From the NYT; another demonstration that the Gray Lady can still report the socks off anyone when she wants to. Towards the end there's an enlightened discussion of how the 'transitional' government blew all the goodwill it had right after the Aethiops helped them regain power.
GALKAYO, Somalia Beyond clan rivalry and Islamic fervor, an entirely different motive is helping fuel the chaos in Somalia: profit.
A whole class of opportunists from squatter landlords to teenage gunmen for hire to vendors of out-of-date baby formula have been feeding off the anarchy in Somalia for so long that they refuse to let go. They do not pay taxes, their businesses are totally unregulated, and they have skills that are not necessarily geared toward a peaceful society.
In the past few weeks, some Western security officials say, these profiteers have been teaming up with clan fighters and radical Islamists to bring down Somalias transitional government, which is the countrys 14th attempt at organizing a central authority and ending the free-for-all of the past 16 years.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/28/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#3
The Islamists seemed to be the perfect solution for the businessmen. They delivered stability, which was good for most business, but they did not confiscate property or levy heavy taxes. They called themselves an administration, not a government.
Our best days were under them, said Abdi Ali Jama, who owns an electrical supply shop in Mogadishu.
You know you're screwed, blued and tattooed if your "best days" were under Islamic rule.
In some areas, displaced people are forced to pay a shade tax to local residents for resting under their trees.
This is disappointing. I had hoped these two regions would sit out the idiocy and madness in the Horn, thus becoming a small hope for the region. But no, they're reverting to type ...
(SomaliNet) According Puntland administration, Somaliland is preparing for all out war and has deployed thousands of its army along the disputed border between the two regions. In return, Puntland is training hundreds of clan militia members in a hurry in to defend itself from Somaliland should a war break out.
Self-declared republic of Somaliland and semi-autonomous Puntland had unresolved border dispute as long as the two administrations were established in early 1990s although they never had a prolonged war except few skirmishes. Now, the balance of power had shifted to Somalilands favor after the bulk Puntlands army was sent to southern Somalia to fight for the interim national government headed by President Abdulahi Yusuf who ruled Puntland before his current post.
Prime Minister Ali Gedi addressed this dispute and blamed Eritrea, Somaliland and what he called Al-Qaeda affiliated terrorists for fuelling the tension. Sources close to the interim government say Ethiopia had warned both Somaliland and Puntland against attacking the other. The two had fought earlier this month and then defense minister of Somaliland lost his post for mishandling the war.
The hidden hand of the Eritreans in this?
Somaliland claims Puntland annexed a large junk of land from its territories - claim most Somalilanders believe is worth to fight for.
Because they're tribal. Land, honor and cattle are the things you fight for in a tribal society, and not necessarily in that order.
On the other side of the conflict, Puntland says the inhabitants of the disputed land do not recognize WWII era border that was erected by Europeans who came to Somalia and divided the country into five enclaves: British Somaliland; Italian Somalia; French Somalia (Djibouti); and two territories given to Kenya and Ethiopia. The land falls into British Somaliland but its people have clan affiliations with Puntland.
Background articles recently in the news here and here.
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/28/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
Egypt's foreign minister offered Friday to send 750 troops and 130 military supervisors in the next phase of UN troops to be sent to Sudan's troubled Darfur region, a foreign ministry statement said. Ummm... Which side? Shades of 'Chinese' Gordon ...
The soldiers would be part of a 3,000-strong UN force that is scheduled to reinforce the 7,000 AU troops already in the region. The statement by Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit said that Egypt's ministry of defense had made the offer to the United Nations and expected them to accept what he described as "big cooperation." Egypt, which has traditionally had good relations with neighboring Sudan, already has a small military force with the African Union in Darfur.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/28/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
South Koreas Defence Minister Kim Jang-Soo on Friday criticised the top US military commander in the country for inappropriate remarks about sharing the cost of American forces. In a US Senate hearing earlier this week, General BB Bell said the future of work to relocate US military bases could depend on whether South Korea is willing to pay a larger share. Without more equitable allied SMA (Special Measures Agreement) funding, we may be forced to recommend a range of fiscal measures to the US government, including a review of base relocation and consolidation plans, Bell said. Kim expressed regret at the comments. It was inappropriate for the commander to talk about the possibility of reviewing the base relocation project that was agreed with the South Korean government, he told reporters. Kim said Bells remarks appeared aimed more at seeking greater financial support from Washington, rather than targeting the Seoul authorities. Nonetheless, it was inappropriate, he said. The US has stationed tens of thousands of troops in South Korea since the end of the 1950-53 war to help it defend itself against North Koreas 1.1 million-strong military.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/28/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
CNS > JAPAN TO DEBATE FUTURE PREEMPTIVE STRIKES AGZ NORTH KOREA.
#2
It's time for GWB to call Roh up and give it to him straight. Either support the fact that you have U.S. troops in your country, or ask for them to be removed. One or the other, and no waffling. Lose the "now we like you, now we don't" bullcrap. Speaking as someone living over her in SK, I don't know ONE American who thinks it's a good idea to have US troops in SK, and I'm tempted to agree with the majority. I think it probably is time to pull them out unless the Sorks really change their attitude. This is a pretty rich country, with a serious nationalist attitude. They don't appreciate what we're doing for them. We should "go Philippines" on them and leave. Let them pay to defend themselves and let us stop subsidizing their defense budget to the tune of 2/3 of the cost.
Posted by: Mac ||
04/28/2007 6:40 Comments ||
Top||
#3
let em go on their own, ungrateful f*cks
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/28/2007 6:41 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I've long thought that the true purpose of the US garrison in SK was to prevent Japanese re-militarization. If we did pull out of the Korean peninsula 100%, what are the odds that the Japanese would start assembling nukes?
#5
Nope to all - only reason we are there is CHINA and I don't mean the kiln-fired stuff. Japan wants us there as does SK for that reason only. We are there for that reason only.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
04/28/2007 8:53 Comments ||
Top||
#6
To get us out of SK but still on favorable terms, we should encourage the South to really get friendly with China, with an eye to persuading them that if Korea was unified under the South, it would be worth a huge fortune to China, and be no threat at all.
The US, for its part, could hope to keep naval base use in Pusan, with no forces on the peninsula.
This way, if the North collapsed, for whatever reason, then China would actually be relieved to have both a pesky North out of its hair, and to make billions of dollars with direct trade to the South.
