Taliban leader Mullah Omar called on Afghanistans neighbors to help his militants oust President Hamid Karzais government and force foreign troops out of the country.
Omars message - the authenticity of which couldnt be immediately confirmed - said neighbors should help Afghans drive Western forces from Afghanistan as they had done during Soviet Unions invasion. They should abandon any kind of support and understand that they (Western forces) are a danger to the whole region. Omars statement was posted on a Web site that previously carried militant messages. It was unclear when it was posted, though it included greetings for the Muslim holiday of Eidul Fitr, which is expected to start Sunday.
Karzai has offered peace talks with the militants and even positions in the government. But the Taliban and warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar have rejected the overtures, saying international troops must first leave the country. In his Internet statement, Omar said Karzais offers were the result of the Talibans resilience on the battlefield.
He said Western forces should end satanic policies, including airstrikes that kill civilians, and withdraw. But he also called on his fighters to be mindful of civilians during combat, suggesting the bloodshed is sapping support for the militants among ordinary Afghans.
This article starring:
Gulbuddin Hekmatyar
Posted by: Fred ||
10/13/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under: Taliban
Kuwait called on the international community Wednesday evening to place a legal and comprehensive definition for terrorism and terrorist acts, and to prepare a counter-terrorism agreement as soon as possible.
Same old, same old. Arab states want to 'define' terrorism so as to make sure that none of them can be accused of it.
This came during a speech by Kuwaiti diplomat Mohammad Al-Ateeqi before the 62nd UN General Assembly's Legal Committee, which was discussing measures to eliminate global terrorism. He called on the international community not to confuse terrorism with the right of people to determine their own fate and liberate themselves from foreign occupation, as stipulated in Charter of the UN.
Which means that killin' Jooooooz is still okay.
"We, in Kuwait, reaffirm that terrorism clashes with all religions and human values. While condemning all forms of terrorism, regardless of motive, we reiterate that terrorism must not be linked to any religion, nationality, culture, or ethnic group."
Especially Muslims. Most especially.
"We also stress respect for human rights, international law, and international humanitarian law when countering terrorism," he said.
Except when the Shi'a citizens of their own country get a little uppity. But hey, who cares about that?
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/13/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
#1
not to confuse terrorism with the right of people to determine their own fate and liberate themselves
Only the most blinkered could be caught in such confusion. Almost every nation has at some point fought a war for its independence (which is what he means, as "liberation" necessarily involves some attention to "liberty"), but not every nation has resorted to terrorism. He wants us to conflate George Washington with Yassir Arafat. Washington could have sent agents to massacre loyalists, but he didn't. Arafat could have established a regular army and confronted the Israelis on the battlefield, but he didn't.
It's an argument that can only appeal to those with no sense of history or those who have a stake in creating the suggestion of confusion in the face of a good deal of actual clarity.
Posted by: Baba Tutu ||
10/13/2007 1:10 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"We, in Kuwait, reaffirm that snake biting terrorism clashes with all religions and human values. While condemning all forms of snake bites terrorism, regardless of motive, we reiterate that snake bites terrorism must not be linked to any religion, nationality, culture, or ethnic group snakes."
#4
Totalitarianism is often associated with the use of terror. To wit:
A simple definition of totalitarianism can be taken to be a system of rule, driven by an ideology, that seeks direction of all aspects of public activity, political, economic and social, and uses to that end, at least to a degree, propaganda and terror.
An official ideology to which general adherence was demanded, the ideology intended to achieve a perfect final stage of mankind.
A single mass party, hierarchically organised, closely interwoven with the state bureaucracy and typically led by one man.
Monopolistic control of the armed forces.
A similar monopoly of the means of effective mass communication.
A system of terroristic police control.
Central control and direction of the entire economy.
[emphasis added]
The numerous intersections of Islam and totalitarianism cannot be ignored. Laws or fatwan are issued in an indefatigable drive to control and define acceptable social behavior. The media and military are tools of state. Freedom of speech and personal liberty are nonexistent. In order to effect these constraints the use of terror as means of control is almost de rigeur. As a result of these congruencies, Islam is terrorism. Totalitarianism cannot be excised from Islam without hopelessly neutering its Koranic doctrine. Ergo, neither can terrorism.
KUWAIT CITY - Kuwait is to buy an unspecified number of Patriot missiles from the United States, Defence Minister Jaber al-Mubarak al-Sabah told the state news agency KUNA on Friday.
Sheikh Jaber, responding to questions about Washingtons sale of arms to Gulf allies, said Kuwait has signed deals, not for airplanes, but for materiel such as ships and Patriot missiles. He did not give any further details.
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/13/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
#1
Many of which can be very quickly moved north to Iraq as needed.
#2
Possibly, but if the missiles start flying across the Persian Gulf, Kuwait's transportation network and petroleum facilities will need all the protection they can get.
The United Kingdom has reiterated its request to Pakistan to extradite British national Rashid Rauf following his arrest last year on the suspicion of masterminding the 7/7 bombings in London, Daily Times has learnt.
Foreign Office (FO) sources said the British High Commission here had recently submitted a formal extradition request to the FO, which had forwarded it to the Interior Ministry and the concerned intelligence agencies for consideration.
Rauf fled to Pakistan after killing his uncle, Muhammad Saeed, on April 24, 2002.
Rauf fled to Pakistan after killing his uncle, Muhammad Saeed, on April 24, 2002 in Birmingham. Police in Karachi arrested him on August 10, 2006 in connection with the Heathrow Airport bombing on July 7 of the same year. Sources said the Interior Ministry had informed the FO that, as Pakistan and the UK have no extradition treaty, the government would have to invoke the Extradition Act of 1972 by publishing a notification in the official gazette for Raufs extradition to Britain.
According to the sources, the ministry said further that the withdrawal of terror cases against the suspected militant from Airport Police Station, Rawalpindi was necessary for Raufs extradition. Pakistans Penal Code, under Section 5(2)(F), blocks the surrender of a fugitive offender if they are accused of serious offences in Pakistan. Sources said London had requested Raufs custody under the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters for Investigation Agreement, but the request was declined because of the absence of any such agreement. They said that Islamabad, however, allowed British police to interrogate Rauf on the Birmingham murder case and his alleged involvement in terrorism.
This article starring:
Rashid Rauf
al-Qaeda
Posted by: Fred ||
10/13/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under: al-Qaeda
A prisoner has been charged with an attack on a jailed al Qaeda terrorist. The 22-year-old inmate is accused of assaulting Dhiren Barot, the leader of a British-based terrorist cell that plotted to murder thousands of people with dirty bombs.
Barot's lawyer has claimed the convicted terrorist had boiling oil thrown over him during the attack in the high security Frankland Prison in County Durham. The unnamed prisoner faces charges of wounding and assault occasioning actual bodily harm following the incident on July 6. He will appear in court on October 23.
After the alleged attack, which left Barot, 35, scarred for life, a news blackout was imposed to protect medical staff from possible attack while he was treated at Newcastle's Royal Victoria Infirmary. Barot was sentenced to life, with a minimum term of 30 years, for planning to plant radioactive, chemical or toxic gas bombs and pack limousines with nails and explosives in the UK and America. He was arrested in August 2004 and accused of conspiracy to murder. He admitted planning to bomb several targets including the New York Stock Exchange, the International Monetary Fund HQ, and the World Bank.
Barot, who recruited other bomb plotters, was sentenced to life in prison last November. It was recommended he serve 40 years but that was cut to 30 years on appeal in May.
This article starring:
Dhiren Barot
al-Qaeda in Britain
Posted by: Fred ||
10/13/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under: al-Qaeda
#4
Now that he is relatively incapacitated, perhaps someone else can oil him up for another round of fun and games. Barot's richly deserved plight reward needs to highlighted in order that other aspiring terrorists are made well-aware of what awaits them after capture and conviction. I can only delegate Barot's attacker the same regard as Christopher Scarver with respect to how they serve a necessary function, if only by making object lessons out of society's worst scum.
A clear example of why the Mullah-Chavez axis is such a bad thing for us.
SANTA CRUZ, Bolivia Uruguayan parliamentary investigators said they blocked an attempt by their government to purchase arms from Iran, using a diversion through Venezuela to try to evade U.N. sanctions on the Tehran government.
Some 15,000 rounds of Iranian-made 5.56 mm ammunition were loaded onto a Uruguayan navy ship in Venezuela before the attempt was discovered, said Javier Garcia of Uruguay's opposition National Party in an interview. Uruguay's military chiefs deny they ordered the munitions.
"Lies! All lies!"
The shipment, part of a larger deal involving the sale of 18,000 Iranian-made automatic rifles, would be in clear violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution No. 1747, passed March 24 in an effort to curb that country"s uranium enrichment program. "The Iran-Venezuela-Uruguay triangulation of these munitions had the objective of allowing Iran" to make a sale to Uruguay in spite of the sanctions, Mr. Garcia said.
Although Uruguayan President Tabare Vazquez is considered a center-left moderate, his government includes elements of the Tupamaros Liberation Front who support Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's brand of radical socialism. During a meeting with Mr. Vazquez in August, Mr. Chavez offered to supply oil to Uruguay on favorable terms.
According to the Uruguayan parliamentary investigators, Iranian arms exporter Moldex planned to sell 18,000 HK2002 rifles, described as lighter versions of the Russian Kalashnikov, through the Venezuelan military contractor Compania Anonima Venezolana de Industrias Militares, or CAVIM. However, Mr. Garcia said, the arms were ultimately destined for Uruguay's army and navy. He said that the munitions picked up in Venezuela were supposed to serve as "practice rounds."
Uruguayan defense officials dismissed the incident as the result of "confusion," admitting only to having considered an Iranian bid for weapons before the U.N. sanctions came into effect. But investigators said Mr. Vazquez sent a note to the Uruguayan congress authorizing the navy ship Artigas to pick up a "cargo" in Venezuela on July 9 more than three months after the U.N. resolution.
Top CAVIM executives and Venezuelan generals approached Uruguay's ambassador in Caracas, Geronimo Cardozo, to arrange the transfer of the munitions to Uruguay, according to regional press reports. These reports said Mr. Cardozo appealed for the "highest levels" of the Uruguayan government to order the Artigas to Venezuela on its way home from a mission with U.N. peacekeeping forces in Haiti.
"If the delivery had taken place, we would have violated U.N. resolutions, exposing ourselves to serious sanctions and the loss of our international credibility," Mr. Garcia said.
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/13/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#1
Looks like someone in the Uruguayan Government was about to rake in some serious cash.
Corruption is the only explanation why they would choose Iranian rifles and ammunition.. stuff they could buy anywhere...
Posted by: john frum ||
10/13/2007 9:08 Comments ||
Top||
#2
15K rounds? That wouldn't be enough for a year's training for the Uruguayan military. Now if it was going to the Tupamaros Liberation Front...
#4
This is good news, but I hope the diligence continues. Day of Islam author Williams links Brazilian camps of Hezbollah(since 1983) and OBL to the drug cartels of Uruguay, Paraguay, Colombia, Ecuador on page 141-143.
U.S. military planners quietly have stepped up a review of alternatives in case the Turkish government restricts U.S. access to Turkish airspace or cuts off access to the air base at Incirlik, Turkey, CNN has learned. Turkey has threatened such action after congressional moves to declare that the killing of Armenians by Ottoman Turks in World War I was "genocide." We're not babies!
