Hi there, !
Today Thu 11/25/2004 Wed 11/24/2004 Tue 11/23/2004 Mon 11/22/2004 Sun 11/21/2004 Sat 11/20/2004 Fri 11/19/2004 Archives
Rantburg
531716 articles and 1856007 comments are archived on Rantburg.

Today: 95 articles and 498 comments as of 15:35.
Post a news link    Post your own article   
Area: WoT Operations    Non-WoT    Opinion           
Association of Muslim Scholars has one less "scholar"
Today's Headlines
Headline Comments [Views]
Page 2: WoT Background
2 00:00 Frank G [] 
4 00:00 lex [] 
3 00:00 mojo [1] 
2 00:00 marek [] 
8 00:00 josephmendiola [1] 
1 00:00 Sock Puppet of Doom [] 
11 00:00 Barbara Skolaut [] 
1 00:00 lex [] 
15 00:00 True German Ally [] 
13 00:00 JosephMendiola [] 
7 00:00 lex [] 
5 00:00 .com [] 
1 00:00 mojo [] 
7 00:00 Mike Sylwester [] 
19 00:00 MacNails [] 
0 [] 
3 00:00 phil_b [] 
0 [] 
3 00:00 Anon1 [] 
5 00:00 N Guard [] 
2 00:00 trailing wife [] 
6 00:00 trailing wife [] 
5 00:00 Shipman [] 
1 00:00 rjschwarz [] 
0 [] 
23 00:00 Mrs. Davis [] 
1 00:00 too true [] 
1 00:00 gromgorru [] 
5 00:00 Dishman [] 
6 00:00 Jules 187 [] 
19 00:00 phil_b [] 
3 00:00 BH [] 
3 00:00 Korora (abu Oh look! A red-bellied woodpecker!) [] 
36 00:00 Mike Sylwester [] 
0 [] 
5 00:00 lex [] 
1 00:00 Capt America [] 
Page 1: WoT Operations
1 00:00 Frank G []
1 00:00 Frank G []
12 00:00 Floting Granter5198 []
7 00:00 Poison Reverse []
9 00:00 JP []
1 00:00 Laurence of the Rats []
0 []
2 00:00 Ptah []
5 00:00 Whipper-In Barbie []
17 00:00 BillH [1]
24 00:00 PBMcL [1]
3 00:00 Frank G []
1 00:00 .com []
3 00:00 Remoteman []
1 00:00 tipper []
2 00:00 .com []
3 00:00 Wo []
2 00:00 Frank G []
6 00:00 mojo []
0 []
2 00:00 mhw []
0 []
4 00:00 lex []
0 []
2 00:00 Shipman []
0 []
4 00:00 MacNails [1]
8 00:00 Capt America []
1 00:00 mhw []
2 00:00 lex []
0 []
0 []
8 00:00 MacNails []
0 []
0 []
1 00:00 Ebbavith Angang9747 []
2 00:00 anymouse []
Page 3: Non-WoT
0 []
8 00:00 someone []
0 []
7 00:00 .com []
5 00:00 mojo [1]
28 00:00 .com []
7 00:00 Cheaderhead []
6 00:00 BigEd []
16 00:00 Darth VAda []
5 00:00 3dc []
0 []
3 00:00 Frank G []
1 00:00 Aris Katsaris []
2 00:00 Frank G []
1 00:00 Anonymous4724 []
8 00:00 BigEd []
8 00:00 Shipman [1]
Page 4: Opinion
0 []
23 00:00 Frank G []
4 00:00 chicago mike []
5 00:00 Capt America []
Arabia
US Dependence on Saudi Oil: Political Rhetoric and Hard Facts
First of all, let's get one thing straight. Saudi Arabia doesn't "produce" oil", it extracts it. Any country's "oil production" is really its oil extraction. That one phrase alone — "produce oil" — has created real havoc in world political and economic circles. As Youssef Ibrahim, a former senior Middle East correspondent with the New York Times and energy editor of the Wall Street Journal has said, "Oil and politics are a flammable cocktail".

During the very heated 2004 presidential season, Saudi Arabia and the Middle East played a major role in the political campaigns of both major presidential campaigns. Though many observers would say that George W. Bush was not evenhanded in his positions on Middle East issues and that he often seemed to serve as a pawn for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, John Kerry took even more extreme positions on most issues related to the Middle East. A cornerstone in Kerry's presidential campaign was the imperative in his national security policy — "Free America from its dangerous dependency on Mideast (read Saudi Arabia and the Gulf) oil". Kerry went on to state, "Today, we consume 2.5 million barrels of oil per day from the Middle East whose instability has pushed prices to record highs. These soaring energy costs are burdening middle class families with higher gas prices and dependence on Middle East oil is putting our national security at risk". Kerry also stated during his campaign speeches, "Letting the Saudi royal family control our energy costs makes President Bush unfit to lead the nation". Was this just political rhetoric? Let's look at the data regarding energy and oil and see what some of the experts have to say.

Most energy statisticians state that about 2/3 of the world's proven oil reserves are in five Gulf countries — Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. According to Hassan Al Husseini, a Saudi oil consultant, 25percent of the world's oil is in Saudi Arabia and Saudi Arabia extracts about 12 percent of the world's daily oil usage. The United States with about five percent of the world's population uses about 25 percent of the world's oil. And the US consumes almost 50 percent of the world's gasoline daily. Where does that oil come from and how dependent are we on "Mideast oil"?
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: tipper || 11/22/2004 10:13:39 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  I have some ideas on the reassessment / redefinition of the American - Saudi "relationship", rather permanent and definitely advantageous - to one party, at least. There's this strip of land that lies on coast of the the Persian Gulf running from Kuwait to the Arabian Sea...
Posted by: .com || 11/22/2004 10:26 Comments || Top||

#2  the inside of the earth is heated temperature-wise by the hot magma and pressure. It is not radioactive. We are not living on the sun where the heat energy comes from splitting atoms.
Posted by: Anon1 || 11/22/2004 10:33 Comments || Top||

#3  Now, .com, you know that we're not supposed to talk about that while Aris and Murat and Gentle and Mike S. may be listening! You're going to ruin our whole Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy! [pssst - the coordinates are programmed]
Posted by: Tom || 11/22/2004 10:36 Comments || Top||

#4  Anon1 - Well... See the "Interior" section...
Posted by: .com || 11/22/2004 10:43 Comments || Top||

#5  One factor that must be part of any oil debate is the difference between countries that produce the highly desireable "light, sweet" crude, and those that produce "heavy, sour" crude. The oil that everybody wants, and the market price you always hear about, is the LS market. "Light" means that it has a high percentage of component that can be refined into gasoline and fuel oil. "Sweet" means that it is low-sulfur, and easy to refine. The Middle East is full of "heavy, sour" oil, that is worth half as much as "light, sweet", *and* there aren't that many refineries that are designed to use it. This is why disruptions in the otherwise marginal production from countries like Nigeria and Venezuela have such a strong impact on the LS market, *and* why so much of the "oil production curve" argument is hooey.
Posted by: Anonymoose || 11/22/2004 11:12 Comments || Top||

#6  And why Russia's vast reserves are not of great consequence to anyone. Their oil is heavy/sour and many of their reserves are extraordinarily difficult to extract. Also, their infrastructure is antiquated.

The obvious solution to our dilemma is nuclear power-- the sooner the better.
Posted by: lex || 11/22/2004 11:20 Comments || Top||

#7  “the inside of the earth is heated temperature-wise by the hot magma and pressure. It is not radioactive. We are not living on the sun where the heat energy comes from splitting atoms.”

Lord Kelvin used thermodynamics to calculate the cooling rate of the earth. By his calculations the interior of the earth should have cooled eons ago. The discrepancy between Lord Kelvin’s calculations and the measured temperatures remained a mystery until the discovery of radioactive elements. The natural decay of radioactive elements is now believed to be the energy source driving the core temperatures. (Note fission of elements such as Uranium, not fusion as occurs in the sun.)
Posted by: Anonymous5032 || 11/22/2004 13:00 Comments || Top||

#8  not fusion ?
Posted by: Shipman || 11/22/2004 13:28 Comments || Top||

#9  never mind, I cant seem read.
Posted by: Shipman || 11/22/2004 13:29 Comments || Top||

#10  Could be some gravitational stress heating from the tides of such a large (relatively) moon, too.
Posted by: mojo || 11/22/2004 14:04 Comments || Top||

#11  I was always under the impression that Saudi Arabia had vast pools of LC just sitting under the surface waiting to be tapped.
Posted by: gromky || 11/22/2004 14:19 Comments || Top||

#12  Anonymoose 2004,

You have it backwards. Venezuelan oil is, in his majority, less desirable than ME oil. That is why the former is sold for less.
Posted by: Anonymous4724 || 11/22/2004 14:52 Comments || Top||

#13  Kerry was right re dependence on ME oil and whether the USA imports 2.5M or zero Barrels from the ME is an irrelevant objection becuase for all practical purposes there is a single market and the actual source of a particular barrel is immaterial.

And Saudi Arabia and OPEC are no longer calling the shots for the price of oil. This is nonsense and likely the statement of SA funded lobbyist.

Otherwise, part of the reason the price of oil is so volatile becuase demand is more variable than supply. The USA has only to reduce its oil demand by a few percentage points to bring the price down sharply (say half a dozen nuclear power stations and assuming demand from the rest of the world remains static).
Posted by: phil_b || 11/22/2004 16:00 Comments || Top||

#14  Article: According to Hassan Al Husseini, a Saudi oil consultant, 25percent of the world’s oil is in Saudi Arabia and Saudi Arabia extracts about 12 percent of the world’s daily oil usage.

Let's see - they have 25% of the world's reserves, and are supplying 12% of the world's daily usage. And supplying oil is not messy as with tar sands - for the Saudis, it's simply a matter of turning on the spigot and the oil just flows into tankers. And this article is saying the Saudis don't control the price of oil? He must assume we're stupid.
Posted by: Zhang Fei || 11/22/2004 19:50 Comments || Top||

#15  Actually Saudi Arabia can no longer "control" the price in both ways. They are pretty much pumping at their utmost capacity. They can only drive up prices by cutting production, not bring it down by extracting more.
I firmly believe that Saudi Arabia's extractable reserves are less than commonly believed. This is the biggest "dirty secret" the Saudis have.
The only way to keep prices in control over the next decade is drastically cutting demand or we're in for oil prices at $120 a barrel and more.
Posted by: True German Ally || 11/22/2004 20:14 Comments || Top||


Britain
Civil orders 'will curb terrorism'
Apparently you can 'curb' terrorism in the same way you 'curb' vandalism and noisy neighbours: ASBOs for would-be terrorists. Ooh, that's tough. Game's up, bad guys!
New civil orders could be used to restrict the activities of people suspected of planning terrorist acts, David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, said yesterday. He said the proposed orders - similar to current anti-social behaviour orders - could be imposed on individuals who had not committed an offence but were suspected of "acts preparatory to terrorism". Interviewed on ITV's Jonathan Dimbleby programme, he said that breach of such orders would be a criminal offence which could result in imprisonment.