#7
'Moose, they're doing that on their own quite nicely, thanks, without any encouragement from us. I think there is a stratum of logical thinking here that realizes how lucky South Korea is to have such a powerful ally with no designs on its territory (as opposed to two very close neighbors who have a history of occupying the country). However, they simply aren't being heeded by the current government, which is pushing anti-Americanism to the fore at every opportunity. One of the reasons there was so much concern here about a "backlash" against Koreans after the nutball at VT is because there would have been a HELL of a backlash here against white foreigners if something similar had happened. It probably wouldn't have been safe to be on the streets if you were white.
Posted by: Mac ||
04/28/2007 10:38 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Japan wants us there as does SK for that reason only. We are there for that reason only.
And if we didn't have a US presence in SK, the Japanese would have done, what?
#9
All vestiges of US presence should have been removed 25 years ago. There is no reason to support having them there now. As for China, let's hope Bush is giving Abe the sniggering smile and pat on the back at Camp David and green lighting Japanese thermonuclear production now. This is what will keep Chinese in their place.
From Geostrategy-Direct, subscription.
U.S. intelligence agencies monitoring the North Korean nuclear facility at Yongbyon have seen no signs that Pyongyang is following through on the deal reached in Beijing to shut down the facility. Surprise, surprise.
The official dismissed news reports in Asia that said activity at the Yongbyon facility was a sign that North Korea was preparing to follow through on its promise to close the facility and invite back International Atomic Energy Agency monitors. "They are just scurrying about to fool us into that they are really doing what they promised."
North Korea suspended its agreement in Beijing to dismantle the Yongbyon facility after the United States refused to release money frozen under Treasury Department sanctions in Macaos Banco Delta Asia.
The funds, about $24 million, were eventually released by Treasury officials, but Chinese banking officials have balked at releasing the money over concerns that doing so might lead to additional Treasury sanctions under the U.S. Patriot Act, which allows the U.S. government to punish banks and financial institutions involved in money laundering and other activities that could support terrorists. We released the money? Is there no end to US Govt stupidity?
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
04/28/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
What?!! The US doesn't have one person with a flag on his sleeve or lapel, that can exchange the 24 million in a briefcase without an intermediary? The NORKS in my opinion won't reverse course with or without the moola; my advise to the US...send it to the victims of Katrina and quietly began 'loading for bear'!
#2
Hmmm, Chinese won't release the funds even though we did. Ya know, it's almost like it's a conspiracy or something ...
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/28/2007 2:43 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Steve, everyone wants to cover their own a** on this one, so that in the end, when the 'shooting' starts, there's accountability. The NORKS want 'plausible deniability' by accepting the withdrawal through a 'blackhole network', the Chicoms want a 'real person' to come 'a callin'. The US sits back in the catbird seat ready to blame either party when the drop is baited and taken, with whatever resulting effects.
Hey! Maybe the Dems will get on board now, since the troops are coming home soon, and the price of oil is gonna skyrocket?
The Interior Department will announce a proposal Monday to allow oil and gas drilling in federal waters near Virginia that are currently off-limits and permit new exploration in Alaska's Bristol Bay and the Gulf of Mexico, according to people who have seen or been told about drafts of the plan. At least they admit some of the information is third hand - or worse.
The department issued a news release yesterday that was lacking details but said that it had finished a five-year plan that will include a "major proposal for expanded oil and natural gas development on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf." Department officials declined to describe the plan.
Congress would still have to agree to open areas currently off-limits before any drilling could take place off Virginia's coast. Every year since 1982, after an oil spill off Santa Barbara, Calif., Congress has reaffirmed a moratorium on drilling off the nation's Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Last year, after a vigorous push by drilling advocates, Congress opened new waters in the Gulf of Mexico. Only the eeeevil oil companies want to do it, and they've bought off all the Republicans, doncha know.
The Interior Department might still go ahead with environmental and geological seismic studies off Virginia, but the plan does not envision drilling there before 2011, according to a congressional source who saw an earlier version of the proposal. That way, Hillary can stop the actual drilling.
The sources who described the plan spoke on the condition of anonymity because they didn't want to compromise relationships with people who showed them drafts.
Environmental groups said yesterday that they were troubled by the idea of oil exploration and drilling so near the wildlife refuge on Assateague Island and in an area closely linked to the Chesapeake Bay. Some of the bay's best-known species, such as blue crabs and rockfish, migrate to the ocean.
Activists said that simply looking for oil and gas could cause environmental harm if waste products used to lubricate or cool drill bits are cast overboard. Such materials are often toxic, and could threaten marine life in the area, said Richard Charter of Defenders of Wildlife. Even thinking about drilling causes little baby seals to die!
Richard Ayers of the environmental group Virginia Eastern Shorekeeper said he was concerned about development along the state's lightly populated Atlantic shoreline. He said he was worried that oil drilling would create boomtowns, a new influx of people and pollution. "This is one of the few places on the East Coast that just never got developed," Ayers said. "A disturbance of any magnitude would be something the place hasn't seen since the '30s," when a hurricane hit the area.
So if Mother Nature does it it's okay ...
The Virginia shore is dotted with barrier islands and lagoons, most of them largely unspoiled. The Virginia coast has been designated a World Biosphere Reserve by the United Nations, and a National Natural Landmark by the Interior Department.
Many drilling advocates say that the oil industry has had a good environmental record in the Gulf of Mexico and that the nation needs to develop domestic oil and gas reserves to bring down prices and reduce reliance on foreign oil.
Advocates of increased drilling have campaigned in several states, many of which are attracted to the prospect of negotiating shares of federal royalties. Bills endorsing more drilling have twice passed the Virginia legislature.
Kevin Hall, a spokesman for Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D), said Kaine was "supportive of exploration to see what, if anything, is out there." But Hall said Kaine had received "assurances" from federal officials that the proposed exploration would not violate state law. Last year, the General Assembly and Kaine agreed on a bill to prohibit drilling within 50 miles of Virginia's shoreline.
One place that doesn't need approval from Congress is the area north of the Alaska Peninsula near the Aleutian Islands, known as Bristol Bay. Home to one of the world's largest salmon runs, according to the Sierra Club, Bristol Bay was not covered by the same ban on drilling.
President Bush used his executive power to lift the ban in January. Congress has 60 days to reimpose it, or else drilling preparations could start in Bristol Bay as soon as July 1.
Athan Manuel, offshore drilling expert at the Sierra Club, said, "We need to do more to drill in Detroit by finding more oil efficiency in our cars and trucks rather than drilling off of some of our most sensitive coasts that are important environmentally, but also economically in driving billion-dollar fishing and tourist industries." Yeah, and get the Democratic Presidential candidates to fly commercial jets, too! And wind farms off Cape Cod!