Turkey -- now a NATO member and a key U.S. ally in the war on terror -- accepts Armenians were killed but calls it a massacre during a chaotic time, not an organized campaign of genocide.
The recent rise in tensions between Turkey and the United States has led the military to increase its planning for alternatives, two military officials with direct knowledge of the ongoing assessment said. "Events have triggered more detailed planning for the curtailment or closure" of access to Turkey, one official said. The key issue is to find ways to ship supplies and other critical equipment into Iraq.
The U.S. military already had been considering alternatives to Turkey because of the growing dependence on that country after the cutback of U.S. forces in central Asia in recent years.
But now, with more "detailed planning" under way, the military is considering a variety of options in hopes of being ready for whatever, if anything, the Turks do. U.S. officials say Turkey's options range from a complete cutoff, including ending overland access routes from southern Turkey into Iraq, to less drastic options that simply restrict U.S. access.
The initial assessment is that any cutoff from current access to Turkey would force the U.S. military into longer cargo flights, which would mean extra costs for fuel and for wear and tear on equipment. It may also look for other air hubs in Jordan or Kuwait, officials say.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates earlier this week pointed out, "Seventy percent of the air cargo, American air cargo, going into Iraq goes through Turkey. Seventy percent of the fuel that goes in for our forces goes in ... through Turkey ...
"For those who are concerned that we get as many of these mine-resistant ambush-protected heavy vehicles into Iraq as possible, 95 percent of those vehicles today are being flown into Iraq through Turkey."
Turkey on Thursday recalled its ambassador to the United States and warned of repercussions in the growing dispute. On Wednesday, in a 27-21 vote, the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs passed the measure labeling the killings of Armenians by Ottoman Turkish forces "genocide."
President Bush and key administration figures lobbied hard against the measure, saying it would create unnecessary headaches for U.S. relations with Turkey. Careful, that will only encourage them.
The full House could soon vote on the genocide resolution. A top Turkish official warned Thursday that consequences "won't be pleasant" if it approves the measure.
The resolution arrives at a particularly sensitive point in U.S.-Turkish relations. The United States has urged Turkey not to send its troops over the border into northern Iraq to fight Kurdish separatist rebels, who launched some cross-border attacks against Turkish targets. The Turkish military is poised to strike across the border to fight the group -- the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK -- a move opposed by the Bush administration. The Turkish parliament could give approval for the incursion into Iraq as early as next week.
I don't mind swatting the PKK, and hard, but it should be us and the Peshmerga, not the Turks. Put the Turks into Kurdish Iraq and you'll have a hard time getting them out. Might even turn into a new quagmire.
Posted by: Pheagum Phuth6556 ||
10/13/2007 02:50 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
#1
Not a word from the EU. As usual, unreliable and MIA.
I guess I can understand their point of view, though. If they used access as a bargaining chip for Turkey's entry, then they'd have to follow through once Turkey acquisced.
OTOH, if they had any guts, they would put together a checklist of things Turkey must do for entry-including allowing regular US military use of their territory and setting out the secular (read: non-Islamic) aspects of government that must be upheld for EU entry.
Canada's Jewish community is expressing hope that federal security agencies will bring to justice the perpetrator in a terrorist cold case in France who has allegedly taken refuge in this country.
Yesterday, Le Figaro reported that European security agencies are looking for help tracking down a fugitive who used a motorcycle bomb to kill four people and wound 20 others in an October, 1980 attack in Paris. The identity of the suspect had long been unknown. But authorities have recently identified him as a 55-year-old naturalized Canadian of Arab origin who now lives in Canada after spending years in the United States.
The Copernic Road synagogue bombing, which prompted massive rallies against anti-Semitism in France, continues to send ripples of fear today - it's considered one of the reasons that security is increased in synagogues during the High Holidays.
"It's the major incident that started a way in the thinking of Jewish communities around the world," said Bernie Farber, chief executive of the Canadian Jewish Congress. "It's one of the first times there was a serious bombing outside the Middle East on sovereign territory - French territory, in Paris - aimed specifically at Jews."
Mr. Farber said that while Canada has had "a spotty history" in dealing with terrorists, he is hopeful federal agencies will play a key role in tracking down and extraditing the suspect. "It's a new era, it's a new government," he said. "They have committed themselves to dealing properly and forthrightly with terrorism. This will be a good test case."
Yet another reason removing the Grits from power was a good thing.
According to Le Figaro, the suspect "lives peacefully" in Canada. French authorities last month formally asked for help from international agencies in amassing evidence, such as fingerprints, writing samples and DNA. This is said to have flowed from a breakthrough in Germany, where authorities obtained a membership dossier on a now-defunct group known as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.
French authorities are said to be angered by the leak of their reinvigorated investigation, and have not divulged the suspect's identity. Canadian officials and the French embassy in Ottawa had little to say yesterday. "Communications between states are confidential," said Chris Girouard of the Canadian Department of Justice. Jean-Christophe Fleury, of the French embassy in Ottawa, said he was not free to comment.
"I can say no more!"
Canada formally blacklisted the group as a terrorist entity in 2003, but its previous attempts to deal with alleged members and associates has been less than stellar.
Ottawa officials have now twice failed to deport an alleged member named Issam Al Yamani. The government alleged he was involved in a 1977 United Arab Emirates bombing. But in one of the rulings, a Federal Court judge said the suspect was not a threat given that the PFLP was "not the potent organization it once was, nor is it the radical terrorist organization that it was in the early seventies."
Canada has also taken criticism for the so-called "Triple-M" case. Mahmoud Mohammad Issa Mohammad, a PFLP member who allegedly killed an Israeli citizen while hijacking a plane in 1968, has spent nearly 20 years resisting the government's attempts to deport him on the grounds he entered Canada under false pretenses.
While Mr. Farber said he has faith in the Canadian police to track down terrorists, he said the "glacial pace" of the Canadian criminal-justice system remains troubling. But he said his group and counterparts in France are glad authorities never closed the books on the hunt for the synagogue bomber. "There is no statute of limitations when it comes to murder," Mr. Farber said.
This article starring:
Issam Al Yamani
Mahmoud Mohammad Issa Mohammad
Posted by: tipper ||
10/13/2007 00:50 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
#1
The Canadian Parliamentary system is based on the British Westminster model and is very different from the USA's Representative Republic. Much information is kept from the public. Much, much information.
I have first hand experience with certain extraditions that have occured from here without the knowledge of them being passed on to the Canadian public. I also know that certain "persons of interest" are under observation.
That being said, not one person involved in news gathering or dissemination has any knowledge of how closely this "naturalized Canadian of Arab origin" may or may not be being watched. As soon as the subject of naturalized Canadian/terrorism or "Security Certificates" arises, the government spokesmen begin to doublespeak and stutter. What you should realize is that Canadians want to appear to be nice, polite and friendly people. . . . But when they get pi@@ed off they can turn into snarly, vindictive goose steppers pretty quickly. . . . . and then back again. I'm one of 'em and I've had over 60 years of observation to back up my opinion.
MOSCOW (AP) - Russian President Vladimir Putin warned President Bush's top two Cabinet officials on Friday to back off U.S. missile defense plans for eastern Europe as high-level talks yielded little more than a pledge to meet again.
Despite presenting new cooperation proposals intended to bring Moscow on board, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates failed in a series of tough meetings to turn around Moscow's opposition to the system and other strategic issues.
Putin set the tone early on when he hosted Rice and Gates and their Russian counterparts at his country home outside Moscow and delivered a stern rebuff to U.S. plans to push ahead with establishing missile defense facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic. In combative comments that took the U.S. side aback during a photo session, Putin criticized Bush's pet project and threatened to pull out of a Cold War-era treaty that limits intermediate-range missiles. "We may decide someday to put missile defense systems on the moon, but before we get to that we may lose a chance for agreement because of you implementing your own plans," he told Rice and Gates in Russian, according to an Associated Press translation.
Hokay. Bye. See ya. Hope you can compete.
"We hope that in the process of such complex and multifaceted talks you will not be forcing forward your previous agreements with eastern European countries," Putin said.
The United States has repeatedly rejected Russian demands to freeze U.S. negotiations with Poland and the Czech Republic and Rice did so again Friday, said three senior U.S. officials present at the sessions with Rice, Gates, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov.
The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe diplomatic discussions, maintained that differences were narrowed but progress was incremental and might not produce ultimate understandings. "I agree that we did not agree on anything today," one official told reporters. He added quickly that neither Washington nor Moscow had expected significant breakthroughs.
Sounds like they had a 'frank exchange of views'.
Rice and Lavrov announced at a news conference after the meetings that the two sides would meet again in Washington in six months to review a "strategic framework" on evaluating and addressing the missile threat posed by rogue states, principally Iran.
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/13/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
TOPIX > RUSSIA - Putin now warning that Russia may target Europe again wid IRBMS, as during pre-INF/CFE Cold War.
#2
This is a laying out of initial bargaining positions. Putin probably wants to see the bribes he can shake out of the Europeans in return for not being a pest.
Al
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
10/13/2007 17:31 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The talks are designed to fail. My guess is that Putin wants to deploy IRBMs again. Not so much to aim at Europe but China. ICBMs numbers are limited by the START treaty and IRBMs would be a way to breakout of that limit. Chinese ICBMs are few and reserved for US targets, but they sure have a lot of IRBMs aimed at Russia.
Posted by: ed ||
10/13/2007 23:22 Comments ||
Top||
FBI officials followed a terrorism suspect to a public library and when he was done using a computer there violated his privacy by making, without a warrant, records of the Web pages and e-mail addresses that he had accessed, the man's attorney alleged Thursday.
Syed Ahmed's attorney, Jack Martin, said in filing in federal court in Atlanta that the March 21, 2006, actions by the FBI at Chestatee Regional Library in Dawsonville amounted to an unconstitutional search. Martin said one of the FBI officials sat down at the computer Ahmed used and, utilizing the history function of the computer, viewed and made a record of the Web pages and e-mail addresses that had been accessed by Ahmed. "The actions of the government agent, contrary to the policies and procedures of the library, including policies to ensure the privacy of its authorized library users, violated the defendant's reasonable expectations of privacy," Martin wrote in his motion. Martin wants the evidence, which he did not detail in his motion, suppressed. There was no immediate ruling by a judge.
Ahmed and co-defendant Ehsanul Sadequee, both U.S. citizens, are accused of undergoing training to carry out a "violent jihad" against civilian and government targets, including an air base in suburban Atlanta. Authorities say the men wanted to plan attacks for "defense of Muslims or retaliation for acts committed against Muslims." They have pleaded not guilty to a July 19, 2006, indictment charging them with providing material support to terrorists and related conspiracy counts. No trial date has been set.
Ahmed, born in Pakistan, was a Georgia Tech student at the time of his arrest. Sadequee, born in Virginia of Bangladeshi descent, has relatives in the Atlanta area.
A spokesman for the FBI, Stephen Emmett, declined to comment on Martin's allegations. But U.S. Attorney David Nahmias said in a statement provided to The Associated Press that "public libraries are not safe havens for terrorist-related activity. The FBI's actions were lawful and appropriate as we will demonstrate when we respond to the motion in court."