"We'd be able to use civil orders, like anti-social behaviour orders, to say, 'If you step outside what we've precluded you from doing, if you actually, for instance, use this particular banking network, if you, for instance, use the internet and we can identify you've done it, then we can move you from the civil into the criminal law', and then we can use the normal criminal justice process," he said. Mr Blunkett said such orders could be used against those who were raising funds or acting as "runners" for terrorist organisations.

He confirmed that he was considering the introduction of special terrorism trials with judges sitting without a jury. Legislation would not be introduced until there had been a judgment from the House of Lords on the Government's powers to hold foreign terrorist suspects without trial. "It's not my intention to try to push a Bill through this side of the general election, whenever the Prime Minister calls it," he said.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Bulldog || 11/22/2004 4:38:26 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  This sounds similar to the USs use of "injuctions" against gangs. You enjoin the individuals who make up the support network in such a way that almost anything they do to maintain the network, no matter how seemingly benign, becomes a violation of the court order. In the US, individuals can be barred from neighborhoods, from using cell phones, from associating with named others, from wearing certain kinds of clothes, etc. Such injunctions can be very large. And, since violation is treated as "contempt of court", there is no jury requirement--the trial is immediate, and before the judge who issued the order in the first place--making it hard as hell to get out of.
Posted by: Anonymoose || 11/22/2004 10:23 Comments || Top||

#2  Anonymoose, where is this precedent? I'd like to hear examples before I sign on to the concept, since you make it rather appealing-sounding.
Posted by: Crereper Thomomble7323 || 11/22/2004 10:28 Comments || Top||

#3  Number of people involved in gangs: high
Number of people involved in terrorism: very low

Potential danger to the public of one gang member ignoring a court order: low
Potential danger to the public of one terrorist ignoring a court order: very high

Few gang members are actively engaged in murderous activity, whereas all Islamist terrorist group members are. If it suspected that an individual is involved in terrorism in any way, and it isn't worthwhile placing them under surveillance, the first action should be to lock them up. Someone involved in financing terrorism's crime is analogous to that of someone who has hired a hitman.
Posted by: Glum T Roll || 11/22/2004 10:35 Comments || Top||

#4  Just tattoo "jihadi" on their foreheads and make them wear shirts with bull's-eyes front and back. The rest will take care of itself.
Posted by: mojo || 11/22/2004 14:54 Comments || Top||

#5  Hell, maybe this is the path that Johna-thon Edwards can take to build up security street cred.
Posted by: Shipman || 11/22/2004 17:33 Comments || Top||


Al-Qaeda planned to hit London before US election
Note to Dan; I rarely say "I told you so", but guess what? I told you so.
The latest analysis of evidence that led to last summer's Code Orange alert suggests that Al Qaeda operatives were plotting a "big bomb" attack against a major landmark in Britain—but had no active plans for strikes in the United States, U.S. intelligence sources tell NEWSWEEK.
I thought that al-Q might go after the UK to split the coalition and "guilt" US voters into turning on Prez Bush....
The reassessment of Al Qaeda plans is the latest indication that much of the Bush administration's repeatedly voiced concerns about a pre-election attack inside the United States was based in part on an early misreading of crucial intelligence seized months ago in Pakistan. The new view is that there was indeed an active Al Qaeda plot underway earlier this year—one that involved coded communications between high-level operatives in Pakistan and a British cell headed by a longtime associate of September 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. The plot was aimed at setting off a large bomb at a prestigious economic or political target inside the United Kingdom—in effect to make a political statement against the British government. Among the targets considered in detail by the plotters, sources say, was London's Heathrow Airport, the Houses of Parliament and Westminster Abbey.

But little, if any, any evidence has turned up suggesting that the plotters had taken any steps to attack U.S. financial targets as Bush administration officials had initially suggested. The failure to find any such evidence was a key reason the Department of Homeland Security last week relaxed the terror alert and downgraded the threat level from Orange (elevated) to Yellow (high) for financial buildings in New York, New Jersey and Washington, D.C. Officials also said that another reason for downgrading the alert was that security at the buildings had been enhanced. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge first announced the financial-buildings alert on Sunday, Aug. 1, just three days after Sen. John Kerry gave his acceptance speech at the Democratic Party convention in Boston. Ridge's references to what he called "very specific" and "alarming" intelligence about Al Qaeda surveillance of such buildings as the World Bank in Washington and the New York Stock Exchange set off a new wave of fears about a possibly imminent terrorist attack and, in the view of some, had the effect of substantially suppressing Kerry's "bounce" in the polls.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Dan Darling || 11/22/2004 4:57:03 PM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Yes, yes, you did ;)

Though to be fair, I still don't entirely understand the rationale behind such an attack. Even if they killed thousands of Londoners, they still stand to lose far more in terms of infrastructure in London in the potential MI5 retaliation than the UK would in any terrorist attack. IMO, their best strategy would be not to carry out any attacks in Europe, or at least only against those governments they know they can bully. In the event Europe actually does grow a pair, they stand to lose quite a bit.

But then, I'm just a dumb kufr, so what the hell do I know?
Posted by: Dan Darling || 11/22/2004 0:05 Comments || Top||

#2  At some level the True Believers (TM) are prolly angry at the operatives living the good Western life in London. Page Three wimmin, Euro teevee with all its nekkidness, football, pubs aplenty. A nice big bomb would kill a bunch of infidels, embarass the Great Satan, and send a lot of the al-Q bureacrats running for cover in Pakland and Yemen. Back home where they can go to masjid 5 x a day and memorize some more of the Koran.
Posted by: Seafarious || 11/22/2004 11:00 Comments || Top||

#3  They'd be doing the Brits a favor if they blew up that stupid water ring memorial to Diana. Typical artiste vision, it doesn't work.
Posted by: anonymous2u || 11/22/2004 11:46 Comments || Top||

#4  They'd be doing the Brits a favor if they blew up that stupid water ring memorial to Diana.

Sat in Hyde Park by the ring back in the summer, it occurred to me that in the event of a nuclear strike on London, that particualr feature would be one of the very few to survive intact. It may not work, but it's almost indestructable. Shame indeed.
Posted by: Bulldog || 11/22/2004 12:57 Comments || Top||

#5  I'm with Dan. AQ's fifth column hatemongers in Finsbury and elsewhere in the UK enjoy a level of tolerance unique in Europe, provided all the wet work occurs outside the UK. Why mess with a good thing?
Posted by: lex || 11/22/2004 13:04 Comments || Top||


Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia
Ex Muslim Chechen's Story of Leaving Islam
Why I chose a normal life
By Alkaliel
Well, I think that I'm ready to write my testimony. I grew up in Russia in Dagestan which is nearby Chechnya. However my parents were Russian by nationality. Living next to Muslims made my ancestors convert to Islam a long time ago. ... I went to mosque; was beaten by Muslim boys because my name wasn't Arab. I was beaten by Imams because I asked too many questions. I was beaten all the time...

My grandfather converted to Christianity openly and was killed near church....when he was at home writhing in pain, he confessed that he had cancer and knew that his death was somewhere nearby. He said he didn't want to die a Muslim. It would be too shameful for him. I hope now he's in Heaven or if Heaven doesn't exist then I hope he's now safe and happy... We became Christians because we were afraid to be caught by Muslims. You can't even imagine how Muslims are aware of other Muslims arriving in Norway. We wanted to have nothing to do with these fu**ing bast**ds. (Sorry)... my life shows why I left Islam. And when some fools say that Islam is a peaceful religion I'm disgusted and want to cry. I hope that more and more people will understand the truth about Islam.
I fervently wish the media (even radio) would give these people a chance to tell their story.
Posted by: mhw || 11/22/2004 9:27:25 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Can we e-mail this link to Dubya? We need to take the "gloves off" on confronting islam for what it is...a fatalistic, repressed, murdering, blood thirsty "religion" who seeks political power.
Posted by: BA || 11/22/2004 11:04 Comments || Top||

#2  Collect the rocks! We've got a woman dis'n islam. Thats against the brotherhood of thought.
Posted by: Lucky || 11/22/2004 12:48 Comments || Top||

#3  Dubya can't confront Islam at this point.

We should send it to Rush.
Posted by: mhw || 11/22/2004 16:01 Comments || Top||

#4  I disagree. We need to confront the jihadi-fascist death cult that, while it may have hijacked Islam in many regions, is not the same as Islam. Attacking "islam" per se would be like going to war in 1941 against "Europe" rather than against fascism.

I'm not arguing against gloves-off; in fact I'm arguing the opposite. But we need to be absolutely clear, to ourselves as well as to others, that it's not muslims per se but the muslim fascist death cult that needs to be exterminated. To achieve this, we will need the help of millions, hundreds of millions of muslims just as we needed the help of European allies to defeat the fascist monster that Europe produced.
Posted by: lex || 11/22/2004 16:23 Comments || Top||

#5  The bad part is...their own 'scriptures' and example (big Mo) doesn't make me agree, Lex. Yes, I know the majority of them are peaceful (at least right now), but their track and their 'holy book' don't give me comfort. Islam needs to undergo a "reformation" of some type and ASAP, or we're just beginning to see the front lines in Holland, France, and the rest of Europe, and even here one day if we don't TRUTHFULLY name our enemy (I'm not saying it's all of Islam...I mistated that in #1, but those who believe in Fundamental Islam). As I've said before (in response to 'Oh yeah, what about the Crusades and Christianity?'), one (Christians) were hypocrites, whereas the other (Muslims) are devout and following their scripture & example in big Mo.
Posted by: BA || 11/22/2004 17:40 Comments || Top||

#6  OK, point taken. I'll settle for calling the enemy Islamo-fascism. Or jihadi fascism. But don't neglect the fascist part of the equation.
Posted by: lex || 11/22/2004 17:43 Comments || Top||

#7 
The title is wrong. She says she is Russian, not Chechen.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester || 11/22/2004 23:59 Comments || Top||


U.S. Report Links Bin Laden and Chechen Rebels
Osama bin Laden has been actively involved in the terrorist insurgency in Chechnya since 1995, sending al-Qaida agents to the North Caucasus and sponsoring Chechen rebels, according to a declassified U.S. intelligence report released by Judicial Watch, a U.S. public corruption watchdog, late last week. Bin Laden sent Jordanian-born warlord Khattab, who is now dead, and nine instructors to Chechnya in 1995 to set up terrorist training camps, according to the six-page U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency report, which was based on notes from an unspecified person in 1998 and is marked at the top as not "finally evaluated intelligence."