Posted by: Bobby ||
04/28/2007 13:38 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
If a shortage of imported oil hits the US, the billion-dollar fishing industry can row itself out & back from the fishing grounds, and our tourist industry can bend over & kiss itself goodbye
#2
Yes, the dirty business of oil exploration and drilling is best left to the chinese or hugo. Energy, we don't need no stinking energy! So what if our mighty infratructure comes grinding to a halt for lack of the black stuff.
#3
The strategic solution to fighting terrorism needs a huge percentage of effort focused on getting off the imported oil habit. Once we stop funding the Saudi/Iranian fundamentalists, which in turn dries up the Pakistani and SE Asian madrassas, then we can watch the more virulent strain of radical Islam decline. In turn, the mainstream Islamists will slowly be lured from their dangerous religion and turn into Lutherans with funny rules. Nuclear energy, domestic oil, wind, sea, geothermal, coal, fuel-cell, gerbils on a treadmill, everything needs to be harnessed to cut off importing the thing that funds these people....
#4
Get the moonbats to go out and live with the baby seals they so ardently love, one day should do it, look for a turnaround as soon as they realize the filthy, nasty "Normal" conditions that pass for normal seal life, that they kill and eat other wildlife, and love moonbats (For Dinner)
Idiots.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
04/28/2007 17:22 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Every year since 1982, after an oil spill off Santa Barbara, Calif.
Natural seepage of oil off Santa Barbara has continued since then. Drilling for oil is the only way to stop this seepage.
#6
Though people point to Brazil's usage of ethanol, what is little reported is that it also went on a vast program of offshore drilling for oil, greatly increasing the amount produced. That doesn't fit the narrative, of course.
The first Democratic presidential debate did little to change the shape of the 2008 race, but it provided a post-debate flash point Friday between the campaigns of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton over the issue of fighting terrorism.
At issue is whether Obama mishandled a question about how he would respond if two American cities were attacked by terrorists: Did he fail to demonstrate the toughness and resolve that voters want in a president or was his answer a careful and comprehensive checklist for any potential president dealing with an international crisis?
The Clinton campaign seized on what happened, claiming, without mentioning Obama, that "Hillary was the candidate who demonstrated that she would know how to respond if the country was attacked." An Obama spokesman dismissed the Clinton camp's press release as "a sign of nervousness."
The debate aftermath offered another example of the Clinton campaign's determination to keep the pressure on a rival who has proved to be more formidable than some of the New York senator's allies had expected. But it also underscored that, because Obama has served only a little over two years in the Senate, questions of experience will continue to surround his candidacy.
Posted by: Bobby ||
04/28/2007 13:34 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#3
that picture gives me the Willies...so to speak. Is it any wonder he turned to Monica?
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/28/2007 13:46 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Can someone please put Hillary out of my misery? A nice steel-walled, padded room would do nicely, thank you.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
04/28/2007 17:32 Comments ||
Top||
#5
The funny part is, Hillary! has the only set of balls in the entire Dem lineup! And I think she would have a short trigger too, not wanting to look wimpy like the former President Clinton. Osbama wouldn't use force as easily as Hillary!
WaPo Title: Tenet Details Efforts to Justify Invading Iraq
White House and Pentagon officials, and particularly Vice President Cheney, were determined to attack Iraq from the first days of the Bush administration, long before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and repeatedly stretched available intelligence to build support for the war, according to a new book by former CIA director George J. Tenet.
Although Tenet does not question the threat Saddam Hussein posed or the sincerity of administration beliefs, he recounts numerous efforts by aides to Cheney and then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to insert "crap" into public justifications for the war. Tenet also describes an ongoing fear within the intelligence community of the administration's willingness to "mischaracterize complex intelligence information."
"There was never a serious debate that I know of within the administration about the imminence of the Iraq threat," Tenet writes in "At the Center of the Storm," to be released Monday by HarperCollins. The debate "was not about imminence but about acting before Saddam did."
White House counselor Dan Bartlett yesterday called Tenet a "true patriot" but disputed his conclusions, saying "the president did wrestle with those very serious questions." Responding to reports from the book in yesterday's New York Times, Bartlett suggested that the former CIA director might have been unaware of all the discussions. President Bush, Bartlett said on NBC's "Today Show," "weighed all the various consequences before he did make a decision." More at link, but I got bored.
Posted by: Bobby ||
04/28/2007 13:28 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Tenet Details Efforts to Justify Invading Iraq
Memo to the antiwar twits at the WaPo eager to promote yet another pseudo-scandal: getting rid of Saddam had been official U.S. policy since halfway through Bill Clinton's second term in office. The only thing Bush did differently from Clinton was ACT on that policy.
Give it a break, for cryin' out loud...
Posted by: Dave D. ||
04/28/2007 13:38 Comments ||
Top||
Influential US senators vowed on Thursday to restore to foreign terrorism suspects the right to challenge their imprisonment, saying Congress made an historic blunder by stripping them of that right last year.
Hundreds of suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban members held at a US military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, could be affected. Last years Congress, with a Republican majority, passed a law setting specific rules for US military tribunals. It included a ban on non-citizens labelled enemy combatants from using habeas corpus petitions to challenge the legality of their detention in court, asserting that military panels at Guantanamo were a substitute for court review.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy warned that the rights of some 12 million legal aliens in the United States -as well as any foreigners visiting the country -had also been infringed by the new law.
This new law means that any of these people can be detained forever without any ability to challenge their detention in federal court, or anywhere else, simply on the governments say-so that they are awaiting determination as to whether they are enemy combatants, the Vermont Democrat said.
This is wrong. It is unconstitutional. It is un-American, Leahy said in testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee, which would share jurisdiction on changing the law.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/28/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
They still do not have rights in the courts of this nation. You missed the entire point. Went over your head like 4 767's.
#2
And under existing authority, the president could nuke Ottawa - uh, but he won't. Leahy is a toxic idiot, but fortunately on this one the donks can go pound sand. The override-proof veto from Dubya means the law stays as it is.
#3
Yesterday's discussion of the Geneva Conventions made it crystal clear that it would have been far better to summarily execute these scumbags than ever keep them in extended captivity.
To this very day I cannot look at a graphic of the 9-11 atrocity without wanting to nuke Saudi Arabia my blood boiling.
#4
Leahy's a complete moron who does not even know the laws of his own country or his own duties under the Constitution.
No where does the Constitution implicitly state nor imply that foreign nationals have any rights at all equivalent to citizens of the United States so far as I know.
No where does the Constitution implicitly state or imply that it is a suicide pact for citizens of this country.