U.S. Attorney David Nahmias responded in a statement to the AP that "The FBI's actions were lawful and appropriate as we will demonstrate when we respond to the motion in court," adding that "public libraries are not safe havens for terrorist-related activity." Many libraries have equipped their computers to automatically clear each users history after a session. Obviously the Chestatee Regional Library in Dawsonville, GA did not have this feature. The American Library Associations Office for Intellectual Freedom advises librarians, If the agent or officer does not have a court order compelling the production of records, the library director should explain the librarys confidentiality policy and the states confidentiality law, and inform the agent or officer that users' records are not available except when a proper court order in good form has been presented to the library."
Problem here is wasn't necessary to ask the library to produce records. Ahmed left his activity records out in public for anyone to view. How does this differ from, say, a note pad or paper that he had abandoned on the desk or tossed in the waste basket?
#2
I'm impressed. I've been despairing of our competence in finding and arresting terrorists in our country. Sounds like at least one office of the FBI is on the ball. Good job!
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/13/2007 12:14 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Ahmed had the option of clearing his browser's history. By abandoning the computerwith that record intact and available to any new userhe thereby relinquished any right to privacy regarding that information. He might as well have dropped his personal address book on a public sidewalk.
Ajmer, India: For the past 796 years, Eid was announced in a special way at the 13th century dargah of sufi saint Khwaja Moinuddin Chisti. The sound of nakkaras (drums) and jhanjh, a brass instrument that helps maintain rhythm, would reverberate across the shrine to indicate that the festive moon had been potted.
On Saturday that age-old practice was broken for the first time. Those associated with the practice for generations said they decided not to play the instruments as a mark of respect for those who lost their lives in the Thursday blast. "It was the call of our conscience," says Muzaffar Bharti, who belongs to the select group of traditional musicians called nakkarchis and is also secretary of the Dargah Hereditary Staff Association.
The blast seems to have taken the music out of the lives of everyone who live around the dargah. Shops have reopened and the beggars are back. But the number of devotees and customers has dropped. So has pre-Eid business.
Zamil Hussain, who sells roses outside the shrine, says the blast has killed the festive spirit that Eid ushers in. "We cannot even feel that Eid is just a few hours away," he says.
Navratna Vaishnao, who sells sweets and incense sticks, says sales are down 80%. Bangle seller Murlidhar Phulwani hasn't had a single customer through the day. "This has never happened before," he says.
Ahmed Raza, chief executive officer, Dargah Committee, sums up the prevailing sentiment, "Something like this has happened for the first time in the 796-year-old history of the dargah . Due to the deaths, we want to celebrate Eid with simplicity."
Posted by: john frum ||
10/13/2007 18:37 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[12 views]
Top|| File under:
VDH has just returned from Iraq. If you haven't read his three part report, Part IPart II and Part III, you need to.
He has the recent view of Iraq to make this statement:
Gen. Sanchez was recently reported lambasting past and present strategy in Iraq, on grounds, according to Stars and Stripes, that "Such a strategy should involve political reconciliation among Iraqis, building up the Iraqi security forces and getting Iraq's regional partners."
True, but one of the things that strikes a visitor to Iraq is that the officers, major to colonel, and Gen. Petraeus himself reiterate exactly that tripartite approach-that is, they stress reconciliation (Gen. Petraeus has an entire working group formally entitled 'reconciliation'), training Iraq police and army, and involving neighboring states at the formal diplomatic level and the more informal military liaisons and private investors.
In other words, Gen. Sanchez just summed up the present strategy and effort in Iraq. I'm not suggesting this is new, or that under his tenure we weren't doing the same, only that his present suggestions of what we should be doing are exactly what we are doing.
A final point. What is depressing is that a host of formal civilian and military officials, who during their tenure assured everyone that victory over the insurgents was in sight, then, upon leaving in the wake of criticism (one thinks of Bremer, Franks, Sanchez, etc.), post facto lambasted the effort. The net effect is a lack of credibility among the military and civilian overseerssort of 'why should I believe you now, since when and if you are relieved, you will only retroactively tell us how bad was what you now say is good.'
Almost no one senses that the tragedy of war is always error and costly error at that, the side winning who makes the fewest and learns the most from themand then doesn't give up.
Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf has blamed a group of more than 200 soldiers for their capture by pro-Taleban militants.
"I think they acted unprofessionally in that they were trying to clear a road block without taking any precautionary measures," he told the BBC. The fact the president criticised the soldiers despite their still being in captivity is a sign of his frustration. He knows that many Pakistanis do not agree with army actions in Waziristan. Gen Musharraf, who is still chief of army staff, is also aware that others are shocked that the militants have been able to win control of parts of the tribal area on the border.
The president was speaking in an exclusive BBC interview at his office near the army's general headquarters in Rawalpindi. He said the troops, kidnapped in August in South Waziristan near the Afghan border, should have made sure "they occupied the heights and dominated the position" before they did anything else. The soldiers were captured without firing a shot. The militants have told the BBC that the authorities have shown "minimal interest" in getting the soldiers released.
But Gen Musharraf said the authorities were using a combination of negotiation and force: "We have to deal from a position of strength. I think we will come to a solution." Over the last four years about 1,000 Pakistani security personnel have been killed fighting militants in or near Waziristan. Gen Musharraf has been under strong US pressure to fight harder in Waziristan.
But the use of air power has resulted in civilian deaths which turned some Wazir civilians against the Pakistani forces. "I wouldn't say that I am fully satisfied with the operation," Gen Musharraf said. "I am not. I am not satisfied. It is working partially [but] we need to do better."
He also spoke about the planned return next Thursday of the opposition leader Benazir Bhutto. For nearly a decade she has been living in London and Dubai in self-imposed exile. "I have sent messages that she should delay her return," the general said. And asked if he would try to prevent her return if she ignored his advice, he said: "No, that is not the case, but I would urge her not to."
Benazir Bhutto now feels it is safe to return because Gen Musharraf has passed a so-called National Reconciliation Ordinance dropping corruption charges against her and other politicians. She still faces some risks. The Supreme Court could strike down the ordinance as unconstitutional. There is also the issue of the time period (1986-1999) covered by the ordinance. Some of the allegations against Benazir Bhutto relate to events after 1999. The Pakistani authorities have in the past accused her of involvement in the oil-for-food scandal.
They threatened to charge here with UN sanctions busting on the grounds that a UAE-based company of which she was chairperson made illegal payments to Saddam Hussein's regime. Gen Musharraf implicitly acknowledged that case could continue. "Whatever is covered by the ordinance is covered. And whatever is not, is not," he said. "We will abide by that document strictly."
The general also spoke about his own political ambitions. He is now beginning his second term as president and under the constitution he can serve only two terms. But Gen Musharraf did not rule out seeking a third five-year stint as president even if that did mean changing the constitution. "If the people want to change it, they have a right to," he said. "Who knows what will happen after five years."
Posted by: john frum ||
10/13/2007 08:52 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under: Taliban
#1
Give Perv some credit... he would make a fine Hotel doorman in NYC.
And he can re-use his spiffy uniform with the sash and all the shiny medals...
Posted by: john frum ||
10/13/2007 9:02 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The commanders, Not the troops, they were just following orders.
ISLAMABAD - Pakistani President Pervez Musharrafs heir apparent as army chief vowed on Friday that there would be no let-up in Islamabads efforts in the US-led war on terror, the military said.
They'll fight the Talibunnies every bit as effectively as they have done over the past year!
Former spymaster General Ashfaq Kiyani is set to get a shiny new sprocket and take over as head of the military by November 15 provided that the Supreme Court upholds Musharrafs sweeping victory in last Saturdays presidential election.
Kiyani reiterated that there would be no let-up in war against terrorism till it is taken to its logical conclusion, an army statement quoted him as saying on a visit to the northwestern city of Peshawar. He gave specific directions to all commanders with regard to the ongoing operation in Waziristan agencies and exhorted them to spare no effort in eradicating the menace of extremism, it said.
"He also modeled his new sash and asked if it made his hips look big, naturally we reassured him on that point and we concluded our questions at that time."
Kiyani, the former chief of Inter-Services Intelligence, Pakistans premier spy agency in the hunt for Al Qaeda militants, officially took over as vice chief of army staff on Monday. The military says he is Musharrafs successor designate as head of the army.
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/13/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) workers on Friday protested against the killing of civilians in an army operation in North Waziristan. JI chief Qazi Hussain Ahmad had called for the protest. Qazi, Liaqat Baloch and Ameerul Azeem addressed the participants.
Qazi said hundreds of women and children had been forced to abandon their homes to safer locations due to the army operation. He said the war was not on terrorism, but was spreading terrorism across the world. He said the people used to raise slogans in favour of the Pakistan Army, but did not anymore. He said an army that could not protect its own soldiers could not protect the nation.
JI naib ameer Liaqat Baloch said the nation supported the people of Waziristan and the tribal areas. He said the nation had no sympathy for those bombing them. He said the war was not being fought in Pakistans interest, but was being fought for President Pervez Musharraf. He said the people should launch countrywide protests against the government.
This article starring:
Jamaat-e-Islami
Ameerul Azeem
Jamaat-e-Islami
Liaqat Baloch
Jamaat-e-Islami
Qazi Hussain Ahmad
Jamaat-e-Islami
Posted by: Fred ||
10/13/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[12 views]
Top|| File under: Jamaat-e-Islami
#1
Even with the 5 other parasite groups in the MMA, Qazi's clowns received less than 10% of the vote in the last federal and provincial elections. The MQM election platform calls for banning the JI, et al. And the MQM use murder as a political tool. The only thing preventing a massacre of JI supporters in Sindh is Mushy's army. Qazi's strongholds in NWFP and Balochistan can be crushed on short notice. He is a cockroach in human form.
Vice Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani said on Friday that there would be no letup in the war against terror until it has taken its logical conclusion.
Good idea. Live long and fester!... Ummm... What's its logical conclusion?
Gen Kayani was visiting the 11 Corps Headquarters here for the first time since taking charge of his new office. During the visit, he was briefed on the situation in North and South Waziristan, an Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) statement said. Gen Kayani gave specific directions to all commanders with regard to the ongoing operation in Waziristan and exhorted them to spare no effort in eradicating the menace of extremism. He also called on NWFP Governor Ali Jan Orakzai.
This article starring:
Ali Jan Orakzai
Ashfaq Parvez Kayani
Posted by: Fred ||
10/13/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under: Taliban
ARLINGTON, Va. - The U.S. mission in Iraq is a "nightmare with no end in sight" because of political misjudgments after the fall of Saddam Hussein that continue today, a former chief of U.S.-led forces said Friday. Retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who commanded coalition troops for a year beginning June 2003, cast a wide net of blame for both political and military shortcomings in Iraq that helped open the way for the insurgency such as disbanding the Saddam-era military and failing to cement ties with tribal leaders and quickly establish civilian government after Saddam was toppled.
He might recall that there was no coherent Iraqi military to recall after major combat operations ceased. And that army (unlike the currrent one), with a core of corrupt Sunni officers and beaten-down Shi'a enlisted personnel, wasn't going to help matters much. One can argue how best the several hundred thousand young men should have been handled, but there was a careful discussion and a decision made. Had I been in charge, and no one asked me, I would have disbanded the army as a military force, but kept them on duty and paid as a construction/clean-up/light security force. Even that would have been problematic, and I'll concede it might not have worked.