Excerpt from headland
Posted by: headland || 11/22/2004 1:30:42 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:


More on Ivan in Iraq
New details on a rumor from last week, courtesy IRA Novosti (hat tip to The Argus.
According to leaks from Washington, the newspaper [Nezavisimaya Gazeta] writes, Russia has agreed to be involved in the Iraqi campaign in exchange for America recognizing the former Soviet Union as a zone of Russia's vital interests. The scheme of future arms supplies to Iraq has not yet been devised, though. Nor has it been coordinated between key departments.
Reckless though it might be, I definitely see the attraction to writing off the former Soviet space, especially after the last month or so (Yanukovich winning/stealing the election in Kiev, the whole Georgia/Abkhazia/South Ossetia mess continuing to fester with no end in sight, ditto for Moldova, the Turkmenbashi's antics, etc. etc.). Just let us keep a couple of "lily-pond" bases in the 'Stans, Vlad, and consider the place yours. Just Ukraine by itself has been a money pit for U.S. taxpayers for thirteen years now, and we have squat to show for it. By all accounts, the place is a lunatic asylum (think Belarus with better P.R.). And if they want to steer back toward Russia anyway, why bother saving them from themselves?
Posted by: The Caucasus Nerd || 11/22/2004 1:51:37 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Much of what you say is hard to dispute, Nerd, but I'm puzzled by the narrow facts of the news hook here. There'd be no need for a quid pro quo to have Russia restore some level of commercial arms activity with Iraq. The Russians will sell, the Iraqis will buy using their own $$$. At the very most this would represent a small favor by the US towards Moscow, though possibly not even that. Don't see why there'd be any horse-trading WRT the former Soviet mess, er, empire.

I'd say in the longer run it's a vital US interest to keep Ukraine and Russia apart to some extent, though right now that's not vital given Russia's weakness. Apart from that, enough stability (under Moscow's influence or otherwise) to facilitate extraction of energy resources from the Caspian basin is about the only important national interest in the FSU (leaving aside the negative interests, like no proliferation of WMD personnel, materials, or know-how).
Posted by: Verlaine || 11/22/2004 9:52 Comments || Top||

#2  I suspect that, if true, this involves a LOT more than Central Asia and Iraq. It would most likely also include the upcoming amusements with Iran, and probably several other situations.
Posted by: Anonymoose || 11/22/2004 10:17 Comments || Top||

#3  Iran and the FSU's stocks of WMD are the key here. Everything else is insignificant by comparison. Our Russia policy should be geared above all to stop them from doing harm by aiding Iran. Achieve that, and halt proliferation, and we're successful.
Posted by: lex || 11/22/2004 11:32 Comments || Top||

#4  Our Russia policy should be geared above all to stop them from doing harm by aiding Iran.

I don't think Russia cares, and I wouldn't be concerned about it either. It's just business. Russia is not the only source in the world for nuclear technology. But whether or not Iran is allowed to have nukes is up to the US & Israel to decide. Not Russia's problem. Why not cash in before the door shuts permanently (and before the festivities begin)? Also remember the famed Russian GPS jammers. Great businessmen, those Russians, heh.
Posted by: Rafael || 11/22/2004 14:18 Comments || Top||

#5  Russia is not the only source in the world for nuclear technology

But that's only the tip of the iceberg. If Russian nuclear businessmen are doing legitimate business with Iran, you can be sure that rogue FSB and mafiya elements are not far behind.

And yes, Putin does indeed care about winning multi-billion dollar contracts for his nuke industry. Aside from arms and nukes, there simply are no other export-quality Russian manufactured products. Russia has a tiny economy apart from oil and gas, and any increase in nuke or arms business is huge to them. Buy them off. $5B should do the trick.
Posted by: lex || 11/22/2004 14:23 Comments || Top||

#6  I would not be comfortable with anything other than C.O.D., lex. The Soviets were past masters at "pay us to negotiate", and Putin trained up in the old school.
Posted by: trailing wife || 11/22/2004 19:50 Comments || Top||


Hizb-ut-Tahrir planned hostage-taking in Russia
Members of the Tobolsk branch of Hizb-ut-Tahrir, an organization found to be extremist by the Russian Supreme Court, has been collecting weaponry and planning to take hostages, Tyumen region prosecutor Ernest Valeyev told a news conference at the join Interfax-Urals and Tyumen Line news agency center on Friday. The regional prosecution office has evidence of such plans and intends to present it to the court, he said. Five of the eight suspects in the case have been arrested, Valeyev said. "The group will most likely face charges of extremism and setting up an extremist organization. The investigation is expected to be completed in November," he said.
Posted by: Dan Darling || 11/22/2004 4:33:50 PM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:


China-Japan-Koreas
No evidence of terrorism In Chinese plane crash
Investigators have reportedly failed to find evidence of terrorism in the explosion of an airliner in China which killed 54 people. The airliner, which crashed in northern China, exploded seconds after takeoff and "broke into flaming fragments" before plunging into an ice-covered lake, reports said. Divers searched the lake for the black box flight data recorders of the Bombardier CRJ-200 belonging to China Eastern Airlines, which went down after taking off from the northern city of Baotou on a flight to Shanghai. Investigators sent from Beijing hadn't determined the cause of the crash but found no evidence of terrorism, state television said.

The government grounded all CJR-200s in China following the crash, the country's deadliest airline disaster in two years. Among the dead was the president of one of China's biggest software companies, news reports said.
Witnesses said the Canadian-built plane began to shake after takeoff, the official Xinhua News Agency reported. They heard a loud bang and "the plane broke into flaming fragments," then hit the lake, spreading burning oil across the icy surface, the report said. All 47 passengers and six crew members aboard were killed, as well as one person on the ground. One passenger was Indonesian and the rest were Chinese.

Rescue workers had to break through the ice of the lake to retrieve the bodies, Xinhua said. The dead included Chen Suyang, president of Fudan Forward Co, a software maker affiliated with elite Fudan University in Shanghai, news reports said. An employee of the company, who wouldn't give his name, confirmed that Chen was on the flight. The disaster marred intensive official efforts to improve China's air safety following a string of deadly crashes in the 1990s. Shanghai-based China Eastern planned to fly relatives of the dead to Baotou, airline official Li Jiang said. Li said he had no additional information about the crash or the airline's response.
Posted by: God Save The World || 11/22/2004 3:25:07 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  It's always fun when an airline that you travel with frequently has a crash. A new experience for me.
Posted by: gromky || 11/22/2004 10:16 Comments || Top||

#2  Check in periodically then, Gromky, please, so that we'll know when to start worrying about you. (Pretty much the same deal I have with my husband when he's on the road.)
Posted by: trailing wife || 11/22/2004 19:54 Comments || Top||


Down Under
Government made mistake leaving Hicks, Habib overseas: "Expert"
An international expert on terrorism believes the Federal Government has made a significant error of judgement by not seeking the return of Australian detainees in Guantanamo Bay. Dr Rohan Gunaratna, who is the head of the International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research in Singapore, is the keynote speaker at an emergency medicine conference in Adelaide today. He says Australian intelligence agencies would have gained more from the return to Australia of Al Qaeda suspects David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib than they have by keeping the suspects detained overseas for an unspecified period. "An Australian who is trained in a terrorist training camp is a risk to Australia," he said. "It is the duty and the responsibility of the Australian Government to bring them home to ensure that they develop a good idea, a solid understanding of the terrorist organisations overseas." Dr Gunaratana believes that a terrorist attack on Australian soil is inevitable. He says Australia appears to be experiencing the same pattern of terrorist attacks as the United States experienced before the devastating September 11 attacks.

"If you look at the Al Qaeda trajectory of attacks, first they attack the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, then they attacked the USS Cole and then they did 9/11 on American soil," he said. "It should be very clear that the terrorist groups operating in your immediate neighbourhood of South East Asia have no love for Australia but will attack your country eventually." He says Australia remains vulnerable to further attacks because of its close association with the United States, despite efforts after the Bali bombing to curtail such threats."Australia has significantly improved their capabilities to better manage the threat," Dr Gunaratana said. "However, the threat of terrorism has grown very significantly especially after the US invasion of Iraq."
Posted by: God Save The World || 11/22/2004 3:17:53 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Article: "However, the threat of terrorism has grown very significantly especially after the US invasion of Iraq."

Sounds like wishful thinking to me. I would think that having all their men and resources diverted to Iraq would reduce the capabilities of the terrorists.
Posted by: Zhang Fei || 11/22/2004 8:37 Comments || Top||

#2  I used to have a lot of respect for Gunaratna, until I read this report. There is nothing we can gain from these two morons that we don't already know. Bringing them back to Australia would probably mean their release, as Australian law was lax about what they were up to back 2001.
Let them rot in whichever jurisdiction is most unfavourable to their cause.
Posted by: tipper || 11/22/2004 9:22 Comments || Top||

#3  Gunaratna is a SELF-STYLED expert. In reality a pompous twat whose expertise was Sri Lanka, not the Middle East.

He is no Daniel Pipes.

He has been exposed by Melbourne's Age as the charlatan he is.