No where does the Constitution implicitly state or imply that non-uniformed enemy combatants have any rights whatsoever except to rot in jail until hell freezes over if we so desire.
In fact the Geneva Conventions, I believe, allow a state to detain, without warrant or recourse, non-uniformed and uniformed enemy combatants apprehended on the field of battle until such time as hostilities have been declared at an end.
I wish somebody would rub these idiots noses in the Constitution and the GC once in awhile.
#7
Hey come on. He is a senior member of a political party where only 4 of 7 of their Presidential candidates believe there is even a War on Terror. Hell some of them believe 911 was a Karl Rove political setup. He is also a friend of "Searchlight" Harry who says the war is lost. These are their "tendencies" folks, why are we surprised?
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
04/28/2007 8:58 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Until we recognize the fact that the demoncrats are on the same side and just as evil as the terrorists, we'll never win.
#9
Let's move 'em all to Vermont. Burlington maybe.
Whaddya say, Pat? Let all the Socialists and Progreesives up there see what a real "freedom fichter" looks like up close and personal.
Still no answer from the Dems as to why they even care. It's not like any large voting block does!
Sort of like I never understood the political dynamics of Bush's first justice idiot from Missouri when he went on a Jihad against folks copying music and movies. It's not like those folks would ever vote for him or do the Republicans a single favor. It would have done Bush (and the nation) more good to go after real criminal elements and not some poor kids downloading Rap and Pr0n.
Seldom do I think anything is complete but in this case I'll make an exception. I would extend this thought to the dhemmi leadership(?) and those running for president. There is an ongoing conspiracy of morons and idiots to be moronic and idiotic.
#12
They are just trying to grab more power for themselves and away from the Executive branch. Really what they are doing is a creeping takeover of the US government. They want a central committee. Just like their heroes, the USSR.
#14
The detainees' rights and attacks on Gitmo are just phony issue tools to attack this Administration, weaken it, and ultimately destroy it. The battle has nothing to do with Gitmo. The dems dont give a rat's behind about Gitmo and the detainees. The issue is not the issue.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
04/28/2007 10:52 Comments ||
Top||
#15
I think Alaska Paul has hit it right on the nose about their unrelenting, ceaseless attacks on the administration. The national Democratic Party political strategy is to mount incessant attackson this administration through the full election cycle. That they do so while undermining our efforts in the war on terror and destroying American morale and reputation worldwide is the signature of how utterly bankrupt their sense of patriotism and morality has become. Power and their socialist agenda trumps all individual obligations and permits deceit, sedition and outright treason. The complicit media and academic institutions give these efforts support and are slowly, inexorably, twisting American opinion and resolve towards yet another round of 70's style defeatism and self doubt. This death spiral for the nation is accelerating with the cultural collapse and overwhelming tide of economic immigration by people whose motives are solely financial, and whose commitment to the health of the country lasts exclusively to the time it takes to drain the wealth away.
Dire times are on the horizon my friends, making the parallel to 1939 very apt, but whose enemy is a religion, not a nation state. The tools of defense are not nation-state Whestphalian in nature, but moral rectitude and supreme confidence in the superiority of our culture and nation. Am I the only one who sees that those tools are severely damaged by the current angst?
#16
why is it these Senators seem to be more interested in the rights of these detainees than us?
With all of our issues on our perverbial plate here, they choose to stand up for these terrorists?
I too agree with Alaska Paul. I think more of us need to "vow" to get these Sentators on the right track here. And stop their own political agenda.
Posted by: Jan ||
04/28/2007 14:11 Comments ||
Top||
#17
"Am I the only one who sees that those tools are severely damaged by the current angst?"
Nope. And the moral anesthesia is being administered deliberately.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
04/28/2007 14:20 Comments ||
Top||
#18
You know, if DoD maintained a base in every state, and would supply any servicemember an address by which they could register to vote, you'd think you'd get the attention of the pols by a sudden increase of say 10s of thousand of new people on the voting books? You think their words and actions would modify? Just thinking out loud.
#19
The Dems want statehood for DC. I'm inclined to support it if it is coupled with the expulsion of Vermont from the Union. Be worth it to get rid of Leahy and Bernie Sanders.
Spain and Pakistan on Friday rejected associating terrorism with any nation, culture, or religion. A joint declaration, released simultaneously from Islamabad and Madrid at the end of President General Pervez Musharrafs visit to Spain, piously condemned terrorism.
The two countries condemned terrorism, posing serious threats to peace, stability, and international security. They reiterated commitment to study initiatives for the development and strengthening of intercultural and inter-religious dialogue. They also noted the contributions made by the Alliance of Civilisations in the framework of the United Nations and the Pakistani strategy of enlightened moderation, also praised by Spain.
The two sides supported the central role of the UN in the international communitys efforts against terrorism. They vowed to intensify exchange of information between different state security forces and other agencies in the fight against terrorism.
The talks between Pakistan and Spain focused on cooperation in political area, combating human trafficking, multilateral issues, defence and security, economic and trade, millennium development goals, cultural, scientific, education and international affairs.
I'm wondering how long a talk on combating human trafficking has to be. "Zappy, you think human trafficking is bad?" "I dunno, Perv, what do you think?"
They agreed to start negotiations to sign an agreement on cooperation in the fight against organised crime, terrorism and illegal immigration. Joint working groups comprising high officials from competent ministries will meet every year to promote cooperation in this area.
We can imagine the luncheon menu.
Both parties will promote cooperation in legal migration and consular affairs and explore the possibility of signing an agreement on the transfer of sentenced prisoners. They agreed to constitute joint working groups to meet periodically and raise the economic and trade relations.
The two countries will also accelerate procedure to ink agreement on double taxation to promote industrial cooperation between their private sectors with special focus on new technologies and sustainable development.
They also agreed to deepen their relations within the context of European Union-Pakistan relations.
Spain acknowledged the role of Pakistan as a major contributor to peacekeeping missions as part of their efforts towards international peace and security.
The two countries acknowledged the joint relief efforts by the Pakistani Armed Forces and the Spanish contingent deployed in the Arja and Bagh areas as part of the NATO Response Force in the aftermath of the October 2005 earthquake.
Spain praised the access granted by Pakistan to its logistical shipments for Afghanistan.
"More ammo fer the widows!"
Spain will increase its cooperation with the National University of Defence and exchange academic experience and knowledge in security and defence.
The two sides discussed the prevailing situation in South Asia. Pakistan briefed on the peace process with India for the resolution of all outstanding issues, particularly Jammu and Kashmir.