As to the tribal leaders, our people approached them from almost the first day. But they weren't listening to us because 1) they had dreams of getting their power back 2) Sammy was still on the loose and 3) al-Qaeda was making what they thought was a better offer. Now they know they'll never be top dogs again, Sammy has been hanged, and al-Qaeda abused them so badly that they see us as the better deal. Takes time to make that clear, general.
He called current strategies including the deployment of 30,000 additional forces earlier this year a "desperate attempt" to make up for years of misguided policies in Iraq. "There is no question that America is living a nightmare with no end in sight," Sanchez told a group of journalists covering military affairs.
I'm going to presume he was blunt with the President when he was in charge in Iraq. If not, why not? And if so, someone has to explain why he was 1) wrong or 2) ignored.
Sanchez avoided pointing his criticism at any single official or agency, but it appeared a broad indictment of White House policies and a lack of leadership in the Pentagon to oppose them. Such assessments even by former Pentagon brass are not new, but they have added resonance as debates over war strategy dominate the presidential campaign.
Sanchez went on to offer a pessimistic view on the current U.S. strategy against extremists will make lasting gains, but said a full-scale withdrawal also was not an option. "The American military finds itself in an intractable situation ... America has no choice but to continue our efforts in Iraq," said Sanchez, who works as a consultant training U.S. generals.
It's not intractable at all. The current effort will either succeed, or not. If not, and if the Iraqis can't pull their country together, we'll have to leave. Sammy will still be dead, but we may have to go back in ten years or so. If the current effort succeeds to the point of more political stability, we'll pull back gradually. Nothing in either choice is intractable.
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/13/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#1
See also TOPIX NEWS > WHY ARE WE WINNING? artiiikle.
#4
Here's the Wikipedia entry on this guy. Note that he was promoted to full colonel "shortly after the Gulf War" and became a division commander (Major General billet) in July of 2001. This joker's a Clinton general.
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) ||
10/13/2007 1:33 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Sanchez went on to offer a pessimistic view on the current U.S. strategy against extremists will make lasting gains, but said a full-scale withdrawal also was not an option. "The American military finds itself in an intractable situation ... America has no choice but to continue our efforts in Iraq," said Sanchez, who works as a consultant training U.S. generals.
The "general" obviously has a superb, MSM grasp of the "nightmarish" geopolitical situation in the ITO.....of which he thankfully, no longer shares direct responsibility. Too bad he couldn't have maintained situational awareness at Abu Garib, rather than denying knowledge and throwing everybody else under the bus when he was ultimately responsible for outcomes in the ITO. Something tells me would might be able to find a better mentor for our new generals than Ricardo Sanchez.
#7
Bottom line to me is that the presence of guys like this, along with masterminds like Janice Karpinski and the most recent 3-star ribbon clerk who tried to GCM two Special Forces snipers, has to be laid at the feet of the Commander-in-Chief. Lincoln went through general after general after general before he was able to find two - Grant and Sherman - who were resolute about taking the fight to the enemy. FDR reached WAY down the Army seniority list, elevating George Marshall from one to four stars and Army Chief of Staff. After 9/11, GWB should have summoned Rummy to the Oval Office and said "We have too many McClellans and Burnsides in our forces. Start firing them and find me some Grants and Shermans". Not to mention some James Gavins and Terry Allens...
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) ||
10/13/2007 2:36 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Like many others, he once ladeled the soup he now says someone had pissed in. We should all deplore these men.
#9
The problem with Iraq is that our leaders believed that those savages could democraticize, and that occupation would produce a stable Iraq. Iraqis failed us, as did the German and Japanese majority that supported Fascism and Militarism. Iraqis are no longer an asset; they are a liability, so let's write them off.
#10
McZoid, see my other reply. These things take time.
Compare the time span of involvement in Iraq with Germany/Japan. I'd not judge the result as +/- until at least 15 years passed by.
#13
GJ - completing your thought - because he bitch-slapped them over their biased coverage of the war and its military leadership. At that point the journos just stopped writing in their spiral notebooks, stuck their fingers in their ears and said "la la la la la la la!" to themselves.
#14
This whole thing strikes me as peculiar. It just doesn't make sense. In effect, Sanchez is criticizing himself for lackluster performance. So the big question is why?
What is Sanchez getting out of the deal?
Revenge for being shown up General Petraeus? That only matters if he was publicly humiliated, which he wasn't.
Political ambition? It happened to Weasely Clark, but only works if he is hoping that Democrats will put him back in charge in Iraq. And in *that* case, this may be a calculated ploy to *preserve* US gains. In other words, he supports the mission, but is afraid that the Democrats will put some fool in charge specifically to screw it up.
So by turning on the administration, he makes himself their #1 candidate to replace Petraeus if the Democrats win the Presidency.
#15
Ricky, to paraphrase the former SecDef, you go to war with the Army you have. The organizational problem which no major army has solved is the ability to separate out good managers from good leaders in peacetime. It also shares the nasty behavior of many organizations of institutional 'Peter Principle'. The military is, by social structure, set up to operate like a assembly line for promotion. A lot of rewriting of laws and regulations which will be necessary to alter the institution will come at a significant price in the trenches of the Beltway. We've come to the evolutionary end of organizations that make themselves immune to firing/relief whether its civil service, school systems, or other manifestations which substitute procedure and protection over the original goals of said institutions.
General Sanchez is just another of the old school which hasn't accepted the fact that wars are fought on two fronts. That significant efforts must be put in both and that neither can be outsourced to 'others' to do it. I'm sure the general was right up front in the defense of military bloggers who were the best technology in breaking the 'professional media's' domination of the home front./sarcasm off.
#16
Snachez is another blanket foldiong politician wearing General's starts.
The mess there is in large part due to HIS ineffective command, crap ROE, and his "Retreat to the base" style that abandoned any gains made by the troops.
He is an utter failure trying to cast blame everywhere except himself.
#17
The problem with Iraq is that our leaders believed that those savages could democraticize, and that occupation would produce a stable Iraq.
I guess the bones through their noses should've been the tip-off...
Iraqis failed us, as did the German and Japanese majority that supported Fascism and Militarism. Iraqis are no longer an asset; they are a liability, so let's write them off.
Post a resume, lad. I hear the think-tanks are hiring.
#20
McZoid,
I suggest you read a 1948 article in LIFE magazine about how our occupation of Germany and Japan was a failure, how our policies were making things worse, and the new Marshall Plan was doomed to failure (etc.etc.).
Actually, the problem was that we went into Iraq with no cultural savy and very few people who even knew the language. Read the latest issue of National Review for an article about how we interacted with the Tribes.
In fact most of the gaffes and misunderstandings occurred on Sanchez's watch. We (and the Iraqis)have been spending the last several years recovering from those mistakes.
Al
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
10/13/2007 11:49 Comments ||
Top||
#21
We can attack Ricardo all day to make ourself feel better but the truth is, this could of been done a whole lot better.
About what war can that not be said? Would it have helped things if Patton, Bradley and Ike had told the world what a pompous creeper Montgomery was? We are in the middle of the war. WTF was Sanchez thinking he could improve with these public comments? Nothing except his career. Is there any thing new in his comments?
Once we get that over with, we can win wars the way America is supposed to.
Anybody who thinks this is not how America wins its wars hasn't studied any that occurred before 1990. And the history of blabbering failed ex-generals is also not new. What wasw exceptional was their silence in WWII.
#22
I'd suggest you ignore the paraphrases of this talk which are appearing in the press. Even the blogs aren't printing the whole thing. Sanchez may be self-serving to a degree, but he absolutely lambastes the press and our government. Heh, you don't see anything about the former on Yahoo News or the other MSM outlets.
He's not saying anything that hasn't been said many times here on the 'Burg.
Here's the whole thing, with the ugly capitalization (an attempt to slow diffusion?) removed:
Military Reporters and Editors Luncheon Address Washington D.C.
LtG (Ret) Ricardo S. Sanchez
12 October 2007
Military Reporters and Editors Address Washington D.C.
12 October 2007
Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen.
Some of you may not believe this but I am glad to be here. When SIG
asked me if I would consider addressing you there was no doubt that I
should come into the lion's den. This was important because I have
firmly believed since Desert Shield that it is necessary for the
strength of our democracy that the military and the press corps
maintain a strong, mutually respectful and enabling relationship. This
continues to be problematic for our country, especially during times
of war. One of the greatest military correspondents of our time, Joe
Galloway, made me a believer when he joined the 24th infantry division
during Desert Storm.
Today, I will attempt to do two things - first I will give you my
assessment of the military and press relationship and then I will
provide you some thoughts on the current state of our war effort. As
all of you know, I have a wide range of relationships and experiences
with our nation's military writers and editors. There are some in your
ranks who I consider to be the epitome of journalistic professionalism
- Joe Galloway, Thom Shanker, Sig Christensen, and John Burns
immediately come to mind. They exemplify what America should demand of
our journalists - tough reporting that relies upon integrity,
objectivity and fairness to give accurate and thorough accounts that
strengthen our freedom of the press and in turn our democracy. On the
other hand, unfortunately, I have issued ultimatums to some of you for
unscrupulous reporting that was solely focused on supporting your
agenda and preconcieved notions of what our military had done. I also
refused to talk to the European Stars and Stripes for the last two
years of my command in Germany for their extreme bias and single
minded focus on Abu Gharaib.
Let me review some of the descriptive phrases that have been used by
some of you that have made my personal interfaces with the press corps
difficult:
"dictatorial and somewhat dense",
"not a strategic thought",
liar,
"does not get it" and
the most inexperienced LtG.
In some cases I have never even met you, yet you feel qualified to
make character judgments that are communicated to the world. My
experience is not unique and we can find other examples such as the
treatment of Secretary Brown during Katrina. This is the worst display
of journalism imaginable by those of us that are bound by a strict
value system of selfless service, honor and integrity. Almost
invariably, my perception is that the sensationalistic value of these
assessments is what provided the edge that you seek for self
agrandizement or to advance your individual quest for getting on the
front page with your stories! As I understand it, your measure of
worth is how many front page stories you have written and
unfortunately some of you will compromise your integrity and display
questionable ethics as you seek to keep America informed. This is much
like the intelligence analysts whose effectiveness was measured by the
number of intelligence reports he produced. For some, it seems that as
long as you get a front page story there is little or no regard for
the "collateral damage" you will cause. Personal reputations have no
value and you report with total impunity and are rarely held
accountable for unethical conduct.
Given the near instantaneous ability to report actions on the ground,
the responsibility to accurately and truthfully report takes on an
unprecedented importance. The speculative and often uninformed initial
reporting that characterizes our media appears to be rapidly becoming
the standard of the industry. An arab proverb states - "Four things
come not back: the spoken word, the spent arrow, the past, the
neglected opportunity." Once reported, your assessments become
conventional wisdom and nearly impossible to change. Other major
challenges are your willingness to be manipulated by "high level
officials" who leak stories and by lawyers who use hyperbole to
strenghten their arguments. Your unwillingness to accurately and
prominently correct your mistakes and your agenda driven biases
contribute to this corrosive environment. All of these challenges
combined create a media environment that does a tremendous disservice
to America. Over the course of this war tactically insignificant
events have become strategic defeats for America because of the
tremendous power and impact of the media and by extension you the
journalist. In many cases the media has unjustly destroyed the
individual reputations and careers of those involved. We realize that
because of the near real time reporting environment that you face it
is difficult to report accurately. In my business one of our
fundamental truths is that "The first report is always wrong."