He continues to be quoted as 'expert' because a) he says what the leftie media want to say (doesn't matter it's not true) and b) leftie media is lazy and needs to quote an 'expert' in stories whose name readers will accept. Get critical mass and they'll just keep quoting you.
see:

'analyse this' 20/07/2004 by Gary Hughes

It has been taken off the Age's site, but I managed to find a copy that is cut and pasted into this guys website. You need to scroll down past the playboy interview and Hughes's article appears to be pasted in full:

http://www.sangam.org/ANALYSIS/Sachi_9_12_03.htm
Posted by: Anon1 || 11/22/2004 9:47 Comments || Top||


Australian Defence admits to $500m black hole
Half-a-billion dollars worth of defence stock, from aircraft engines to army boots, cannot be accounted for by the Department of Defence. While the department insists there is no evidence to suggest anything is missing, management failures and an apparent inability to keep track of inventory means it can't be sure. In releasing its annual report on Monday, Defence Department Secretary Richard Smith admitted the department's financial management practices were not up to scratch, and a raft of reforms would be introduced. Among these, a representative of the Department of Finance and Administration and an expert from the private sector will join the Defence Department project board, responsible for preparing financial statements. Accounting firm Ernst & Young will also take on a lead role as overseer. A new stringent financial controls framework will be introduced.
---------snipped-------
Posted by: God Save The World || 11/22/2004 3:23:26 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Lota beer nutz missing I'll wager.
Posted by: Shipman || 11/22/2004 12:26 Comments || Top||

#2  How I wish DOD couldn't find only $500 million of equipment.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis || 11/22/2004 12:53 Comments || Top||

#3  "I know it's in here someplace."
Posted by: Seafarious || 11/22/2004 12:55 Comments || Top||

#4  "Just sign right here, LT. All the equipment is accounted for, you really don't need to waste time running around checking everything. You are coming to my retirement luncheon tomorrow, right?"
Posted by: Steve || 11/22/2004 13:52 Comments || Top||

#5  Australian Defence admits to $500m black hole

Just sign right here, LT. All the equipment is accounted for, you really don't need to waste time running around checking everything. You are coming to my retirement luncheon tomorrow, right?"

Oh, the stories I could tell about "creative" shortage annexes on inventories. esp. post-Annual Training 0r change of command inventories.
National Guard cs/css/maintenance units can loose frightening quantities of equipment over one year.
Posted by: N Guard || 11/22/2004 18:19 Comments || Top||


Europe
Tackling Germany's Parallel Societies
First, an Islamic fundamentalist living in Germany has been pinpointed as the alleged mastermind behind the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh. Then, on Thursday, a German mosque is attacked. The reactions in Friday's newspapers divide down political lines.

Every major German paper on Friday covers the Thursday-morning arson attack on a mosque in Baden-Wuerttemberg -- an attack which evokes the recent Christian vs. Muslim religious violence in The Netherlands. The culprits threw a Molotov cocktail at the entrance, but the fire was put out before any major damage could be done. Most of the country's left-of-center dailies reported the straight news and avoided the subject on their editorial pages, but the conservatives used the opportunity to rant against parallel societies and point out failures in Germany's multicultural society.

"Arson Attack on Mosque in Sinsheim, churches call for more intensive dialogue between Islam and Christianity; Schily warns of parallel societies," reads the headline in the left-leaning Sueddeutsche Zeitung. The conservative Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung goes light on the headline ("Attack on Mosque in Baden-Wuerttemberg") but its subhead clearly reflects the conservative bias that the left-of-center German government has not done enough to combat Muslim extremism nor to investigate the Germany-based Islamist cell responsible for murdering Dutch film director Theo van Gogh. "The (conservative) opposition demands that (Interior Minister Otto) Schily explain what he knows about Dutch Islamist leader," the subhead states dryly.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: tipper || 11/22/2004 9:57:51 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  churches call for more intensive dialogue between Islam and Christianity

Dialogue about what? Whether the jihadists prefer us to be immolated or gunned down?

There is no problem between "Islam and Christianity." There is however a jihadist terrorist threat to the nations of western Europe that, like any terrorist threat, needs to be ruthlessly suppressed. If Islamist leaders are not on board with this, then they need to be deported. End of story.
Posted by: lex || 11/22/2004 11:43 Comments || Top||

#2  There is no problem between "Islam and Christianity." Sorry lex but I disagree. Terrorism is a just a manifestation of a much deeper problem. As the Dutch are finding out, tolerance has to be reciprocal in order for it to work. If not, the intolerant side merely abuses the other side's tolerance. Islam does not tolerate freedom of the individual and is therefore an existential threat to our society.
Posted by: phil_b || 11/22/2004 16:15 Comments || Top||

#3  Phil, of course there is a fascist tendency within Islam today but it's absolutely crucial to see this tendency clearly so that it can be crushed. "Islam" cannot be crushed because, fundamentally, we are not at war with "Islam." But we are indeed in a war to the finish with a fascist movement within Islam that, like the European and Japanese fascist movements before it, is first and foremost a death cult focused on slaughtering any who oppose it.

In WWII we didn't go to war against "Europe," we went to battle with fascists who had overrun it. Our success in destroying this European movement depended hugely on the help of Europeans themselves. Likewise, there is no way we can exterminate this new version of fascism without the help of millions of muslims. This isn't a matter of PC rhetoric but a hard strategic necessity.
Posted by: lex || 11/22/2004 16:30 Comments || Top||

#4  lex, I'll assume fascism is your term for Islam's intolerance of personal choice. You seem to assume that 'fascism' can be removed from Islam leaving a benign version. I personally doubt this can be achieved in any relevant timeframe. That is, Islam will start to destroy Western societies before we can reform Islam. Dramatic as it may sound, Ivory Coasts in Europe may be the future we face.
Posted by: phil_b || 11/22/2004 17:14 Comments || Top||

#5  For me fascism is not a subjective term but a specific modern political tendency that we've seen again and again. Fascism IMO has three main elements:

1) the death cult ("Viva El Muerte!", SS totenkorp, kamikazes, etc etc etc)

2) related closely to #1, the warrior cult and the glorification of violence as the highest form of human activity, including suicidal slaughter of thousands of innocents

3) glorification of the fascist clan and the supreme leader, and a rejection of any kind of particpation in normal, pluralistic politics. Due to this primitive clan approach to social life, there is no real interest in and no program for the economy, social arrangements, legal systems etc.

Treating this as a known political movement has enormous tactical advantages for us. We know what fascists are like and how they behave. We know how to deal with them, having crushed them decisively in the last century.

But I don't have a view on whether Islam or any religion is "benign." And frankly I don't have a clue as to how to treat muslims any more than I would know how to deal with amish or sikhs or Opus Dei Catholics. Our society tolerates all kinds of religious weirdness, some of it nasty in my book but not in others', but what really matters is whether the religious minority plays within the democratic process. That's why we need to shift this discussion to a purely political level. Defend democracy. Zero tolerance for fascism.




Posted by: lex || 11/22/2004 17:30 Comments || Top||

#6  lex, RB is not the forum for a political theory debate. Suffice it to say, I don't agree with your def of fascism, or that fascism is a meaningfully definable entity, or it is the problem with Islam. If it helps, my position moreorless corresponds with The Open Society and Its Enemies (K Popper).

Regards
Posted by: phil_b || 11/22/2004 17:54 Comments || Top||

#7  k, peace.
Posted by: lex || 11/22/2004 18:36 Comments || Top||


Speak your mind, lose your life
Excellent article in the Spectator outlining rejection of Political Correctness, the failure of multiculturalism in the Netherlands, and more. Slightly EFL, as The Spectator requires registration.
Muslims and non-Muslims now live in a country afraid of itself, and what it has become. At least, though, the Left in the Netherlands has seen that there is a clash between liberal democracy and cultural relativism; that some cultures are simply not compatible with Western traditions of freedom and tolerance; and that the old distinction between evil right-wingers and cuddly left-wingers no longer makes sense. It is one thing to turn a Christian church into a mosque, quite another to get radical Islam to accept liberal democracy. Outside the Netherlands, however, the Left has yet to learn these lessons.

Van Gogh himself was a child of the Left. He did not discriminate when he decided whom to offend. He had deeply upset Christian and Jewish groups, who made written complaints about him. His mistake, however, was to offend Muslim sensibilities. True to his polemicist style, van Gogh said lots of objectionable things about Muslims, such as calling extremists 'goatfuckers'. But that doesn't excuse the Guardian pigeonholing him as a 'loudmouth racist' as a way of avoiding thinking about the complexities of the issue. He was a lifelong socialist, from a leading left-wing family. A journalist friend of his told me at his funeral: 'He was left-wing, but he had his eyes open. He started seeing these dark developments in society, and surprised himself by having right-wing thoughts.' A staunch Dutch feminist who knew him told me that his work standing up for women oppressed by religion had inspired her to dedicate her life to it.

Van Gogh was a friend of Pim Fortuyn, the populist politician murdered two years ago for offences against Islam. The hate-mongering Left demonised Fortuyn as a far-right racist, but he was no such thing. On the contrary, he was a flamboyant left-wing homosexual sociology professor who firmly opposed racism and had many black followers. But he started campaigning against Muslim immigration and denounced Islam as 'backwards' when homosexual teachers were sacked in the Netherlands because Muslim parents didn't want their children taught by gays. He was outraged that decades of campaigning for gay rights was going backwards, and that everyone was too frightened to speak out.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Bulldog || 11/22/2004 5:57:18 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Heh, the Spectator delivers another thunderous bitch-slap to Al Guardian, lol! I think I heard this one - I woke up with a smile this morning without knowing why... All those LLL contradictions and inconsistencies - wooo! - like having piles of pieces from different puzzles... No matter how you try to put them together, they don't really fit and the picture is a mish-mash mess describing nothing comprehensible or meaningful. A large segment of humanity is fooling themselves because they're too lazy to think things through, suckers for easy solutions and easier lifestyles, and tools for the hardcore committed of any stripe willing to herd cats. Sad.
Posted by: .com || 11/22/2004 12:53 Comments || Top||

#2  The roughest slap of all was the one administered by the Left's own loyal soldiers. Fortuyn was a flaming gay leftist. Van Gogh was a leftist. More than one house of cards is falling here.
Posted by: lex || 11/22/2004 13:12 Comments || Top||

#3  If I am right and there is a major recession coming for Europe, this will come to a head quickly. People will tolerate things in good times that quickly turn nasty in bad times.
Posted by: phil_b || 11/22/2004 15:09 Comments || Top||


Istanboomers fled abroad, leaving cannon fodder to be jugged
The two suspected masterminds of the Istanbul suicide bombings are at large a year after the blasts in a scenario that's being played out around the world: police quickly make arrests, but often struggle for years to catch the organizers of terror attacks. In this case, Turkish security forces say they have dismantled much of the network behind the bombings that killed some 60 people, but the leaders are thought to have fled to Iraq. "What al-Qaida and other terrorist groups often do is make sure that the true masterminds leave the country or go underground" after an attack, said Daniel Byman, a senior fellow at the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution. "In general, the expendable foot soldiers remain."
Yasss, real leaders these Islamic Heroes™ are.

Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Dan Darling || 11/22/2004 2:35:37 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:


Extremists roiling Dutch society
Geert Wilders is on the run. He can't go home. He doesn't show his face in public. Six police officers track his every step. Wilders is not a fugitive, but a prominent Dutch legislator. The threat of assassination by Islamic extremists has forced him and several other politicians into hiding, while about 150 men identified by police as hard-core jihadis remain free.
So the other 850 or so are just the attendant hangers-on and wannabes, I guess ...
"I have stayed in five different safe houses," Wilders said in a recent interview. "It's a life you don't wish on your worst enemy. Meanwhile, they are still walking the streets of the Netherlands because the police can't arrest them — there is not enough evidence. I say that those who choose to kill our democracy with radical, fascistic Islamic ideas don't deserve the rights of our democracy. Once again we will have to wait until something else terrible happens before we do anything."
I think he's trying to say something about how the tolerant can't afford to tolerate intolerance, or something like that ...

Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Dan Darling || 11/22/2004 12:23:47 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  "Hello, Ivan? Wilders. How are you these days, starets?...Good, good. Listen, Ivan, I have some work I nned taken care of on the QT...Yes, that kind...Moroccans. I'm faxing you a list right now...10,000 Guilders a head, that's right. But I have a special requirement. I want them castrated, and their privates stuffed into their mouths...Before or after? I don't know Ivan, it's your line after all, not mine...Fine, before it is..."
Posted by: mojo || 11/22/2004 1:50 Comments || Top||

#2 
Meanwhile, they are still walking the streets of the Netherlands because the police can’t arrest them — there is not enough evidence.

Here's what the Dutch can do with those who aren't Dutch citizens:
Today is Monday. Change the expiration dates on the visas to today. Deport them on Tuesday.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester || 11/22/2004 7:32 Comments || Top||

#3  You can't arbitrarily change the date on a Visa with out due process. The rules must be followed, Mike.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis || 11/22/2004 7:59 Comments || Top||

#4  Not that they would, but they could do it through legislative process. It would provoke a crisis in the Wiemar Union if they tried.

Methinks the PoMos are going to seriously regret all their efforts in Brussels.
Posted by: Dishman || 11/22/2004 9:21 Comments || Top||

#5  I should explain a bit. The EU bureaucracy is designed to not be responsive to society. The problem with that is that in time of crisis, it has no graceful failure. That is, it doesn't leave society with the mental option of "We just have to wait this government out and we can elect a new one". The remaining modes of change are all ugly.
Posted by: Dishman || 11/22/2004 9:51 Comments || Top||


Europe — Thy Name is Cowardice
Via Tim Blair
A few days ago Henryk M. Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag, "Europe — your family name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because it's so terribly true. Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to agreements. Appeasement stabilized communism in the Soviet Union and East Germany in that part of Europe where inhuman, suppressive governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities. Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo and we Europeans debated and debated until the Americans came in and did our work for us. Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians. Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore 300,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace-movement, to issue bad grades to George Bush. A particularly grotesque form of appeasement is reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere by suggesting that we should really have a Muslim holiday in Germany.

What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians and directed against our free, open Western societies. It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than the great military conflicts of the last century—a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by tolerance and accommodation but only spurred on by such gestures, which will be mistaken for signs of weakness.

Two recent American presidents had the courage needed for anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush. Reagan ended the Cold War and Bush, supported only by the social democrat Blair acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic fight against democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed. In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the multicultural corner instead of defending liberal society's values and being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, America and China. On the contrary—we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to the intolerant, as world champions in tolerance, which even (Germany's Interior Minister) Otto Schily justifiably criticizes. Why? Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: tipper || 11/22/2004 12:09:43 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  May I add canada to the list. Oh Canada does nothing, no nothing, and life goes on and cake is cheap. Eat cake, one and all.
Posted by: Lucky || 11/22/2004 14:18 Comments || Top||

#2  And NZ. Funny how each has a big brother to cover it's ass. Free riders is what economists call them. The rest of us call them mooches.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis || 11/22/2004 16:34 Comments || Top||

#3 


Government heads from various European nations meet to discuss the perceived breaches of protocol by US President Bush at the APC summit in Chile. Notably absent were Blair (UK), Berlusconi (Italy), and Kwasniewski (Poland).

Cluck-cluck-cluck

Posted by: BigEd || 11/22/2004 17:02 Comments || Top||

#4  WTF?? post link again, pls, Ed
Posted by: lex || 11/22/2004 17:11 Comments || Top||

#5  Blistering. It's one of my favorite words.

Thank you, Herr Broder, for a brave and honest look at your home continent. Many of us here in America are hoping the day comes when Europe wakes up and embraces, in word and deed, the only sane friendship it has ever been offered.
Posted by: Jules 187 || 11/22/2004 17:22 Comments || Top||

#6  Correction--Herr Dopfner. Sorry!
Posted by: Jules 187 || 11/22/2004 18:00 Comments || Top||


Home Front: WoT
CIA Terrorist Hunter: Bin Laden 'Great' and 'Admirable'
This guy sounds like Kurtz in "Apocalypse Now". Except where Kurtz talked about the other side being evil, and how we needed to adopt their tactics to defeat them, this CIA guy talks about how the other side is good and how we need moderate our positions to appease them.
In a series of bizarre comments that show the depth of the failed thinking at the nation's premier intelligence service, the former head of the CIA unit charged with capturing or killing Osama bin Laden said on Sunday that the terror mastermind was a "remarkable," "great" and "admirable" man. "He's really a remarkable man," former CIA agent Michael Scheuer told NBC's "Meet the Press." "[He's a] great man in many ways, without the connotation positive or negative. He's changed the course of history."

Scheuer's book "Imperial Hubris," which the CIA allowed him to publish anonymously earlier this year, was touted during the presidential campaign by critics of President Bush based on its claim that the U.S. is losing the war on terrorism. Scheuer ran the agency's bin Laden unit from 1996 to 1999. While he insisted he didn't mean to praise bin Laden, moments later the ex-CIA man told host Tim Russert that the al-Qaida chief was "an admirable man. If he was on our side, he would be dining at the White House." "He would be a freedom fighter, a resistance fighter," Scheuer added, suggesting that the U.S. would welcome an ally who killed 3,000 innocent office workers in a kamikaze sneak attack.

In more revealing comments, Scheuer went on to blame America's "unqualified support for Israel" for bin Laden's rise. "There is a perception in the Muslim world, and I think there's a perception on the part of many Americans, that the tail is leading the dog on this case," he told NBC. "And perception, for better or worse, is often reality." In fact, bin Laden bombed U.S. embassies in East Africa, attacked the USS Cole and planned the 9/11 attacks during the height of the Clinton administration's efforts to pressure Israel to cede territory to the Palestinians, a proposal accepted by then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak but rejected by Yasser Arafat. Scheuer continued as a senior analyst with the CIA's bin Laden unit until Nov. 12, when he went public with his complaints.
Posted by: Zhang Fei || 11/22/2004 1:09:06 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  The problems in the CIA seem to be bigger than I had thought.
Posted by: True German Ally || 11/22/2004 1:28 Comments || Top||

#2  Anyone wonder why the CIA has become the equivalent of the Keystone Cops with people like this?
Posted by: Thomas J. Jackson || 11/22/2004 1:46 Comments || Top||

#3  Why is this rectal cavity stealing our precious oxygen reserves? The crap this guy spews would clog a sewage treatment plant.
Posted by: Zenster || 11/22/2004 2:01 Comments || Top||

#4  Remarkable. Just think how many have probably been infected by this sort of "leadership". I'm now with lex and others - the patient can't be saved by any mere treatment. We need to tear it out by the roots and start from scratch. I would dig hard and deep and find something that could be used to put this asshole away. He needs 20-30 years of making gravel out of boulders to consider his views and the damage he has done, and is doing.
Posted by: .com || 11/22/2004 5:07 Comments || Top||

#5  "And perception, for better or worse, is often reality."

My perception is this guy is in love with Bin Laden and should be replaced.
Posted by: Shaiter Omoluper1484 || 11/22/2004 6:35 Comments || Top||

#6  Stockholm Syndrome perhaps ? hehe
Posted by: MacNails || 11/22/2004 6:48 Comments || Top||

#7  So, we now realize exactly why this arrogant moron wants to give up Israel to the "Muslim World". A-hole.
Posted by: Destroy Islam || 11/22/2004 6:51 Comments || Top||

#8  The moderator should remove all that yellow.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester || 11/22/2004 7:47 Comments || Top||

#9 
Re #4 (.com): We need to tear it [the CIA] out by the roots and start from scratch.

Scheuer is gone. I imagine that the reason he began publishing his opinions publicly is that his opinions were not accepted and respected within the CIA.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester || 11/22/2004 7:51 Comments || Top||

#10  We can agree on that,
Posted by: Shipman || 11/22/2004 8:02 Comments || Top||

#11  I can imagine the reason he began publishing his opinions was

a.) that they were accepted within the CIA but not reflected in U. S. policy.

b.) to make money.

c.) to try to influence the vote away from Bush in the 2004 election.

But I have no reason to believe any of them. I doubt even he knew why he did it and that there are several other reasons we are unaware of.

However, it is difficult to look at the actions of the CIA and conclude that they reflect a lack of acceptance or respect until George Tenet decided to retire when Scheurer decided to retire.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis || 11/22/2004 8:19 Comments || Top||

#12 
Re #11 (Mrs. Davis):

I certainly agree that your second and third reasons are valid.

I don't think there's any relationship between Tenet retiring and Scheuer quitting. Now a lot of people have concluded that Tenet was somehow a protector of Scheuer. What nonsense!

Scheuer's position as manager of the CIA's bin Laden unit ended in 1999. I speculate that his career stalled and even turned downward at that point, and that's why he decided to spend his free time and energy publishing books to spout off his opinions publicly.

This kind of outburst happens all the time. It's called a mid-life crisis.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester || 11/22/2004 8:44 Comments || Top||

#13  The relationship between Scheurer and Tenet retiring is one day. I know little else about either.

Tenet may not have been a dedicated protector with a specific interest in Scheuer, but he presided over a culture that allowed Scheuer to survive and prosper. Is it a coincidence that as soon as Scheurer heard that Tenet was going Scheuer's out too?
Posted by: Mrs. Davis || 11/22/2004 9:11 Comments || Top||

#14  MD: Is it a coincidence that as soon as Scheurer heard that Tenet was going Scheuer's out too?