Spain and Pakistan welcomed establishment of an effective system of national export controls, controlling the export and transit of goods related to weapons of mass destruction.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/28/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Spain and Pakistan on Friday rejected associating terrorism with any nation, culture, or religion.
A craven coward kisses his tormentor's ass, what more to say? While the practice of terrorism is not restricted to Islam alone, the fact that 99.9% of it is Islamic in origin still demands recognition. That Zapatero and Musharref can somehow ignore this automatically qualifies each of them for a slug.
#8
I just read in the Daytona News Journal about some retired Foreign Service guy living in Montana that is basically giving talks to the Rotary and Kiwanis clubs saying the same thing. Maybe he is Leahy's bitch:)
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
04/28/2007 9:00 Comments ||
Top||
#9
"OK, we can kill Spain and Pakistan last."
LMAO!
Damn, you terrorist are funny.
Posted by: RJB in JC MO ||
04/28/2007 9:05 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Not even Zionist terrorism against Palestinians and Lebanese?
The Pakistani nation is shackled by political Islam even after 60 years of independence, Individual-Land stated in a report on the Jamia Hafsa issue. The NGO said: It is interesting that Asma Jehangir is beaten black and blue on the streets of Lahore when she protests against human rights violations and Masood Janjua has his pants pulled down by the police as he protests against his fathers disappearance, but the Jamia Hafsa get Chaudhry Shujaat as a negotiator when they openly create a state within a state.
Today we [Pakistanis] have the Jamia Hafsa fiasco. Yesterday we had the religion column drama. Tomorrow there will be something else, all because of subjective interpretations of religion and its role in public life, the report added. It said the prevailing state-of-affairs was because of the political abuse of religion in United India to date and cited Pakistans founder Muhammad Ali Jinnah as saying during his speech to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, You are free: you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or any other place of worship in Pakistan. This has nothing to do with the business of the state.
Whether or not we admit it, most of our present problems stem from the institutionalised abuse of Islam, the NGO said. It also said that on one hand, the religious affairs minister described the girls of Jamia Hafsa as our daughters, but on the other the Jamia Hafsas administration was openly setting up Sharia courts and challenging the governments writ by noting down the number plates of cars driven by women, threatening barbers and music shops owners in Islamabad and declaring that they had weapons to use against the government in self defence. There were statements from the government side declaring that the Jamia Hafsas brand of Islam was untrue and that enlightened, moderate Islam should be advocated. Then there were statements from the MMA leaders declaring that this was not the brand of Islam supported by them, and instead Islam is all about peaceful jihad, the report said.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/28/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Err.. the official name of the country is "The Islamic Republic of Pakistan"
How could things be otherwise?
Posted by: John Frum ||
04/28/2007 6:44 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The world's getting shackled by islam. Call Orkin.
Jamaatud Dawa (JD) chief Hafiz Muhammad Saeed on Friday endorsed various steps taken by the Lal Masjid administration for the implementation of Sharia in Pakistan. The Lal Masjid administration talks about Sharia, therefore we support it, he said in his Friday sermon at Liaquat Bagh. He said that instead of taking notice of Rahul Gandhis statement regarding dismemberment of Pakistan in 1971 the Pakistani government was strengthening friendship with India. He said Pakistan would have Sharia implemented soon.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/28/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has said a possible US attack on Iran would be a "terrible mistake" and incur dire consequences. "It will be a terrible mistake if President George Bush orders an attack against Iran," Musharraf told Sarajevo daily Dnevni Avaz ahead of his visit to Bosnia. "I'm concerned about the possibility that a US attack on Iran (would cause) turbulence in the region," he said, warning it would spark "radicalism." Perv's doing the Muslim Solidarity thing this week, we see...
The United States wants Iran to suspend a uranium enrichment program over fears the material could be used for nuclear weapons, but Tehran insists it is only interested in producing energy. Washington also accuses Iran of aggravating violence in neighboring Iraq.
Musharraf is to arrive in the capital Sarajevo later on Friday for the first official visit to Bosnia during which he is to meet with the country's leaders. During the two-day visit, the Pakistani leader is also scheduled to pay respects to victims of the 1995 Srebrenica massacre. Some 8,000 unarmed Muslim men and boys were killed in and around the eastern town by Serb forces at the end of Bosnia's 1992-1995 war. The atrocity is the worst in Europe since World War II.
In the interview, Musharraf reiterated accusations against Afghan President Hamid Karzai about Pakistan's lack of readiness to fight terrorism. Afghan authorities "must stop spreading those bare-faced lies. President Karzai must stop deluding the world," said Musharraf.
He also denied accusations from Karzai that Al-Qaeda head Osama bin Laden and Taliban leader Mulla Mohammad Omar were in Pakistan. Afghan and US officials have blamed Pakistan for failing to prevent Taliban-led militants from attacking US, NATO and Afghan forces in Afghanistan from bases in Pakistan's tribal areas along their 2,400-kilometre (1,500-mile) common border.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/28/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
That would be a grave setback if Iran were to change from its current moderate stance to a radical one.
#2
"I'm concerned about the possibility that a US attack on Iran (would cause) turbulence in the region," he said, warning it would spark "radicalism."
Appalling words from the leader of a country which Osama bin Laden probably calls home.
#5
"I'm concerned about the possibility that a US attack on Iran (would cause) turbulence in the region,"
I much more concerned that any attack on Iran produces heaps of dead nuclear scientists and smoking rubble-filled craters where their research facilities used to be. Iran's radicals will never be capable of assembling a nuclear device. They can be mowed down at a later date using ordinary bullets.
President Gen Pervez Musharraf confirmed on Friday that Pakistans parliament would vote on his re-election before it is to be dissolved for general polls later this year. It is the people of Pakistan who will decide whether to elect me as the president or not, President Musharraf told journalists during a visit to the Bosnian capital Sarajevo. My election will be held two months before the national elections by Pakistans assembly, he added. Opposition parties had labelled the move unconstitutional when Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz earlier announced it.
Opposition parties say President Musharraf should be elected by the new legislature after the parliamentary polls. In response to a question on whether he had been in talks with exiled former Premier Benazir Bhutto and her opposition party, the president said, The political environment in the election will be exactly as it is now in Pakistan. There will be no change ... all we are assuring the whole world is that it is going to be a fair and transparent election.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/28/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Yeah, particularly if most of them were nuke-tipped.
Posted by: Mac ||
04/28/2007 8:12 Comments ||
Top||
#2
More of this "asymmetric warfare". bullshit. The way to deal with Iran---and to sent a message to the rest of Dar el Sociopath---is to take out their infrastructure.