Unfortunately, in your business "The first report" gives Americans who
rely on the snippets of cnn, if you will, their "truths" and
perspectives on an issue. As a corollary to this deadline driven need
to publish "initial impressions or observations" versus objective
facts there is an additional challenge for us who are the subject of
your reporting. When you assume that you are correct and on the moral
high ground on a story because we have not respond to questions you
provided is the ultimate arrogance and distortion of ethics. One of
your highly repected fellow journalists once told me that there are
some amongst you who "feed from a pig's trough." If that is who I am
dealing with then I will never respond, otherwise we will both get
dirty and the pig will love it. This does not mean that your story is
accurate.
I do not believe that this is what our forefathers intended. The code
of ethics for the society of professional journalists states:
...public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of
democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking
truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and
issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to
serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is
the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility.
The basic ethics of a journalist that calls for:
1. Seeking truth,
2. Providing fair and comprehensive account of events and issues,
3. Thoroughness and honesty
All are victims of the massive agenda driven competition for economic
or political supremacy. The death knell of your ethics has been
enabled by your parent organizations who have chosen to align
themselves with political agendas. What is clear to me is that you are
perpetuating the corrosive partisan politics that is destroying our
country and killing our servicemembers who are at war.
My assessment is that your profession, to some extent, has strayed
from these ethical standards and allowed external agendas to
manipulate what the American public sees on TV, what they read in our
newspapers and what they see on the web. For some of you, just like
some of our politicians, the truth is of little to no value if it does
not fit your own preconcieved notions, biases and agendas.
It is astounding to me when I hear the vehement disagreement with the
military's forays into information operations that seek to disseminate
the truth and inform the iraqi people in order to counter our enemy's
blatant propaganda. As I assess various media entities, some are
unquestionably engaged in political propaganda that is uncontrolled.
There is no question in my mind that the strength our democracy and
our freedoms remain linked to your ability to exercise freedom of the
press - I adamantly support this basic foundation of our democracy and
completely supported the embedding of media into our formations up
until my last day in uniform. The issue is one of maintaining
professional ethics and standards from within your institution.
Military leaders must accept that these injustices will happen and
whether they like what you print or not they must deal with you and
enable you, if you are an ethical journalist.
Finally, I will leave this subject with a question that we must ask
ourselves--who is responsible for maintaining the ethical standards of
the profession in order to ensure that our democracy does not continue
to be threatened by this dangerous shift away from your sacred duty of
public enlightenment?
Let me now transition to our current national security condition.
As we all know war is an extension of politics and when a nation goes
to war it must bring to bear all elements of power in order to win.
Warfighting is not solely the responsibility of the military commander
unless he has been given the responsibility and resources to
synchronize the political, economic and informational power of the
nation. So who is responsible for developing the grand strategy that
will allow America to emerge victorious from this generational
struggle against extremism?
After more than four years of fighting, America continues its
desperate struggle in iraq without any concerted effort to devise a
strategy that will achieve "victory" in that war torn country or in
the greater conflict against extremism. From a catastrophically
flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan to the administration's
latest "surge" strategy, this administration has failed to employ and
synchronize its political, economic and military power. The latest
"revised strategy" is a desperate attempt by an administration that
has not accepted the political and economic realities of this war and
they have definitely not communicated that reality to the American
people. An even worse and more disturbing assessment is that America
can not achieve the political consensus necessary to devise a grand
strategy that will synchronize and commit our national power to
achieve victory in iraq. Some of you have heard me talk about our
nations crisis in leadership. Let me elaborate.
While the politicians espouse their rhetoric designed to preserve
their reputations and their political power - our soldiers die! Our
national leadership ignored the lessons of WWII as we entered into
this war and to this day continue to believe that victory can be
achieved through the application of military power alone. Our
forefathers understood that tremendous economic and political capacity
had to be mobilized, synchronized and applied if we were to achieve
victory in a global war. That has been and continues to be the key to
victory in iraq. Continued manipulations and adjustments to our
military strategy will not achieve victory. The best we can do with
this flawed approach is stave off defeat. The administration, Congress
and the entire interagency, especially the department of state, must
shoulder the responsibility for this catastrophic failure and the
American people must hold them accountable.
There has been a glaring, unfortunate, display of incompetent
strategic leadership within our national leaders. As a Japanese
proverb says, "Action without vision is a nightmare." There is no
question that America is living a nightmare with no end in sight.
Since 2003, the politics of war have been characterized by
partisanship as the Republican and Democratic parties struggled for
power in Washington. National efforts to date have been corrupted by
partisan politics that have prevented us from devising effective,
executable, supportable solutions. At times, these partisan struggles
have led to political decisions that endangered the lives of our sons
and daughters on the battlefield. The unmistakable message was that
political power had greater priority than our national security
objectives. Overcoming this strategic failure is the first step toward
achieving victory in Iraq - without bipartisan cooperation we are
doomed to fail. There is nothing going on today in Washington that
would give us hope.
If we succeed in crafting a bipartisan strategy for victory, then
America must hold all national agencies accountable for developing and
executing the political and economic initiatives that will bring about
stability, security, political and economic hope for all iraqis. That
has not been successful to date.
Congress must shoulder a significant responsibility for this failure
since there has been no focused oversight of the nations political and
economic initiatives in this war. Exhortations, encouragements,
investigations, studies and discussions will not produce success -this
appears to be the nation's only alternative since the transfer of
soveriegnty. Our continued neglect will only extend the conflict.
America's dilemma is that we no longer control the ability to directly
influence the Iraqi institutions. The sovereign Iraqi government must
be cooperative in these long term efforts. That is not likely at the
levels necessary in the near term.
Our commanders on the ground will continue to make progress and
provide time for the development of a grand strategy. That will be
wasted effort as we have seen repeatedly since 2003. In the mean time
our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines will continue to die.
Since the start of this war, America's leadership has known that our
military alone could not achieve victory in iraq. Starting in July
2003, the message repeatedly communicated to Washington by military
commanders on the ground was that the military alone could never
achieve "victory" in Iraq. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines
were destined to endure decades of fighting and killing people without
the focused, synchronized application of all elements of national
power. This was a necessary condition to stabilize Iraq. Any
sequential solutions would lead to a prolonged conflict and increased
resistance.
By neglect and incompetence at the national security council level,
that is the path our political leaders chose and now America, more
precisely the American military, finds itself in an intractable
situation. Clearly, mistakes have been made by the American military
in its application of power but even its greatest failures in this war
can be linked to America's lack of commitment, priority and moral
courage in this war effort. Without the sacrifices of our magnificent
young men and women in uniform, Iraq would be chaotic well beyond
anything experienced to date.
What America must accept as a reality at this point in the war is that
our army and marine corps are struggling with the deployment
schedules. What is clear is that the deployment cycles of our
formations has been totally disrupted, the resourcing and training
challenges are significant and America's ability to sustain a force
level of 150,000(+) is nonexistent without drastic measures that have
been politically unacceptable to date. The drawdown of the surge to
presurge levels was never a question. America must understand that it
will take the army at least a decade to fix the damage that has been
done to its full spectrum readiness. The president's recent statement
to America that he will listen to military commanders is a matter of
political expediency.
Our army and marine corps will execute as directed, perform
magnificently and never complain-that is the ethic of our warriors and
that is what America expects of them. They will not disappoint us. But
America must know the pressures that are being placed on our military
institutions as we fight this war. All Americans must demand that
these deploying formations are properly resourced, properly trained
and we must never allow America's support for the soldier to falter. A
critical, objective assessment of our nation's ability to execute our
national security strategy must be conducted. If we are objective and
honest, the results will be surprising to all Americans. There is
unacceptable strategic risk.
America has no choice but to continue our efforts in Iraq. A
precipitous withdrawal will unquestionably lead to chaos that would
endanger the stability of the greater middle east. If this occurs it
would have significant adverse effects on the international community.
Coalition and American force presence will be required at some level
for the foreseeable future. Given the lack of a grand strategy we must
move rapidly to minimize that force presence and allow the Iraqis
maximum ability to exercise their soveriegnty in achieving a solution.
At no time in America's history has there been a greater need for
bipartisan cooperation. The threat of extremism is real and demands
unified action at the same levels demonstrated by our forefathers
during World War I and World War II. America has failed to date.
This endeavor has further been hampered by a coalition effort that can
be characterized as hasty, un-resourced and often uncoordinated and
unmanaged. Desperately needed, but essentially ignored, were the
political and economic coalitions that were the key to victory and
stability in the immediate aftermath of the conventional war. The
military coalition which was hastily put together in the summer of
2003 was problematic given the multitude of national caveats,
inadequate rules of engagement and other restrictions on the forces
deployed. Even so, the military coalition was the most extensive,
productive and effective deployment of forces in decades. Today, we
continue our inept coalition management efforts and, in fact, we are
facing ever decreasing troop commitments by our military coalition
partners. America's "revised" strategy does not address coalition
initiatives and challenges. We cannot afford to continue this struggle
without the support of our coalition partners across all elements of
national power. Without the political and economic elements of power
complementing the tremendous efforts of our military, America is
assured of failure. We continue on that path. America's political
leadership must come together and develop a bipartisan grand strategy
to achieve victory in this conflict. The simultaneous application of
our political, economic, information and military elements of power is
the only course of action that will provide a chance of success.
Achieving unity of effort in Iraq has been elusive to date primarily
because there is no entity that has the authority to direct action by
our interagency. Our national security council has been a catastrophic
failure. Furthermore, America's ability to hold the interagency
accountable for their failures in this war is non-existent. This must
change. As a nation we must recognize that the enemy we face is
committed to destroying our way of life. This enemy is arguably more
dangerous than any threat we faced in the twentieth century. Our
political leaders must place national security objectives above
partisan politics, demand interagency unity of effort, and never again
commit America to war without a grand strategy that embraces the basic
tenets of the powell doctrine.
It seems that Congress recognizes that the military cannot achieve
victory alone in this war. Yet they continue to demand victory from
our military. Who will demand accountability for the failure of our
national political leaders involved in the management this war? They
have unquestionably been derelict in the performance of their duty. In
my profession, these type of leaders would immediately be relieved or
courtmartialed.
America has sent our soldiers off to war and they must be supported at
all costs until we achieve victory or until our political leaders
decide to bring them home. Our political and military leaders owe the
soldier on the battlefield the strategy, the policies and the
resources to win once committed to war. America has not been fully
committed to win this war. As the military commanders on the ground
have stated since the summer of 2003, the U.S. military alone cannot
win this war. America must mobilize the interagency and the political
and economic elements of power, which have been abject failures to
date, in order to achieve victory. Our nation has not focused on the
greatest challenge of our lifetime. The political and economic
elements of power must get beyond the politics to ensure the survival
of America. Partisan politics have hindered this war effort and
America should not accept this. America must demand a unified national
strategy that goes well beyond partisan politics and places the common
good above all else. Too often our politicians have chosen loyalty to
their political party above loyalty to the Constitution because of
their lust for power. Our politicians must remember their oath of
office and recommit themselves to serving our nation and not their own
self-interests or political party. The security of America is at stake
and we can accept nothing less. Anything short of this is
unquestionably dereliction of duty.
