: Steve ||
06/29/2006 08:51 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"...the government will probably reply by mid-August."
Irans supreme leader said yesterday that the country would not benefit from negotiations with the US, playing down the significance of a prominent element in proposals to defuse a nuclear standoff.
Washington, which broke ties with Tehran in 1980, said it would join the European Unions (EUs) direct talks with Iran if Tehran first agreed to suspend uranium enrichment. The offer came in a package of incentives backed by six world powers.
The White House said it did not view Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameneis comment as Irans final word on its offer, viewed as a major policy shift in Washington and by some analysts, particularly in the west, as a possible deal clincher.
But Iran has shown no sign it is ready to stop enrichment and says it is suspicious of Washingtons motives. Negotiating with America does not have any benefit for us and we do not need such negotiations, Khamenei was quoted as saying by state television.
Iran has yet to respond to the package but is under mounting western pressure to give a reply by a mid-July summit of leaders from the Group of Eight industrial countries in Russia.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said Iran will reply by August 22. The US says this is too long.
Analysts said Khameneis remarks might indicate pessimism in the leadership that talks would yield results and sent a message that Iran would not be swayed by a US offer to meet. Iran is giving the message that Iran doesnt trust America and does not believe America has changed its position, said analyst Mahmoud Alinejad.
Khamenei did not rule out nuclear negotiations, although he insisted any such talks would be on Iranian terms. We will not negotiate with anybody on our certain right to use nuclear technology.
However, if they recognise this right for us, we are prepared to talk about international controls, supervision and guarantees, and the grounds for such negotiations have been prepared, Khamenei said.
White House spokesman Tony Snow said that there was a pattern of differing voices coming out of Iran.
The US expected the official reaction to be delivered through EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana from Irans chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani, Snow said.
British Foreign Minister Margaret Beckett said major world powers were pressing Iran for a further meeting between Solana and Larijani. Time's up. Game. Set. Match. Yo ass.
Lebanese leaders are due to resume round-table talks today aimed at resolving the thorny issue of pro-Syrian resistance group Hezbollah's right to keep its weapons. Leaders from across the political spectrum will continue discussions on the last item on the agenda of the national dialogue launched early March: a defense strategy for Lebanon in the face of a potential threat from Israel.
Members of the anti-Syrian parliamentary majority maintain that any defense strategy should keep decisions to "protect Lebanon" in the hands of the state and regular army. But pro-Syrian groups, led by Hezbollah, have so far rejected UN Security Council demands to disarm and calls from within Lebanon to merge their fighters with the regular army. Today's meeting comes after a heated public debate about Hezbollah's weapons.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/29/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
(KUNA) -- Iranian Defense Minister Mustafa Mohammad Najjar underlined on Wednesday that his country is fully capable of defending itself against any threat, adding that Iran has had good achievements in the fields of aerospace and missile building. Najjar told reporters that Iran will continue research and developments in aerospace and missile reconstruction, adding that Iran's policy on defense is based on prevention.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/29/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
They can't even meet the basic needs of their people. Now they want us to believe that they are the last superpower?
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.
Tony Blair is ready to announce that he will step down next year, probably around his 10th anniversary in Downing Street in May. Senior Blairite MPs said that high-level discussions were going on to prepare for a transition to an expected Gordon Brown premiership. If Mr Blair announced a timetable at or shortly before Labour's annual conference at the end of September it would defuse the growing restlessness in the party over the succession. Mr Blair could use the conference to acclaim his record while paving the way for a new leader to take on the challenge of the rejuvenated Conservative Party led by David Cameron.
The Dutch cabinet was in crisis talks on Thursday as a row over the citizenship of Somali-born politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali led to calls for the dismissal of Rita Verdonk, the hard-line immigration minister.
Iraq is producing an average of 2.5 million barrels of oil a day, its highest level since the war began in 2003, an oil ministry spokesman said Wednesday. Assem Jihad said 1.6 million barrels are being exported daily from the southern port of Basra, while 300,000 are being pumped from the northern city of Kirkuk to the Turkish port of Ceyhan. The other 600,000 barrels produced daily are for domestic use, he said.
Lebanese leaders are due to resume round-table talks today aimed at resolving the thorny issue of pro-Syrian resistance group Hezbollah's right to keep its weapons. Leaders from across the political spectrum will continue discussions on the last item on the agenda of the national dialogue launched early March: a defense strategy for Lebanon in the face of a potential threat from Israel.
(KUNA) -- Iranian Defense Minister Mustafa Mohammad Najjar underlined on Wednesday that his country is fully capable of defending itself against any threat, adding that Iran has had good achievements in the fields of aerospace and missile building. Najjar told reporters that Iran will continue research and developments in aerospace and missile reconstruction, adding that Iran's policy on defense is based on prevention.