#6
Iran says it is developing nuclear technology for power generation the West fears it is trying to but it is really building a bomb since it is sitting on some of the world's largest oil reserves
#7
And we will set back their nuclear program by 10 years, which they will redouble their efforts to rebuild.
The problem here is that we need to not only destroy their nuclear infrastructure, their military and IRG, but we need to take away those resources they use to both pay for their nuclear program, and menace Persian Gulf oil shipping.
This means they must lose both Khuzestan and Iranian Kurdistan.
After some serious pounding from the air to their military, one or two US divisions do a rapid slicing movement from North to South, slicing off both Kurdistan and Khuzestan.
The Iraqi army and the Kurdish Peshmurga then occupy those areas to both "purify" them of any remaining Persian presence, and defend them against what little remains of the Iranian army and IRG.
The Persians man on the street will probably let it go, because we won't have invaded Persia proper, and they don't care for squat about either Kurds or Arabs.
Since the Iranian military will have been so thoroughly pounded, we also might persuade Perv to take over Iranian Baluchistan, which would be the icing on the cake. It would make Perv far more powerful, giving Pakistan lots more mineral resources, and giving him enough juice to really put the blocks to his own radical Islamists.
#8
I agree fully with Anonymouse. It would more important to eliminate Iran's capability to produce nuclear weapons entirely. I don't want to see the U.S. or it's allies including Israel having to deal with this nonsense again 10 years from now. Iraq being a good example of not finishing the job.
Regime change would have also factor into this. If Iran were to succeed with the ability to launch nuclear missiles whether locally produced or bought from the Norks, there would be a chain reaction; no pun intended for all of the other nations in the Middle East to develop their own nuclear military program.
If a 1000 missiles over 10 days could set Iran back 10 years, 10 times that amount might be sufficient to permanently take out that capability or at least, provide a disincentive to try it again.
The use of conventional weaponry would be more desirable due to the risk of radioactive fallout in the region and the risk to those nations favorable to the West and Israel.
#9
I agree fully with Anonymouse. It would more important to eliminate Iran's capability to produce nuclear weapons entirely. I don't want to see the U.S. or it's allies including Israel having to deal with this nonsense again 10 years from now. Iraq being a good example of not finishing the job.
Regime change would have also factor into this. If Iran were to succeed with the ability to launch nuclear missiles whether locally produced or bought from the Norks, there would be a chain reaction; no pun intended for all of the other nations in the Middle East to develop their own nuclear military program.
If a 1000 missiles over 10 days could set Iran back 10 years, 10 times that amount might be sufficient to permanently take out that capability or at least, provide a disincentive to try it again.
The use of conventional weaponry would be more desirable due to the risk of radioactive fallout in the region and the risk to those nations favorable to the West and Israel.
Whacking their domestic refineries will help only a little.
The Mad Mullahs need to go. You can do it loudly or quietly; I prefer the latter so as to keep them guessing. Was that an auto accident or an assassination? Did Ayatollah Mahmoud take a 'drive into the desert'?
Get rid of the Mullahs and the traditional, conservative influences in Iran -- the shopkeepers -- will take over. Problem solved.
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/28/2007 11:06 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Sorry about the Dup entry moderators, I was not sure if the first one went through.
Just a quick note, your site rocks. A good portion of the content that your Rantburger's post, don't usually appear on the general media. Especially content that runs contrary to the MSM.
Been saying this from day one. Decapitation of Iran's leadership is our top priority. Yes, wreck their nuclear R&D, but it is the ideological programmers that drive this mayhem. This is why a worldwide campaign of summary execution against Islam's clerical aristocracy is so important. Without a jihadist hand on the tiller, Islam has some remote chance of being steered back into a peaceful port. I hold little hope for it, but clearing the decks of their top brass is one of the few measures that offers even a remote chance.
Consider the case of Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi's capture. A huge contributor to global jihad has been taken off line. Few, if any, successors will be able to replicate his high level connections and depth of experience. This is the bane of high context cultures. While particular individuals obtain great benefit from positions of power, their exclusive repretoire of personal skills and contacts make them irreplaceable. This is how they maintain their status. Though most definitely not beneficial for the larger population, that is of little concern to gangsters such as these.
So it is with Islam's clerical aristocracy. They too represent the very highest level of interconnection and privilege that is most definitely not shared with underlings. Their status depends making themselves invaluable and so they covet the resources that do this. Conversely, this is what also makes Islam vulnerable. The irreplaceable nature of these power players means any significant attrition to Islam's top ranks eliminates a good old boy network which took years, if not decades, to build up and will not easily be replaced.
This is radical Islam's glass jaw and we are absolute fools to address only its militant wing. The indoctrinators are every bit as important and culpable, if not more so. They must be eliminated with the same alacrity we subject al Qaeda to. This is why I have ceased to draw any significant distinction between Islam's idological and military goals. It is also why I now regard Islam as a political ideology instead of a religion. Given these two factors, Islam's clerical apparatus becomes its Joint Chiefs of Staff and therefore requires swift elimination.
Saddest of all is how we will probably have to elect an atheist to the Oval Office, as any religious president likely will be far too squeamish about executing a so-called religion's top tier of leadership. I also maintain that this is probably one factor that currently inhibits implementation of the campaign mentioned above.
#14
#10 - That's what the US thought about removing the Saddamite leadership in Iraq. Didn't work out that way. The Mad Mullahs are in power in Iran because a lot of Iranians like it that way, protests & objections by a minority notwithstanding. However, it would be extremely difficult for any Iranian power structure to raise hell for the rest of the world without Iranian oil refineries, import/export facilities, electricity generation, and aircraft. These can be severely impeded by a sufficient number of cruise missiles. The US seems to lack sufficient ground forces to do much more than it is now doing in Iraq & Afghanistan, few can be spared for additional adventures in any case. The drawback is that the power structure of the Mullahs is on site, dug into its own network of subway tunnels, armed with its own cruise missiles & can severely restrict the export of oil to the rest of the world, for a few months anyway. The US hasn't even bothered to top off its own Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and whatever tremendous reserves Iraq may have are out of reach for the next decade or so due to the level of violence there. Firing cruise missiles into Iran may thus cause (1) severe restrictions in oil exports to the rest of the world and (2) a worldwide economic depression. Guess who would be blamed for (2), should that happen?
I agree with Zenster that the people of the West are "absolute fools" in dealing with the Jihad, but we have only ourselves to blame. Indoctrination for Jihad is built into Islam, which few Westerners realize. I suspect the Jihadi clerical leadership is harder to touch than it seems from this distance, short of saturation nuclear bombing of jihadi-supporting regions -- which I do not advocate.