These are fairly harsh assessments of the military and press
relationship and the status of our war effort. I remain optimistic and
committed to the enabling of media operations under the toughest of
conditions in order to keep the world and the American people
informed. Our military must embrace you for the sake our democracy but
you owe them ethical journalism.
Thank you for this opportunity
May God bless you and may God bless America.
Praise be to the Lord my rock who trains my fingers for battle and my
hands for war.
#23
How does "[Iraq] is a nightmare" add to our understanding over and above what we already knew about war in general: war is hell.
Posted by: moody blues ||
10/13/2007 12:13 Comments ||
Top||
#24
Pappy, not sure why you have to be confrontational and use not-so-veiled ad hominem in your reply to McZoid.
Sure, snarks are a spice of RB life, but in this case it is more of an insult. Can you, please, avoid the urge, and direct the condescence where it belong--on trolls or idiotic politicians?
He, like too many of his compatriots, refuse to fight the two front war. The one in the field and the one at home. In WWII Marshall oversaw the commitment of significant resources in focusing the message, the story telling. Since WWII, the generals have 'outsourced' the telling of the story. And now they're bitchin. Don't bother me, I just want to focus on the a nicely, neatly defined battlefield. Don't mess it up. Bull. Don't blame the scorpion for being a scorpion.
They lost in Vietnam because they failed to fight the war on the home front. By their actions, they've demonstrated they've still not learned that you can win every fight on the battlefield, but still lose the war at home. You can not outsource the fight at home anymore than outsource the fight in the field. This time they were given the technology and means to get around the scorpions with the internet and what did they do. Instead of exploiting the technology to get 'the story' to the people as their own troops were doing with blogs and media that the young troops and their peers understand, they play CYA and turf protection and shut the process down.
#26
Pappy, not sure why you have to be confrontational and use not-so-veiled ad hominem in your reply to McZoid.
Because frankly I'm tired of the 'they're all savages' meme. And I'm tired of the cut-n-run, 'rubble don't cause trouble' mentality. I'm tired of people who can't see past their noses, can't look at history, and can't look at what might happen 10, 20, 50 years later with the actions that occur or don't occur today.
I doubt McZoid has ever been to the Middle East. I doubt McZoid has ever dealt with Arabs, or Persians, or Israelis for any length of time. I doubt McZoid has ever had to deal with the political cesspools known as national capitals, with their myriad and conflicting interests. I doubt McZoid has any grasp of long term strategy.
I guess, overall, I'm really sick and tired of people commenting while ignorant.
If I just look at the subject line of the whole article and react to that, I wind up overlooking that a lot of the problems he was mentioning, especially wrt the state department and the need for a "unified effort" across the board by the government, are things I've suspected were true all along.
We have a left hand that's been giving away what the right hand wins at enourmous cost.
We set up the civilian government of Iraq so that voters vote for parties instead of for people when they go off to have elections; this puts a lot more power into the hands of "horse traders" at the expense of the people. And as far as I can tell, winds up causing a lot of the paralysis that everyone's complaining about.
We have a military system that can win all the battles and a political establishment in Washington that is incapable of consolidating any of the gains. And things will just drag on until the country decides to give up.
#28
KBK, every thing you say is true, but it is also true that he gave the MSM the sound bite they wanted, he knew he was doing it, he knew how they'd use it and he knew how al-Qaeda would exploit it. That is what he should not have done, even though we do it here every day. Al-Qaeda quoting me or Zenster will not have a dramatic impact on their audience. Quoting a general will. He has hurt the war effort by his unfortunate and ill-considered comments. When he criticizes the MSM, it's now pot-kettle as far as I am concerned. Positive comments about how we should conduct the war going forward are perfectly approriate. But he and all the other principals, including Tennet and Perle should wait till the fight's over to make their personal CYA carping public.
Pappy, we are all learning. Tell me, how many people were even remotely aware that there is a cancerous menace growing out of ME before 9/11?
Compare Frozen Al reply with yours.
Do you think that we all are not tired of all this crap that we did not ask for? This is nothing compared to what the load of crap we would have to deal with in the next several years, let alone decades to come.
#30
NS, I agree: military leaders, retired or not, should surely not speak out publicly against the official line while there's a war on.
As Sanchez (following Clausewitz) points out, war is an extension of politics. Military personnel should not take on the political task even when their bosses don't handle it effectively.
All these backbiting retired generals consulting to the MSM should disappear, IMO.
#31
I don't see the contradiction between Sanchez bitterly complaining about press treatment AND bitter complaining about how everyone else but he was responsible for the mess the war took under his command.
It is IMO both pathetic and deeply, deeply damaging to the US, to the Army he led (but apparently no longer cares much about) and to the cause.
I thought in 2000 that Gore - for whom I voted! - was doing grave damage to the country by his rage-filled refusal to let the election results stand.
And so it was. Because by 9/11, there was such a hate-filled atmosphere in Washington and in the country that a more decisive CINC than Bush would have found it extremely hard to lead and to prosecute a successful war on terror. Gore and the Dems have a great deal to account for.
So too do the Republicans, who both engaged in business as usual corruption (in some cases) and - with the 'decisive' 'leadership' of McCain (spit) - deliberately chose not to act as if national security was really at stake in world events.
The infighting between State under Powell and DoD under Rumsfeld was disgusting and IMO it was State that was in the wrong most of the time. Moreover, there were a lot more Army generals than is widely recognized who were prepared to do scorched earth battle with Rummy over force transformation. Many of them simply don't 'get' the impact of technologies on the world and hence on the battlefield.
Rummy did. He also was very wary about going into Iraq for anything more than a punitive decapitation of the regime. With Bush trying to placate Blair to have a 'coalition', it all turned into a hideous brew of indecision, inner conflict and stupidity.
#32
With Bush trying to placate Blair to have a 'coalition', and therefore unwilling to allow Iraq to descend into open chaos, and with State having vetoed the Iraqi expat force that Chalabi et al were to have led, we ended up with major forces in theater, the worst scenario possible.
#33
I have spent time in Turkey and Bahrain, and have discussed democracy with the carpet prostraters. Democracy is anathema to Muslims because they believe it both seizes sovereignty from the "allah" entity, and confers legitimacy on ideas inconsistent with Koran dictate. By its nature, an Islamic state can only be tyrannic, dogmatic and persecutory. As for "political islam" it is only a provisional means to strategic Shariah state ends.
Islamofascists are either in power in the Muslim tyrannies, or are poised for a takeover. If Nazism, Japanese militarism and Baathism warranted abolishment, then why do we indulge political-islam, which is the most dangerous of all because it engages over a billion belligerent savages? Denial of our role in licentious jihadism, abridges an issue of right and wrong. Political-islam is wrong because it empowers the mortal enemies of Western Civilization. Reducing belief in same to a matter of individual conscience, is as unconscionable as that evil ideology of aggression and genocide. The Dhimmi threat-denier is as bad as the Jihadi terror-actor. As President Bush said in launching GWOT, "You are either with us or you are with the terrorists." In general, the Muslim enemy has raised its weapons, and turned the world into a salient. It is wrong to avoid engaging them, in context of their nuclear jihadism. Either we pre-empt a future ICBM threat to the Homeland, or future generations will hold pilgrimages to spit on our graves.
See this paraphrasal of Maududi's concept of an Islamic religio-political entity. This is Koran prescribed belief; no real Muslim can believe other than what follows:
1. The right to rule belongs to God and God alone. He is the master of all the worlds and he alone should have the right to dictate the workings of the universe. Maududi states that there is only one way to carry out Gods right to rule on earth and that is through a khalifa, which will be a vicegerent of God on earth. It should be emphasized that the khalifa is merely an agency through which God executes his will and does not vest any political power in itself.
2. On the basis of the above argument, the right to legislate has been taken away from man and accorded to God alone. Moreover, man has been allowed to interpret the ideas presented in the Quran through mutual consultation and the practice of ijtehad. The condition is that it must be done within the purview of the Islamic law. The essential point here is that if man believes in the sovereignty of God, then he is not allowed to hold any other set of laws paramount to the laws laid down by God.
3. True justice and equality can only be established, if it is established according to the laws God, revealed through his chosen men.
4. Maududi states that the law of God is not a de-facto piece of law. It is a de-jure, and it must be followed in its entirety. Any government that does not follow the above stated norms and develops its own ideologies is to be declared as deviant and a rebel to the Islamic principles.
#34
McZoid, OK, so you've been over there. This is not meant as a double dog dare; but, based on that, what would you do differently than Bush given the whole constellation of pressures he operates under? I'd fault him for only two things, letting loser generals stay in place too long and doing a poor job of presenting his case to the American and world public. I think he's gone a long way toward fixing the command problem with Petraeus, though I not sure far enough with the rest of the general populace. But he also is doing a worse job daily in the PR field as he becomes a lamer duck. I think the donks and rinos have done a great job of wearing him down. I hope he avoids the theater in Washington for the balance of his tenure.
#35
I am one of those 'ignorant' ones. I have no experience of foreign countries, cultures & religion. I have learnt much from Rantburg and thank you to all commenters and especially Fred.
I think we will keep going around in circles even if there is bi-partisan support from politicians because Islam is a religion in political clothing.
They don't care about our political way of life only the religious. They see Rome (the Pope) as the prize and it seems to me they are baiting him at the moment (the Anglicans in England have already become dhimmis). The Pope can't have a dialogue with Muslims, as they are currently requesting, because any perceived criticism however constructive or nicely put will result in mass violence/hysteria on the part of the muslims.
Islam has thrown down the gauntlet and they are waiting for a response from the Pope. His answer will determine what happens next.
#36
Nimble S:
The last 6 years have been a learning experience for most of us. I have altered my views based on a realistic understanding of the enemy. Over time, your ideas about the nominal mix of democracy and islamic slavery to the "allah" entity, will change. I blame Muslims rather than the President, for the jihadi menace in Iraq. In fact, in less than a year, he has deferred judgment in order to expand information available to policy-makers. And Mr Bush has used the term "Islamofascism," on one occasion. That showed good judgment and good faith.
#37
NS my issue is that Sanchez seems more intersted in blamecasting than he does in solutions, and that he is dead wrong on saing what we have now is a failure. Its Petraues and classic COIN that are saving the bacon from his garbage ROE that had us retreating to cantonments and leavint the populce exposed every day.
Is he right about the NCA? Yeah, disorganized and disjoints is putting it mildly (state hasn't supported things well at all, nor have the other civil branches of the government, CIA has been next to useless more involved in thwarting Bush than protecting the country, all of which result in heapinga tons on the mIlitary). He is also right on the press ot a large extent. But he was also in COMMAND. That means you accept responsibility and take your lumps. But he's whining like a little bitch. and he blew it - and is now trying to stir a shitstorm that will cast blame away from him at the expense of troops over there now.