I wouldn't necessarily get on Tenet's case on Scheuer's say-so. Scheuer's clearly a loose cannon with a bunch of contradictory views. Part of the reason that the housecleaning was deferred until now is simply politics - sweeping out the Old Guard before the election would have triggered another misleading barrage of ads from the Democrats. Ditto with Powell at the State Department.
Posted by: Zhang Fei || 11/22/2004 10:07 Comments || Top||

#15  Old Spook what do you think?
Posted by: Anon1 || 11/22/2004 10:15 Comments || Top||

#16  This comes from the man supposed to have been hunting Bin Laden for 3 years?

No wonder Bin Laden ran unimpeded until November 2001.

Imagine a former police officer lavishing praise on murderers and thieves. Wouldn't you wonder about what he truly did while he was a police officer?
Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever) || 11/22/2004 11:49 Comments || Top||

#17  Will someone corect me if I'm wrong,but didn't Osama not mention Israel til US invasion of Afghanistan? That prior to that OBL was po'd at US for occupying Saudi holy ground and propping up morally bankrupt rulers. That he was fighting to reverse Western Crusader victories in Spain and elsewhere. That he was all about fighting the Great Satan,the US. That Al-Q attacked US targets(ships,Embassies,the US itself)and not Israeli ones. When his Al-Q and Taliban fighters were getting slaughtered then OBL started including Israel in his rants hoping to recruit Palestinians to replace his losses.
Did I remember this all wrong? If I got it right however,that means the CIA's man chasing OBL had no clue as to what was driving OBL and thus made 9/11 more possible. Is there some subconcious guilt driving Mr.Scheuer?
Posted by: Stephen || 11/22/2004 12:35 Comments || Top||

#18  Thanks to Fred's "Neverending Story", I just re-read Binny's fatwa upon our heads. The occupation of Jerusalem is mentioned as the third item in his list of complaints. No mention of his poor downtrodden Palestinian brothers. However, Iraq is mentioned over and over again. I wonder why that is?
Posted by: Seafarious || 11/22/2004 12:47 Comments || Top||

#19  Any failing institution that is also steeped in secrecy and clannishness is simply not capable of reform. First, no leader, no matter how energetic or clear-sighted, will have enough visibility into all the areas of rot. Second, the instant the new head tries to reform it, the institution will beat him back with far more effective methods of sabotage and deception, methods that have been refined over decades.

The model you need to have in mind here is the CPSU. Think of Goss as Gorbachev.

As I say, raze it to the ground and start over. Very real damage is being done-- has been done-- and it will only get worse. We may be looking at a threat to our republic here.
Posted by: lex || 11/22/2004 12:50 Comments || Top||

#20  ZF, My point, more fully, was not to get on Tenet's case about Scheuer nor that there was any relationship between Tenet and Scheuer. It was that Tenet condoned a culture in which people like Scheuer could survive and prosper. As soon as Scheuer saw that the culture was going to change, as indicated by W's victory and Tenet's impending resignation he, probably after consulting with his publisher and publisist, decided to resign at the moment when he could get the maximum PR value.

So a direct relationship of any kind between Tenet and Scheuer is not necessary. But there is a relationship between Scheuer and the CIA culture, for which Tenet's tenure is a leading indicator.

W erred in waiting till after the election to clean out CIA. In hindsight it is clear he should have done so right after Afghanistan was cleaned up and before Iraq. But having gone after Iraq first, he had lettle choice but to wait. Some times that loyalty down thing has a big price tag.

Waiting for Powell at State was not so clearly an error, in my opinion.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis || 11/22/2004 13:09 Comments || Top||

#21  Quick quiz: would Scheuer be gone from CIA if we were about to inaugarate (gulp!) President Kerry?
Posted by: someone || 11/22/2004 13:47 Comments || Top||

#22  Does anybody else here remember the book, "The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence"? It was published in 1974. It spoke of much of the same kinds of problems with the CIA during the Nixon presidency. That shows how far back this mess goes. The problems began under Kennedy, spread rapidly under Johnson, were ignored during he Nixon presidency, made worse under Carter, and never really straightened out since then. The Clinton politicization of everything did nothing to clean up the mess, and Tenet was too soft to get anywhere. Goss needs to use a fire hose to clean the place out.
Posted by: Old Patriot || 11/22/2004 20:25 Comments || Top||

#23  But under Eisenhower Allen Dulles was doing a crackerjack job overthrowing governments left and right till we got to Cuba. /sarcasm The CIA has always been a problem. Even when it was called the OSS. It is simply not an activity that fits well with the concept of the American Government or the temperment of the American people when not at war. But we need intelligence to operate effectively now, more than ever, so we'd better figure out how to do it well.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis || 11/22/2004 20:32 Comments || Top||


International-UN-NGOs
UN knew of Saddam's oil-for-food thefts: BBC
The United Nations knew that Iraqi president Saddam Hussein was stealing from the oil-for-food program - and, by extension, starving his own people - but did little to stop it, according to a special report by the BBC at the weekend. After a six-month investigation, the BBC said it had evidence that Saddam took billions from the oil-for-food program, and that "these abuses were widely known about at the time". The BBC said there was evidence that Saddam demanded a kickback from companies that wanted to do business with Iraq under the oil-for-food program. Australia sold wheat worth about $A1 billion to Iraq under the program but the Australian Wheat Board strongly denies wrongdoing. However, US congressman Chris Shays told the BBC that Saddam "didn't participate with you if he couldn't get kickbacks. He didn't buy commodities unless he got kickbacks so, if you agreed to participate, you agreed to do it on his terms. And we know what those terms were."

The Age reported last year that Australia sold wheat to Iraq at what appears to be an inflated price. The wheat board says it never gave a cut of its contracts to Saddam. It was forced to pay a Jordanian trucking company to move its wheat around Iraq. That trucking company was selected by Saddam. The BBC sent a reporter to Iraq and Jordan to track down people involved in the oil-for-food program, which has been described as the largest financial swindle in history. Virtually all said that Saddam took kickbacks from companies who sold goods to Iraq, and that the UN knew this. The businessmen - most of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity - said it was standard to pay commissions, that nobody complained, and that was the price of doing business with Iraq. A Jordanian banker said it was an open secret that contracts were inflated so Saddam could take 10 per cent. "We knew it was there," he said. "(But) actually, it's not our business, you know. Banks are (only) interested in their money, and to make money."
Posted by: Fred || 11/22/2004 00:15:10 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  You know the UN is in real trouble if the BBC turns on it.
Posted by: phil_b || 11/22/2004 0:30 Comments || Top||

#2 
The businessmen ... said it was standard to pay commissions, that nobody complained, and that was the price of doing business with Iraq.

This kind of corruption didn't begin and won't end with the Oil-for-Food Program, and it's not unique to this situation involving the United Nations.

That's the way business has always been done in Iraq and in most other politically retarded countries. Iraq has been a premier example ever since it was founded as an independent state. Under Saddam Hussein's regime this kind of corruption became legendary.

Now all the fault-finders say that it was all Kofi Annan's fault that this corruption was not corrected during the four or so years of the Food-for-Oil Program. As if the fault-finders, if they themselves had been in Annan's position, would have managed the program any better.

It's been said that politics is the art of the possible.

After Iraq invaded Kuwait, the USA wanted the UN to approve a military intervention. The UN cooperated. After Iraq was expelled from Kuwait, the USA wanted the UN to impose international sactions on Iraq. The UN cooperated. As many years passed, however, the international support for sanctions waned.

Despite the reduction of international support for the sanctions, they were maintained through a series of political compromises. One such compromise was the Food-for-Oil Program.

Within that program, another such compromise was that Iraq itself would select the suppliers and order the goods that it would import. These compromises had to be accepted if the sanctions were to continue. One consequence of this particular compromise is that Iraq was able to corrupt all the suppliers, as it had always corrupted all its suppliers.

Now the demagogues lay all this at the feet of Kofi Annan and his evil son Kojo Annan. If Iraq managed to arrange all this corruption, the reasoning goes, then it must have happened only because Kofi Annan intended it to happen. And he must have willed it to happen, the reasoning continues, because he would profit personally from the corruption. And since it's obvious that he intended to profit personally, then no real evidence is needed for groundless insinuations like the smearing of Kofi and Kojo Annan. The vaguest, loosest circumstantial evidence is good enough.

If Kofi Annan had not been the Secretary General of the UN, there might not have ever been any sanctions at all imposed by the UN against Iraq. When he became the Secretary General, he was widely considered to the the USA's puppet. He has been a good friend of the USA, and he has done much for us because he has been able to arrange necessary compromises -- to practice effectively the art of the possible.

For years before Annan became the UN Secretary General, the USA had withheld from the UN much of the money it had committed itself to contribute to the UN's budget. US Senator Jesse Helms had blocked that money for years, but he was satisfied enough with Annan's management of the UN, that he used his power in the US Senate to release that money to the UN.

Now many in the USA have decided to demonize Kofi Annan. No accusation is considered to be too extreme. Kofi Annan enabled genocides all over the world. Kofi Annan personally corrupted the UN for his own personal profit. And so forth and so on.

And yet people here wonder why so many foreigners consider the USA to be an arrogant, stupid, self-defeating country!
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester || 11/22/2004 0:45 Comments || Top||

#3  Well Mike, Kofi was an enabler in the Rwanda genocide. That seems pretty clear.

And he suckered Bill Clinton into going back into Somalia in '93.

And he tried to manipulate American public opinion during the election.

And he's not exactly forthcoming in the Oil-for-Palaces probe.

So yeah, I'm not real fond of the guy. He's not Saddam, he's not a Burmese general, but he's on the order of Chirac. And I don't like him, either.
Posted by: Steve White || 11/22/2004 0:56 Comments || Top||

#4  Yikes. Sanctions were imposed before the war, Anan wasn't SecGen, and no, I've seen you present not a single reason to render the views of "so many" foreigners any less arrogant or stupid than they clearly are. And if you can list the "self-defeats" the US has suffered, I'd be much obliged. I'm checking back through the last few years, and see defeat after defeat for the clueless in the west and the enemy everywhere. None for the USA. Better up the meds on this Kofi thing. There's a decent chance his arrogant, morally imbecilic, slimy anti-US rear will not serve out his term, and we wouldn't want anyone falling victim to PEST or anything ....
Posted by: Verlaine || 11/22/2004 0:57 Comments || Top||

#5  Mike S, speaking as one of those foreigners, the article doesn't mention Kofi. It's about institutionalized corruption aided and abetted by the UN. Having said that Kofi as the man in charge could have done a lot more to expose the corruption. And as far America's stupidity is concerned, being the largest contributor to such a blatantly anti-American organization is far and away the largest stupidity.
Posted by: phil_b || 11/22/2004 4:11 Comments || Top||

#6  Who was in charge of UN peace keeping operations during Rawanda:Kofi.Who was in charge of OFF:SG.Kofi.Who is the SG of the UN during the on-going genocide in the Sudan:Kofi(why hasn't it been called genocide?If it is called genocide then the UN would have to act). Connect the dots MS.Have you ever heard the expression"The buck stops here".
Posted by: raptor || 11/22/2004 7:07 Comments || Top||

#7 
Re #6 (Raptor):

What's OFF?