#15
That's what the US thought about removing the Saddamite leadership in Iraq. Didn't work out that way.
I'd wager how a significant portion of that problem was related to how Saddam's power structure was composed of a Sunni minority group. That does not apply in Iran. We have enough reconaissance resources to know when Iran's mullahs meet. If we have to wipe out the entire majlis, so be it. Just so long as we nail a large number of the mullahs, Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Kahmeini. Clerics like Bashir, Qaradawi, Krekar and their like are sufficiently public where targeted assassinations of them would be rather simple. This needs to happen yesterday.
Indoctrination for Jihad is built into Islam, which few Westerners realize.
This is a crucial point which Robert Spencer of JihadWatch has been hammering on for some time now. It is why I no longer make any great distinction between radical Islamists and Islam itself. The Koran is a military handbook and repeatedly exhorts its followers to do violence in the name of global domination. Until that changes, Islam remains a political ideology and nothing else.
#16
If Iran is to be dealt with, it will be by the next American President as Bush/Cheney have been effectively neutered by the US populace. Americans do not object to a solution to Muslim outrages. What they object to is sacrificing valuable American lives and bodies in support of worthless Muslims. The nest President, most likely a Democrat, must operate like FDR in the thirties. There was adequate cause and alarm to act upon the Nazis from 1936 on. The American populace wanted nothing of war as they were beaten down and bloodied by the Depression. Even though FDR was inclined to side with the British in 1940, he knew he dared not even mention it, because the American public was not in favor. Only after Pearl Harbor could direct intervention be considered. And, even then, the US did not declare war on Germany. Hitler declared war on US. Once American public mood was turned, then the hard job of fighting could begin. When one considers the Democrat candidates, can any have this same capacity ? Maybe Hillary or Richardson, none of the others. This will be our condition in two years. The public consensus must be first, the attacks come second.
#17
barring an Iranian attack or hostage-taking attempt, you could be right. NEVER put it past the MM's to overplay their hand through arrogance or ignorance (or stupidity). Having Mookie skedaddle to Tehran was just such a misplay.
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/28/2007 15:52 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Good plan Anonymouse. Given that the majority party and press are currently advocating surrender, theres zero chance it will be executed. But good plan nevertheless.
JERUSALEM - Israel has ended extensive military manoeuvres in the occupied West Bank that were designed to assimilate lessons learned from last years war in Lebanon, a senior officer said on Friday. For the last 40 hours we have conducted large ground exercises in the Judean desert, Lieutenant Colonel Elad Ratsabi, the commander of the elite Shelah unit, told AFP by telephone.
These exercises were organised to deal with various scenarios and to take on board lessons learnt after the Second Lebanon War, he said.
This assumes they'll have a prime minister who will also learn the lessons.
The war games mobilised 2,000 soldiers, including artillery, armoured vehicles, infantry and sappers, and followed two and a half months of intensive training, Ratsabi said.
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/28/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
WND > FATAH Leader ABBAS may had allegedly approved of recent HAMAS-fired GAZA rocket attack which got the Israelis riled up.
The Palestinian Authority Chairman and the political leader of Hamas held a rare meeting Friday in the Egyptian capital - their first since Fatah and Hamas formed a coalition government, officials from both camps said.
PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas' supreme leader, Khaled Mashaal, were to discuss the troubled cease-fire with Israel, international sanctions against the Palestinians, the PLO restructuring in which Hamas wants a part, as well as other issues facing the recently formed government.
Neither side commented on their discussion after the conclusion of the meeting.
According to Saeb Erekat, a top aide to Abbas, also on the agenda would be the fate of Israeli kidnapped soldier Cpl. Gilad Schalit.
Egypt has tried to negotiate Schalit's release for months and has blamed Hamas for failing to conclude the deal. Israeli Infrastructure Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, who visited Cairo in October, said his government had accepted Egypt's conditions for a prisoner swap and blamed Mashaal for the failure to conclude the deal.
Hamas' representative in Lebanon, Osama Hamdan, said the meeting would also consider a "restructuring" of the Palestinian Liberation Organization. The umbrella group - which is separate from the newly formed Fatah-Hamas government - is the sole party authorized to conduct negotiations with Israel.
Since the coalition government was approved in March, Hamas has been pressing to acquire the post of deputy chairman of the PLO, apparently jostling for more influence in talks with Israel.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/28/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Blow Mashaal's plane out of the air, convoy off the road or boat out of the water, regardless of any civilian loss of life. Killing this scumbag thug is one of Israel's top priorities. If an entire civilian airliner has to be blown out of the sky, so be it. It still will have been worth it.
Ehud Olmert could resign as Prime Minister of Israel after publication on Monday of a report into last summers war in Lebanon. And good riddance if he does.
The government-appointed inquiry into the conflict has reached conclusions of a personal nature against the Prime Minister himself, a spokesman for the commission said. Its findings are considered so controversial that the draft report is being guarded over the weekend by the secret service. Aides of Mr Olmert, who is already facing corruption allegations, hinted that he would step down if the report recommended such a move. And maybe move somewhere else, to live out his days under an assumed name?
The inquiry, led by the retired judge Eliahu Winograd, will analyse the first five days of fighting and Israels decision to launch the war after Hezbollah militants captured two Israeli soldiers last July. Try the last half of the war, when decisions were made in the A.M., to be overturned in the P.M.
With the soldiers still missing and the army suffering heavy casualties, the Israeli public has long regarded the Second Lebanon War as a failure, punishing Mr Olmert with an approval rating of just 2 per cent. The commissions findings are rumored to be especially harsh, finding Mr Olmert and Amir Peretz, the Defence Minister, personally responsible for failing to stop Hezbollah from firing rockets at Israel and to recover the missing soldiers.
Mr Olmerts closest aides began yesterday to pave the way for him to go. There is no doubt that everything recommended by the Winograd Commission, which enjoys the confidence of the population will be applied including if it delivers personal recommendations, Lior Horev, one of Mr Olmerts advisers, told army radio.
Political analysts speculated that even if Mr Olmert managed to survive the immediate controversy, any damage to his credibility would prevent him from leading Israel effectively. If he couldn't quite manage to do that before the war, and he hasn't done it since the way, it's doubtful things're gonna change.
This could definitely spell the end to his political career. If the rumours are true, its hard to imagine how he could ever recover, Yaaron Ezrahi, a professor of political science at Hebrew University, said.