And THAT is where he earns the opprobrium form many others.
Like Weasley Clarke, he would sell out troops for personal gain now that he's out, and THAT I cannot abide.
#39
I just finished reading the entire text of Sanchez's address. He'd have done the country a great service if he'd cut it off mid-way, having excoriated the press-- and then delivered the rest of his remarks in private to whoever in Congress or the White House wanted to hear them.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
10/13/2007 21:49 Comments ||
Top||
Turkey has placed its military on the highest state of alert in preparation for a major invasion of neighboring Iraq that could take place by the end of November.
Officials said the Turkish military has deployed tens of thousands of troops, backed by attack helicopters, main battle tanks, armored personnel carriers and artillery, in forward positions along the Iraqi border. They said the Turkish force could cross the Iraqi border and attack the Kurdish Workers Party within hours of any order. "There is a very tense situation along the Iraqi border, and the military is waiting for the green light," an official said.raq.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/13/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
ION, UPI.com segment > CHINA'S BIG ASSETS > PLA reportedly ordered to prepare for full-scale military mobilization and conflict agz TAIWAN [USA?] BY EOY 2007 should Taiwan proceed wid anticipated referendum on anti-PRC island sovereignty and declares same from China.
#6
Since we got rid of the Iraqi army isn't the US responsible for Iraq's soviergnty? Especially the Kurdish area since we kinda get along with those folks? US Army gonna have to kick some mussie ass in the Turkish army next? BTW the Marines are looking for a new job as I hear, maybe knocking Turkey back on their ass interests them?
#7
While thanking them for helping to depose Saddam and resisting AQ, we should not forget that the Kurds are mostly Muslim, with the same disgusting habits. A long list of Muslim-supremacist offenses have come out of Northern Iraq, especially among the Assyrian Christians. I see this a red-on-red. It may be in our long term interests to encourage fighting among Muslims.
A very convenient reason to park troops close to Syria. Could be just cover if something bigger occurs in the Region. Why do you need 200,000 troops for 3000 PKK's. The Isreali sharing of intelligence regarding the recent incursion didn't seem to please the Turks. They could also cut off the water supply to the entire region via the Euphrates.
It will be interesting if Iran takes joint action against PKK on their side of the border and what the US response would be.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
10/13/2007 21:09 Comments ||
Top||
#15
amazing, though. The repetitive banging of forehead against the pooplisting door, the impotent stamping of tiny feet and hyperventilating.... ahhhh, but that's just my imagination, nevermind :-)
a drink for DD in the O-Club!
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/13/2007 21:12 Comments ||
Top||
The Palestinian Authority has accepted an offer Israel made to it in the Taba talks six years ago, a senior Palestinian official told Israel Radio early Friday morning.
The source added that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas that a draft agreement made during the talks would be used as a basis for negotiations. The official, a member of a current team of Palestinian negotiators, told Israel Radio that although the differences between Olmert and Abbas were slim, the Israeli team was hesitant and cautious about arriving at an agreement.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/13/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under: Palestinian Authority
Exiled Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal said Friday there could not be a solution to the Palestinian issue without dialogue between Hamas and the West Bank-based government loyal to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Abbas and his allies "will find out that they are pursuing nothing but a mirage," Mashaal told Hamas radio. "They will find out that there can be no solution without dialogue." He accused Israel and the US of taking advantage of the Palestinian rift to try to wrest concessions from the Palestinians.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/13/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: Hamas
Posted by: Fred ||
10/13/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: Palestinian Authority
#1
"The entire purpose of this peace summit is to save the Zionist regime [Israel]."
I don't think they need our help to do that. You, however, like the US is around to keep them from reacting the way you would, if you but had the power and the courage, instead of hot air.
Posted by: Bobby ||
10/13/2007 8:07 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Nice photo, by the way.
Posted by: Bobby ||
10/13/2007 8:08 Comments ||
Top||
Hamas' top leaders in Gaza and Syria, speaking to supporters Friday on the occasion of the Muslim Eid al-Fitr holiday, warned the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas against falling into the "trap" of an upcoming peace conference with Israel, and urged him to mend his rift with their faction.
Hamas prime minister Ismail Haniyeh criticized Abbas for planning to attend next month's US-sponsored international peace conference, meant to provide support for an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal. And he cautioned him not to "give this occupier legitimacy on our land."
"Don't fall into the trap of the coming conference. Don't make new compromises on Jerusalem, on our sovereignty," Haniyeh urged.
Haniyeh, who now heads the Hamas government in Gaza, told thousands of cheering supporters at the Palestine Stadium in Gaza City that Abbas could not negotiate without Hamas' support. "Don't go to conference when you don't have the power card in your pocket - and the power card is Hamas," Haniyeh told his supporters.
Exiled Hamas political leader Khaled Mashaal echoed the warning in a holiday message on Hamas radio. And he urged Abbas, who set up his own government in the West Bank after Hamas' Gaza takeover, to accept the Islamists' invitations for dialogue.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/13/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: Hamas
#1
And he urged Abbas, who set up his own government in the West Bank after Hamas' Gaza takeover, to accept the Islamists' invitations for dialogue.
Yas ... Yas! The more often these two are in the same room the greater chances that something untoward might happen to one or both of them. Me like!
ANXIOUS to create what they call "a global progressive front," Presidents Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela are sponsoring projects to underline "the ideological kinship of the left and revolutionary Islam."
The theme - hammered in by Ahmadinejad during his recent visit to Venezuela, Nicaragua and Bolivia - inspired a four-day seminar organized by his supporters at Tehran University last week (partly financed by Chavez).
The hope was that the conference would produce a synthesis of Marxist and Khomeinist ideologies and highlight what the Iranian leader has labeled "the divine aspect of revolutionary war." But the event itself proved rather embarrassing. . . .
At first, the conference was all clear sailing as participants agreed that the sole source of world evil was America and its "earth-devouring ambitions." . . . Things went pear-shape thanks to one keynote speakers, Hajj Saeed Qassemi, whose title is "coordinator of the Association of Volunteers for Suicide-Martyrdom." Praising the late "Che" as "a true revolutionary who made the American Great Satan tremble," he "revealed" that Guevara had been "a truly religious man who believed in God and hated communism and the Soviet Union."
"Today, communism has been consigned to the garbage can of history as foreseen by Imam Khomeini," Qassemi said. "Thus progressists everywhere must accept the leadership of our religious, pro-justice movement."
Demanding the right to respond, Aleida Guevara [the daughter of Che] told the conference that Qassemi's claim might be based on a bad translation: "My father never mentioned God," she said as the hall sighed in chagrined disbelief. "He never met God."
The remarks caused a commotion amid which Aleida and her brother were whisked away, led into a car and driven to their hotel under escort. Qassemi returned to the podium to unleash an unscripted attack on "godless communists." . . .
By the end of the day, the two Guevaras had become nonpersons. The state-controlled media, which had given them VIP billing, suddenly forgot their existence. The anniversary of Guevara's death was mentioned in passing with no reference to his Marxism. . . .
The two Guevaras [Aleida and her brother Camilo], who left the Islamic Republic in some haste, managed to anger some Iranian progressists. The siblings refused to mention the mass arrest of workers' leaders throughout Iran in the last few months or condemn the current wave of repression against trade unions, women's organizations, teachers and farm workers. "These people don't give a damn about the toiling masses," says Parviz Jamshidi, a lawyer for imprisoned trade unionists. "To them workers represent nothing but an abstraction, an excuse for appearing left and chic. They don't see that the Khomeinist regime is at war against the poorest sections of our society."
Posted by: Mike ||
10/13/2007 09:36 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#1
Priceless.
"the ideological kinship of the left and revolutionary Islam."
Either this serves fair warning to the left or it becomes their epitaph.
#2
Aleida Guevara [the daughter of Che] told the conference that Qassemi's claim might be based on a bad translation: "My father never mentioned God," she said as the hall sighed in chagrined disbelief. "He never met God."
I bet not....how's the heat, ya bastid?
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/13/2007 11:41 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Mix in some National Socialists and you have all three totalitarian ideologies of the last hundred years in one tasty blend. Mullahs and Commies and Nazis, oh my! A toast to their eventual resting place in the dust bin of history!
#4
Well, now. This kinda simplifies things, I'd say: nothing quite like having your foreign enemy trumpet his "ideological kinship" with those you've suspected are domestic enemies, is there?
Posted by: Dave D. ||
10/13/2007 12:23 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I'd tag it "a global regressive front". I see the need to start calling things by their true nature.
Dave D., spot on. Simplifies sorting 'em out at a ripe time, as they'l be in one camp.
MOSCOW - The United States is considering imposing new sanctions on countries cooperating with Iran, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Friday after high-level Russia-US talks.
The United States will not allow Iran to take advantage of the international financial system, the benefits of which it distributes to support international terrorism, she declared at a news conference. The fact that Iran continues to challenge the international community means that ... those who do business with Iran represent a threat, Rice added.
The US State Department had imposed sanctions on arms companies in August 2006 for allegedly supplying equipment to Iran, which it said broke US laws banning the sale to Tehran of equipment capable of helping develop weapons of mass destruction.
The sanctions stop US firms working with companies, including Russian aircraft manufacturer Sukhoi and arms manufacturer Rosboronexport. These reacted by saying that it was a means to stop them competing with US arms dealers. Sukhoi meanwhile denied having any contracts with Tehran, saying it has not worked with the country in six years.
Moscow last year signed a deal worth 700 million dollars to supply surface-to-air missiles to Tehran, and is building Irans first nuclear power station in Bushehr.
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/13/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#3
UPI > BMD FOCUS - BARAK'S BMD STRATEGY PARTS I, II; + OUTSIDE VIEW: JASSM IN CRISIS PARTS I,II.
Israel's BMD focii is Iran's nuclear-capable SHAHID-3 IRBMS + circa dozen or so Ukrainian-supplied Cruise Missles, whilst SYRIA has Russian-supplied ISKANDER-M [E?] SRBMS-TBMS.
#4
Where would we be if we made a post 9-11 deal with Russia to enable the joint takeover and occupation of the Saud, Iraq and Iran terrorist entities? In the scenario I envision, terrorists wouldn't dare plant IEDs or snipe at US troops. Occupied peoples would jump hoops for their new masters, or die.
The Middle East Democratic Initiative was a catastrophic error; it conferred perverse legitimacy on political-Islam. Do we want Islamofascists to vote, or die?
The idea may ultimately fail. That is not yet a certainity. But even so, it had to be tried.
If it fails, then there would not be any qualms about properly dealing with the situation when time comes, because the avenue was explored.
If it fails not, then the advantages are apparent.
There was no possibility of getting an agrement with Russia in the scope you've suggested. Not with triangulating Pooty at helm. Too much explaining why.
#8
The Middle East Democratic Initiative was a catastrophic error; it conferred perverse legitimacy on political-Islam.
Absolutely, McZ. However, as twobyfour notes, within the current political milieu, there was no real alternative. Rest assured that there should have been an entirely different reaction to newly liberated Muslim majority nations re-adopting shari'a law. But that, too, has gone by the boards despite being the one single avoidable factor that indeed "conferred perverse legitimacy on political-Islam."