Raptor, in this previous thread I posed a couple of questions to the people who claim now they would have supported a UN intervention in Rwanda back then. I'll pose the questions again today for you to answer:

About how many combat troops do you think the USA should have sent as part of this effort? 10,000? 50,000? More? Compared to our force in, say, Iraq, how large should our deployment to Rwanda have been?
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester || 11/22/2004 7:44 Comments || Top||

#8  Mike has no answers, only spun questions, demanding answers from everyone else. He is an apologist and sattrap for the UN and any other anti-American NGO. Basically Kofi in drag
Posted by: Frank G || 11/22/2004 8:27 Comments || Top||

#9 
Re #3 (Steve White):

Kofi was an enabler in the Rwanda genocide. That seems pretty clear.

If you had been in Kofi Annan's position when the Hutus began massacring the Tutis in Rwanda, what would you have done differently?

If the USA had sent in one airborne brigade to stop the massacre, and if that force turned out to be insufficient, then would you have supported sending in a second brigade?

And he suckered Bill Clinton into going back into Somalia in '93.

How? (I never heard this accusation before.)

And he's not exactly forthcoming in the Oil-for-Palaces probe.

The UN is investigating that matter through an independent commission headed by Paul Volcker, who has rejected premature interference by grand-standing US Congressmen. Volcker's explanation is here.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester || 11/22/2004 8:29 Comments || Top||

#10  Mike is an absolute moron when it comes to the UN. He's obviously getting something from the UN, either a salary. a handout, or something else. Freak.

Kofi Annan is an enabler, an enabler of terror and an enabler of the current genocide in the Sudan. Plain and simple.
Posted by: AllahHateMe || 11/22/2004 8:33 Comments || Top||

#11 
Re #10 (AllahHateMe):

Here's a couple previous posts for your reading pleasure:

How Kofi Annan Enabled the Genocide in Rwanda

How Kofi Annan Enabled the Genocide in Bosnia
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester || 11/22/2004 8:50 Comments || Top||

#12  Mike:

Your faint praise for Annan amounts to: If Kofi Annan had not been the Secretary General of the UN, there might not have ever been any sanctions at all imposed by the UN against Iraq.

While that individual decision was a correct one, over the course of his leadership he has done nothing to stem (and some would say he accelerated) the perception of the UN as a bastion of petrowhores and anti-US constituencies.

Simply put:

He allowed the Rwanda genocide to occur
He allows the Sudanese genocide to go on
While condemning Israel at every turn, he is silent about palestinian terror -- even though that terror escalated on his watch
He obstructs the oil-for-food investigation

....and so on
Posted by: PlanetDan || 11/22/2004 8:54 Comments || Top||

#13 
#12 (PlanetDan):

He allowed the Rwanda genocide to occur

If you had been in his position, what would you have done differently so that it didn't occur?

He allows the Sudanese genocide to go on

Would you agree that President George W. Bush also allows the Sudanese genocide to go on? If you wouldn't agree, then what distinction do you make?

he is silent about palestinian terror

No, he isn't. He has denounced Palentinian terror many times. Will you send me $5 for every link I post with one of his denunciations?
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester || 11/22/2004 9:05 Comments || Top||

#14  Mike, I generally avoid commenting on your UN-supporting rants, but you've got me today. The amount of crap you have piled into #2 above is intolerable.

My country's tax dollars and military resources are going to support an institution that can't do anything right except perhaps providing a forum for discussion in New York and air dropping food aid in worthy places now and then. The U.N. bureaucracy is well-infused with crooks and charlatans of every persuasion, and I don't appreciate helping to pick up their tab.

Frankly, the third world can just go ahead and do their Darwinian things as far as I am concerned. And that includes Somalia, Rawanda, Ethiopia, and Sudan. As long as they don't directly threaten me or my friends, they can go ahead and hack each other or starve each other to death. I'm sick and tired of trying to hold the high moral ground for the innocents in cultures who are either clueless, not willing to defend themselves, greedy, power-crazed, religous zealots, or overpopulated in barren lands.

You want the U.N.? Go ahead, but pay for it yourself and get on an airplane and go do your rescue thing. And while you're risking your life in some hell hole, remember good old wonderful Kofi and Jacques who are back in civilization dining on $1,000 dinners and giving lofty speeches. They're rootin' for ya, Mike!
Posted by: Tom || 11/22/2004 9:12 Comments || Top||

#15  Would you agree that President George W. Bush also allows the Sudanese genocide to go on? If you wouldn't agree, then what distinction do you make?

-distinction: one is the president of a sovereign nation with no duty or mandate to intervene whatsoever in the business of another such as Sudan. Annan is the leader of a quasi-global organization with a duty &/or a mandate (afaik) to provide assistance in the event of a genocide which I believe Darfur now has become.

The corollary is that Bush has no prime directive to intervene, the UN is supposed to under the leadership of the SG.

Your doing a poor Aris impersonation with your socratic method Mike.
Posted by: Jarhead || 11/22/2004 9:18 Comments || Top||

#16  Tom, you're talking about the forest. Mike only deals with one tree at a time without comment on the forest as a whole or how any given tree may affect it.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis || 11/22/2004 9:18 Comments || Top||

#17  The trolls who keep on bringing up my name in threads, may they shut up.

And "AllahHateMe", instead of thinking up dark motives for the people you disagree with, and essentially claiming that "obviously" Mike Sylwester must be on the pay, try to first treat people as if they are honest in their beliefs they claim. Possibly *stupid* in said beliefs, possibly *evil*, *reactionary*, *racist* or *whatever* in these beliefs, but honest in them nonetheless. I'm not talking about just Mike here. I'm talking about people in general.

If you simply called a person stupid, that could be ignorable -- making however a factual accusation is only certain to increase the levels of contempts towards your person if such accusation is false. Kinda like all the people in Rantburg who thought that I must be Turkish because I didn't conform to their mental image of the stereotypical Greek, and needed to disconnect themselves from reality instead of accepting the world-as-is. They went a long way towards earning my contempt with such attitude.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris || 11/22/2004 9:43 Comments || Top||

#18  Mike S,

I will send you $5 for every one of Kofi's denunciations of Palestinian terror that DOES NOT DRAW false moral equivalence between suicide bombing and Israel's legitimate right to self defense. If you agree to send me just $1 for every one of his "denunciations" that does express such equivalence. Can't wait to count my money...
Posted by: mjh || 11/22/2004 9:50 Comments || Top||

#19  The trolls who keep on bringing up my name in threads, may they shut up.

Time to get adjusted to fame, freedom of speech and the Sullivan decision.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis || 11/22/2004 9:52 Comments || Top||

#20  Free speech means that you can't be dragged to court over it. Doesn't mean you can't be called asses over it.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris || 11/22/2004 9:54 Comments || Top||

#21  OFF:OIl For Food.Yes I would have supported intervention,I told you the other day my thoughts on terrorisiam,genocide but I will repeat them for your edification.All terrorist and those who perpetrate genocide should be hunted down and killed,those individuals who support terror/genocide should be hunted down and imprisioned or killed,those country's that support terror/genocide should be destroyed.A brigade probbly would have done it with massive air support.
I think I may have you figured out,MS.It seems to me that you are one of those ineffective beuracrates who is afraid of upsetting the status quo,after all who is next after the UN and CIA are cleaned-out State,or DOJ.What will happen to poor Mikey when his rice bowl is broken?
Posted by: raptor || 11/22/2004 9:56 Comments || Top||

#22  Mike S...in #13...you point out that the US as equally culpable in its inaction as the UN. The difference between the two is that the UN is not a sovereign nation, and its purported purpose is to transcend nationalism and act in the best interests of the world's peoples (perhaps an oversimplification, but I don't have time to excerpt the charter, and I think it's an apt summary). The US, on the other hand has no responsibility other than to protect its own interest, the same as any other sovereign nation. So...1) why is the US equally culpable if the UN is the organization supposedly responsible for such transnational issues as genocide in Darfur, etc.? ; 2.) Why should the UN exist if it cannot act to enforce its supposed mandate and is dependent on other sovereign nations for its survival?; 3.)Why should the US be more to blame than any other member nation of the UN?
Posted by: mjh || 11/22/2004 9:59 Comments || Top||

#23  MS ask:What would I do differently if I was SG of the UN?I would have stood-up in the GA on a daily basis demanding in no un-certain terms that member states put a stop to it by any means necassary.
Right back at ya,MS.What would you have done?
Posted by: raptor || 11/22/2004 10:04 Comments || Top||

#24  no fair, Raptor! MS asks all the questions!
Posted by: Frank G || 11/22/2004 10:06 Comments || Top||

#25  MS: And yet people here wonder why so many foreigners consider the USA to be an arrogant, stupid, self-defeating country!

MS thinks that corruption is simply what everyone does. That might be the Muslim or the European way, but that is not the American way. Somehow, MS has transformed this into a critique of America, instead of pointing the finger at the wrongdoers. And yet MS wonders why so many Rantburgers consider MS to be an arrogant, stupid, self-defeating person! We are Americans. We're Puritans - we don't do either moral equivalence or moral compromise - this is why we pressed for unconditional surrender during WWII, instead of an armistice, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of American dead.
Posted by: Zhang Fei || 11/22/2004 10:32 Comments || Top||

#26  MS: If Kofi Annan had not been the Secretary General of the UN, there might not have ever been any sanctions at all imposed by the UN against Iraq. When he became the Secretary General, he was widely considered to the the USA's puppet. He has been a good friend of the USA, and he has done much for us because he has been able to arrange necessary compromises -- to practice effectively the art of the possible.