Mr Olmert and Mr Peretz have maintained publicly that the war was an overall success, forcing Hezbollah guerrillas back from the border and creating a buffer zone patrolled by an international peacekeeping force.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/28/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I don't believe there's any way to dissolve the Knesset early, so his successor would be from the same crowd. Meet the new boss...
#3
GET RID OF OLMERT! It's not a question of finding someone who could do better, it's really more a question of whether anyone else in Israel could possibly do worse, other than an Israeli Arab.
Posted by: Mac ||
04/28/2007 6:48 Comments ||
Top||
#4
There always seems to be a direct correlation between valid claims of corruption and almost criminal leadership decisions that work against The People(TM) and for the bad guys.
A dead jellyfish has more spine than Olmert. He must be removed if only to warn any successors that there are consequences for such profound incompetence.
'Cause antisemitism is Germany's Olde Tyme Religion, right?
Focus reporter Amir Taheri apologizes to PM's office for publication of interview on German magazine's website that attributed to PM threatening statements against Iran. Taheri says he did not write interview, asks editors to remove story from site.
Earlier, the magazine quoted Olmert as saying that Iran's disputed nuclear program could be severely hit by firing 1,000 cruise missiles in a 10-day attack. The magazine later changed the story's aggressive headline, "Israel threaten Iran," to "Israel toughens its tone against Iran."
Focus officials have also admitted that "the impression that was created as if Olmert said that there was an operative plan to strike was exaggerated, and it is now clear that Olmert's statements were not aimed as a threat on Iran."
However, in a conversation with Ynet the editors stood by their initial reports and insisted that the text of the interview circulated in the media was correct and will be published tomorrow.
An examination of the transcript of Olmert's conversation with the reporter revealed that the PM's perceived aggressiveness in the interview resulted from the fact that fine nuances of his English statements were lost in translation. In the original version of the interview in English, Olmert did mention albeit in passing - the option of striking Iran, claiming that "no one has ever ruled it out."
The Prime Minister's Office said Saturday that the interview with Focus never took place. "The statements published are an utter lie and were never said This cynical abuse of an invitation for a background conversation, which led to the publication of a false report," the office stated. However, sources at the magazine insisted that their reporter had met with Olmert for an hour and-a-half last Wednesday. Bad translation of an interview that never happened? A tribute to Germany's long tradition of fine journalism.
#2
In the original version of the interview in English, Olmert did mention albeit in passing - the option of striking Iran, claiming that "no one has ever ruled it out."
It seems Focus isn't keen on wasting money for capable translators. German thriftiness, I s'pose, although the ones I knew over there were quite willing to spend whatever the cost to get high quality, and expressed their thrift by going without other things to balance the budget. But it has been twelve years since we lived there, so perhaps the character of the people has changed.
Lebanon will compensate Denmark for damage to its consulate in Beirut during the riots last year over a Danish paper's publication of cartoons about prophet Mohammed, the Danish government has said. The Lebanese will provide $128,000 in compensation, the Danish foreign ministry said in a statement Thursday.
Protesters set fire to the building housing the Danish mission in Beirut's Ashrafiyeh neighborhood in February 2006 following the publication of the cartoons, deemed offensive by Muslims, in Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. The cartoons were later reproduced in other European newspapers
Posted by: Fred ||
04/28/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 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.
South Koreas Defence Minister Kim Jang-Soo on Friday criticised the top US military commander in the country for inappropriate remarks about sharing the cost of American forces. In a US Senate hearing earlier this week, General BB Bell said the future of work to relocate US military bases could depend on whether South Korea is willing to pay a larger share. Without more equitable allied SMA (Special Measures Agreement) funding, we may be forced to recommend a range of fiscal measures to the US government, including a review of base relocation and consolidation plans, Bell said. Kim expressed regret at the comments. It was inappropriate for the commander to talk about the possibility of reviewing the base relocation project that was agreed with the South Korean government, he told reporters. Kim said Bells remarks appeared aimed more at seeking greater financial support from Washington, rather than targeting the Seoul authorities. Nonetheless, it was inappropriate, he said. The US has stationed tens of thousands of troops in South Korea since the end of the 1950-53 war to help it defend itself against North Koreas 1.1 million-strong military.
Although Tenet does not question the threat Saddam Hussein posed or the sincerity of administration beliefs, he recounts numerous efforts by aides to Cheney and then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to insert "crap" into public justifications for the war. Tenet also describes an ongoing fear within the intelligence community of the administration's willingness to "mischaracterize complex intelligence information."
Influential US senators vowed on Thursday to restore to foreign terrorism suspects the right to challenge their imprisonment, saying Congress made an historic blunder by stripping them of that right last year. 
Spain and Pakistan on Friday rejected associating terrorism with any nation, culture, or religion. A joint declaration, released simultaneously from Islamabad and Madrid at the end of President General Pervez Musharrafs visit to Spain, 
Jamaatud Dawa (JD) chief Hafiz Muhammad Saeed on Friday endorsed various steps taken by the Lal Masjid administration for the implementation of Sharia in Pakistan. The Lal Masjid administration talks about Sharia, therefore we support it, he said in his Friday sermon at Liaquat Bagh. He said that instead of taking notice of Rahul Gandhis statement regarding dismemberment of Pakistan in 1971 the Pakistani government was strengthening friendship with India. He said Pakistan would have Sharia implemented soon.
Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has said a possible US attack on Iran would be a "terrible mistake" and incur dire consequences. "It will be a terrible mistake if President George Bush orders an attack against Iran," Musharraf told Sarajevo daily Dnevni Avaz ahead of his visit to Bosnia. "I'm concerned about the possibility that a US attack on Iran (would cause) turbulence in the region," he said, warning it would spark "radicalism." 
President Gen Pervez Musharraf confirmed on Friday that Pakistans parliament would vote on his re-election before it is to be dissolved for general polls later this year. It is the people of Pakistan who will decide whether to elect me as the president or not, President Musharraf told journalists during a visit to the Bosnian capital Sarajevo. My election will be held two months before the national elections by Pakistans assembly, he added. Opposition parties had labelled the move unconstitutional when Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz earlier announced it.
The Palestinian Authority Chairman and the political leader of Hamas held a rare meeting Friday in the Egyptian capital - their first since Fatah and Hamas formed a coalition government, officials from both camps said. 
Ehud Olmert could resign as Prime Minister of Israel after publication on Monday of a report into last summers war in Lebanon.
Lebanon will compensate Denmark for damage to its consulate in Beirut during the riots last year over a Danish paper's publication of cartoons about prophet Mohammed, the Danish government has said. The Lebanese will provide $128,000 in compensation, the Danish foreign ministry said in a statement Thursday.