To paraphrase David D.: After we have been obliged to turn the MME (Muslim Middle East) into a smoldering glass plain, when our children ask how we could have been so idiotic as to try and import democracy into the MME, we must be able to answer that at least we tried. Even if Muslims are in many ways, the least deserving of such an expenditure of priceless human life and vast treasure in their interest, we owe it to ourselves in order that there be greater moral clarity regarding the need to annihilate political Islam.
Let there be no question. Political Islam, like Nazism, must be erased from the face of this earth. Few other ideologies in all of human history are so dangerous or so toxic to individual liberty and freedom.
At present, Iran is the pinnacle of political Islam. In accordance with accepted political norms, the West must escalate through all usual channels until the unavoidable need for military intervention arises as the only measure by which regime change can be effected. However glacial andin light of Iran's dogged pursuit of nuclear weaponsthereby risky this pace is, it's what we have and I will give Bush due credit for finally getting off the dime and instituting measures whereby Iran necessarily is being isolated from the global community.
#9
McZ, I think you've been reading too much Tom Clancy. Russia is not now nor would have been amenable to such activity.
Everyone else has just about nailed it.
1) We had to try.
2) It may still work.
3) Political Islamo-facism is very dangerous.
4) The only (hopefully) saving grace is that Musslemen are so bloody incompetent. As that Israeli said, the best thing the IAF had going for it is they were fighting Arabs.
Democratic Gathering chief MP Walid Jumblatt accused Hezbollah of planning to take over the government headquarters and to occupy Lebanon's capital Beirut. Jumblatt said this is part of the Persian plan to exert influence in the region from Iran to Lebanon, including Iraq and Syria. Jumblatt called Hezbollah a division of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards.
Jumblatt, who is heading to Washington on an official visit revealed the above during an interview with the Kuwaiti newspaper al Anbaa , which will be published on Saturday. Jumblatt warned that if Lebanon falls to the Persians , this could endanger the whole Arabian Gulf region
Jumblatt criticized the delay in setting up the International tribunal to try the killers of former PM Rafik Hariri. He told Al Anbaa that he plans to raise this issue both in Washington and at the UN in New York.
Asked about the Bkirki meetings for finding a consensus president Jumblatt said " I hope they will be able to select a president that will recognize all the UN resolutions starting with UN 1559." Asked who is his favorite presidential candidate he said " March 14 alliance ( of which he is a member ) has 2 candidates : Boutros Harb and Nassib Lahoud. They are our only candidates."
This article starring:
Rafik Hariri
Walid Jumblatt
Posted by: Fred ||
10/13/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[12 views]
Top|| File under: Hezbollah
In an interview with Kuwaiti daily al-Anbaa to be published tomorrow, Walid Jumblatt said he has information that Iran might allow Hizbullah to invade the government building and occupy Beirut.
Jumblatt added that Hizbullah is working in concert with Emile Lahoud, who might invoke obscure legal arguments to justify staying in power. The PSP leader, who is en route to the US to ask about the delay in forming the Rafiq Hariri tribunal, called on the Lebanese army to remove Syrian installed president Emile Lahoud. He described Hizbullah as an extension of the Iranian revolutionary guard and part of a "Persian project" that starts in Persia and ends in Lebanon and Syria via Iraq.
Jumblatt said he didn't trust Nabih Berri's talks, and hinted that the speaker is endangering the lives of deputies by bringing them to the parliament for no purpose. He reiterated that March 14 has two presidential candidates, Nassib Lahoud and Boutros Harb, and that the parliament's majority has the right to elect a president "anywhere".
Jumblatt described the scheduled electoral session on October 23rd as "imaginary" because the "opposition" has no intention to attend.
He called on Christians to unite around a leader who recognizes UN resolutions, especially 1559, which calls for fair elections and the disarmament of militias. Jumblatt described the scheduled electoral session on October 23rd as "imaginary" because the "opposition" has no intention to attend.
Jumblatt statement came after Hizbullah yesterday stepped up its attacks on March 14, accusing Hariri of "defending the US", and warning of "measures" ready in place should March 14 deputies elect a president without their approval. Hassan Nasrallah's finger-waving deputy vowed not to let parliamentarians have a session if there is no agreement. MP Mohammad Raad visited Lahoud to put the final touches on the "measures", and issued a statement afterwards threatening the parliament's majority. Lahoud has repeatedly said he would not hand over power to Siniora, and that he has alternatives in place that he refused to disclose.
Hizbullah has also been training and arming pro-Syrian parties, as well as Aoun's party, amid rumors that the post-election plan might involve dispatching armed elements to the presidential palace to keep the March 14 president from assuming power.
Hizbullah has also been training and arming pro-Syrian parties, as well as Aoun's party, amid rumors that the post-election plan might involve dispatching armed elements to the presidential palace to keep the March 14 president from assuming power.
This week, Al-Shiraa reported that Hizbullah has dispatched armed members to Shia villages in Mount Lebanon to prepare for the scenario of March 14 electing a president. The pro-Hariri weekly speculated that Hizbullah is either preparing to storm Baabda, which is not far from Kayfoun and Qmatieh, or to control the Beirut-Damascus highway in the event of two governments.
Military escalation seems to be on the Syrian agenda for Lebanon. In an interview with a Tunisian newspaper, Bashar Assad predicted that Lebanon "will not know stability in the near future" because some Lebanese (March 14) "had chosen to side with Israel and submit themselves to foreigners instead of taking the Arab path and that of resistance." In other words, they left Syria's orbit. Or should we say Iran?
This article starring:
Hizbullah
Bashar Assad
Boutros Harb
Emile Lahoud
Hassan Nasrallah
Hizbullah
Mohammad Raad
Hizbullah
Nabih Berri
Nassib Lahoud
Rafiq Hariri
Walid Jumblatt
Posted by: Fred ||
10/13/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under: Hezbollah
The United Nations' secretary-general Ban Ki-moon is spearheading plans for a special tribunal to prosecute the suspected killers of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri in 2005.
Ms. Carla del Ponte to the white courtesy phone ...
A selection panel has been appointed to recommend to Ban the names of four Lebanese judges and seven international judges who should serve on the tribunal, as well as its chief prosecutor, the UN said in a statement.
Ban has sent a letter to the Security Council president informing him of his intention to appoint Judge Mohamed Amin El Mahdi, Judge Erik Mose and Nicolas Michel to the selection panel. Judge El Mahdi formerly served on the UN International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and Judge Mose currently serves as a presiding judge with the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). Michel is the UN legal counsel and under-secretary-general for legal affairs.
The UN said that Ban was committed to setting up the tribunal in a timely manner and continued to believe the court will contribute to ending impunity in Lebanon for the crimes under its jurisdiction.
Hariri was killed with 22 others in a massive car bombing in downtown Beirut in February 2005. It was widely believed that the Syrian government was linked to the killing.
Once it is formally established, the tribunal will determine whether other political killings in Lebanon since October 2004 were connected to the assassination of Hariri and could also be dealt with by the tribunal.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/13/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Syria
Posted by: 3dc ||
10/13/2007 11:06 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
#1
This a 166 page download. Something for me to read at a later date. However, thanks for the posting. Disrupting the financing of terrorists means disrupting moneys coming from Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria.
I can think of at least three areas that will also be impacted by disrupting the flow of money: 1. enemy propaganda will be impacted, 2. the flow of arms will be disrupted, and 3. terrorist infrastructure will be impacted (such as recruiting, training, undermining leadership, etc). We need to find more effective ways to counter enemy propaganda and we need better intel. Denying these mideast countries oil profits by becoming more energy independent would help. However, these mideast countries still have other markets such as China, etc.
#2
However, these mideast countries still have other markets such as China, etc.
Which is precisely why China needs to be broken on the wheel of their intentionally crappy quality control instead of being worshipped by disloyal money-grubbing politicians and mercenary multinationals who cannot see past the next campaign-contribution buck or quarterly report.
...The left is translating and selectively quoting LTG (Ret) Ricardo Sanchez' comments during the October 12 Military Reporters and Editors Luncheon in Washington D.C. "Former top general rips Bushs Iraq policy" is not exactly what happened here, yet if you were to accept their editorializing, that's what many are going to come away with....
#2
I'm not so sure he did; in the remarks quoted at the link, Sanchez attributes the media's misreporting of military matters to sensationalism and a desire to get on the front page. He doesn't seem to quite get it, that the MSM are intentionally misreporting to promote a political agenda.
In any case, Gen. Sanchez's remarks make it clear that Bob Parks hits the mark when he says, "The Think Progress and New York Times types have intentionally left out the guts of this speech that lambastes the media and the ideology that drives them. Instead they've only reported the part of the speech (yet to come) that fits their anti-war, anti-Bush agenda."
Lambastes, flenses and eviscerates.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
10/13/2007 13:43 Comments ||
Top||
#4
After all this time dealing with the media he doesn't understand that they will selectively quote him out of context if they can? I don't think so. He said what he meant and meant what he said. I hope he gets his job in the Clinton administration.
#5
Fortunately, the Press intended by the Founding Fathers will also report these remarks in tomorrows Washington Post.
Just wait. I'll find the article tomorrow and post it!
You're skeptical, I can tell...
Posted by: Bobby ||
10/13/2007 15:14 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Besides, if he left out the Bush-bashing, no one would've reported it at all. The speech never woudl've happened. At least this way, he can fuss about the MSM misquoting him.
Posted by: Bobby ||
10/13/2007 15:15 Comments ||
Top||
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.
Taliban leader Mullah Omar called on Afghanistans neighbors to help his militants oust President Hamid Karzais government and force foreign troops out of the country.
KUWAIT CITY - Kuwait is to buy an unspecified number of Patriot missiles from the United States, Defence Minister Jaber al-Mubarak al-Sabah told the state news agency KUNA on Friday.
The United Kingdom has reiterated its request to Pakistan to extradite British national 
A prisoner has been charged with an attack on a jailed al Qaeda terrorist. The 22-year-old inmate is accused of assaulting 
MOSCOW (AP) - Russian President Vladimir Putin warned President Bush's top two Cabinet officials on Friday to back off U.S. missile defense plans for eastern Europe as high-level talks yielded little more than a pledge to meet again.
FBI officials followed a terrorism suspect to a public library and when he was done using a computer there violated his privacy by making, without a warrant, records of the Web pages and e-mail addresses that he had accessed, the man's attorney alleged Thursday.
Vice Chief of Army Staff General 
Turkey has placed its military on the highest state of alert in preparation for a major invasion of neighboring Iraq that could take place by the end of November. 
Exiled Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal said Friday there could not be a solution to the Palestinian issue without dialogue between Hamas and the West Bank-based government loyal to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Abbas and his allies "will find out that they are pursuing nothing but a mirage," Mashaal told Hamas radio. "They will find out that there can be no solution without dialogue." He accused Israel and the US of taking advantage of the Palestinian rift to try to wrest concessions from the Palestinians.
Hamas' top leaders in Gaza and Syria, speaking to supporters Friday on the occasion of the Muslim Eid al-Fitr holiday, warned the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas against falling into the "trap" of an upcoming peace conference with Israel, and urged him to mend his rift with their faction. .JPG)
Democratic Gathering chief MP 
In an interview with Kuwaiti daily al-Anbaa to be published tomorrow, 