This is a bunch of rank BS. Initially, various countries lined up in favor of sanctions because they were afraid of an American withdrawal from Saudi Arabia and a revived Saddam in the aftermath of that withdrawal (and the negative implications for the oil-rich region's security). Once it became clear that the US would do whatever it took to keep Saddam in his box, the countries that had initially agreed to sanctions starting looking for ways to bypass the sanctions. The Oil-for-Food schemes were their mechanism for getting past these sanctions. Kofi Annan was a bystander in the initial imposition of sanctions, but was in charge of making sure that the Oil-for-Food program ran without Saddam benefitting from it. Instead, he turned it into his personal piggy-bank.
Posted by: Zhang Fei || 11/22/2004 10:39 Comments || Top||

#27  Kofi Annan sucks the life out of everything he gets his dirty little mitts on , then blames it on everyone else , whilst pretending to go on a world crusade to help all . The man is an incompetent lying backstabbing arselicking shit head and should be removed from his position as soon as is feasibly possible . Over the years he has been in charge of the toothless tiger we call U.N. he has acheived nothing of note , and should be put down . I dont need bullshit facts to see whats black and white . He's a moron .

Any questions Mike ?
Posted by: MacNails || 11/22/2004 10:43 Comments || Top||

#28  or rather he's an incompetent moron
Posted by: MacNails || 11/22/2004 10:56 Comments || Top||

#29  I'll repeat my question about Mike S -- and I'm not interested in anything he says until I get a semi-plausible answer:

Why is Mike S obsessed with white-washing the following: the oil-for-money-for-terrorism UN, the bribery- and genocide-enabler Kofi Annan, as well as traitors at the CIA?
Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever) || 11/22/2004 11:10 Comments || Top||

#30  Does Mike S's defense of the UN remind anybody of the weirdo defense of Saddam and Iraq offered up by Scott Ritter?

What stake have you got in that whorehouse, Mike? You on the salary or something?
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats || 11/22/2004 11:20 Comments || Top||

#31  In #9, Mike asks me:

If you had been in Kofi Annan's position when the Hutus began massacring the Tutis in Rwanda, what would you have done differently?

If I were the UNSG, I would convened the Security Council immediately and called for UN action to stop the genocide. I would have pounded my shoe on the lectern if necessary.

If I were the POTUS, I would have promised a brigade of airborne for the relief mission, to start moving in 72 hr with or without the support of any other nation.

If the USA had sent in one airborne brigade to stop the massacre, and if that force turned out to be insufficient, then would you have supported sending in a second brigade?

Yes. You send whatever it takes to get the job done. And you make sure the job is well-defined. It would have been in Rwanda -- shoot anyone wielding a machete.
Posted by: Steve White || 11/22/2004 11:21 Comments || Top||

#32  The picture tells all that needs to be said. Two corrupt, empty hearted, common thieves. History will show that. But right now those facts are slow in coming out completely. Why, is there something that smells? The ugly thing is coming out and lets see how the perps play it out. With big ol toothy smiles, a brave face, a clintonian tour de force.

Common low-life thiefs. All their lifes work trashed. But I hope they get the new Jag.
Posted by: Lucky || 11/22/2004 12:23 Comments || Top||

#33  Logically, the BBC's OFF article decides to focus on Australia.
Posted by: lex || 11/22/2004 14:53 Comments || Top||

#34  The Lefties are starting up their "It was discovered on Dubya's watch, ergo Dubya did it" blamegame, besides also STILL criticizing Condi Rice as Dubya's surreal, potential girlfriend-mistress, ala antebellum South, "AUNT JEMIMA" and "MANDINGO", etc. As O'REILLY's substitute host asked this morning, "WHAT THE H*** IS THE LEFT DOING/UP TO?" by all of these never-ending, asinine, anti-Americanist criticisms and allegations!? Take a clue from Kerry's rants about BUsh impsoing FASCISM and GOP/RIGHTIST XTREMISM UPON AMERICA, i.e. FASCISM = RADICAL ISLAM = WORKING FOR, OR CONTROLLED BY, COMMUNISM, BUT COMMUNISM IS INNOCENT BECAUSE THE FORMER IS "WITH COMMUNISM" BUT NOT "OF COMMUNISM" - read, clandestine PC "Useful Idiots" to be purged or destroyed later!
Posted by: JosephMendiola || 11/22/2004 22:35 Comments || Top||

#35  Joe, take the blue pill. For the love of GOD take the blue pill
Posted by: Frank G || 11/22/2004 22:37 Comments || Top||

#36 
Re #31 (Steve White)
Thanks for your response, Steve. I consider your attitude to be consistent and respectable.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester || 11/22/2004 23:22 Comments || Top||


Syria-Lebanon-Iran
FM: Region cannot Bear Iranian Tension
In regards to the simmering dispute between the US and Iran over Iran's purported progress toward nuclear armament, Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul said, "The region cannot bear more tension and another crisis. Therefore, we predict that Iran will behave more carefully".

Gul remarked yesterday that Iran was a real country with its own unique traditions and added, "So, a compromise will ultimately be reached on the issue." Gul also expressed his belief that every country in the region should disarm its nuclear arsenal.

With regard to the US's commitment toward the Kurdistan Worker's Party (PKK), a terrorist organization that has settled in northern Iraq, Gul reiterated his expectation of high US involvement.

Meanwhile, neighbors of Iraq will meet to discuss border controls on November 22 in Egypt and in Iran on November 30. After the conferences, a "watch commission" will prepare itself to monitor the election process in Iraq.

In addition to the foreign ministers from Iraq's neighboring countries, the G8 -- eight industrialized countries -- and China, will participate in the Egyptian conference, in the country side city of Al Sheikh. Economic, political and security issues are among the conference's agenda.
Posted by: tipper || 11/22/2004 9:35:42 PM || Comments || Link || [1 views] Top|| File under:

#1  The region cannot bear more tension and another crisis.

Yeah, but that does not mean it won't happen. Better put what heat you have available on Syria, FM Gul, and get them to stop infiltrating into Iraq. As for Iran, the MMs are fanatics and nuts. Don't count on them doing the right thing.
Posted by: Alaska Paul || 11/22/2004 21:55 Comments || Top||

#2  "we predict that Iran will behave more carefully"
No such sign. What's he talking about?
Posted by: Wo || 11/22/2004 22:57 Comments || Top||

#3  He's saying "ixnay on the ukesnay, erksjay" in hopes that the Ayatollahs are sentient enough to give a damn. Turkey has enough problems without the fallout from a nasty little nuclear exchange blowing their way. Their southern Kurds are big Kurdistan backers.
Posted by: mojo || 11/22/2004 23:52 Comments || Top||


Afghanistan/South Asia
UN hostages in Afghanistan freed
THREE foreign United Nations workers kidnapped and held hostage in Afghanistan for three weeks have been released, according to Afghan police and officials.

A senior police official said UN staffers Annetta Flanigan and Shqipe Hebibi and Filipino diplomat Angelito Nayan, were released early today.

The trio, who had been helping oversee Afghanistan's first democratic elections, were snatched in downtown Kabul by armed men on October 28.

All three are now at Camp Warehouse, receiving medical examinations but appeared to be well and unharmed, diplomats and sources close the case said.

It remained unclear exactly how the hostages had been freed.
Posted by: tipper || 11/22/2004 10:55:33 PM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  I guess that the kidnappers felt that holding the hostages was more of a liability than an asset, heh heh. I hope that our forces determine who the hostage takers are and take them out, and anything within a 500 ft radius is turned to dust.
Posted by: Alaska Paul || 11/22/2004 23:00 Comments || Top||

#2  jeez AP - that sounds semi-barbaric. I'd go for full-barbaric and take out their extended families too
Posted by: Frank G || 11/22/2004 23:02 Comments || Top||


Iraq-Jordan
Iraq Cleric Pushing Shiites to Vote
Shiite leader Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has launched a massive get-out-the-vote campaign for Iraq's upcoming elections, determined to ensure that Shiites have a chance to win the power that he believes rightfully belongs to the nation's majority Muslim sect.

Iraq's Election Commission announced Sunday that the poll to elect a transitional parliament will be held Jan. 30, although speculation has deepened that the vote will be postponed.

Al-Sistani is acutely aware that this is a critical juncture for Iraq's Shiites, analysts say.

"Sistani thinks that this is the Shiites' moment to reverse the last 80 years of being out of power -- some would say the last 1,400 years," said a senior Iraqi government official, who asked not to be identified.

Since the beginning of the U.S.-led occupation, al-Sistani has been a staunch proponent of early, direct elections, trying to straddle roles as an Iraqi nationalist leader and a promoter of Shiite political interests. He has met with Kurds -- most of whom are Sunnis -- and Christians as well as secular and religious Shiites.

From homey neighborhood mosques to the sprawling shrines that are the center of Shiite religious life, the vast Shiite hierarchy with ties to al-Sistani is hard at work.

The mosques' leaders are following the "fatwa," or religious ruling, issued by al-Sistani in mid-October requiring every man and woman to vote. The spiritual leader elevated the duty to vote to the same level as fasting during Ramadan and praying five times a day -- among the most sacred obligations for religious Muslims.

"Without a fatwa from (al-)Sistani, it's difficult for people to participate in this election because of the threats and apathy about the future. But if we have a religious edict, that definitely has an important impact," said Jaber Habib, a professor of political science at Baghdad University. "With such a fatwa issued, I can't imagine anyone (Shiite) not voting."

Al-Sistani, a cleric who claims to have no involvement in politics, is arguably the most important figure on the Iraqi political stage. And he may be the key to whether the elections are held on time.

The debate over the elections' timing will pit al-Sistani and the millions who follow him against those in the current government who remain willing to consider a delay. If he decides -- as is likely -- that he cannot support a delay, Iraqi politicians will be hard put to endorse one. If they push for a delay over his objections, they will have to be prepared for civil disobedience on a mass scale.

"He either is going to be unable to stop street protests or he will encourage them," said Joost Hiltermann, director of the International Crisis Group's Amman office, which handles research on Iraq.

Hiltermann noted that when al-Sistani was distressed last winter at the U.S. proposal to have caucuses select the interim National Assembly, he allowed his lieutenants to call hundreds of thousands into the streets.

Iraqi and U.S. officials who will decide whether to delay elections must consider security conditions in key regions of Iraq.

In Fallujah, it is difficult to imagine how to prepare for elections when few people now live there and much of the city was leveled after the intense U.S. assault last week.

Although some U.S. military and election officials claim that people who are registered through their food-ration cards will be able to vote elsewhere, many Fallujah residents are staying in Sunni neighborhoods where there is widespread opposition to voting.

More troubling are cities such as Mosul, with 1 million people, the majority of them Sunnis. There, intimidation is expected to prove a serious problem, with many people choosing not to vote rather than risk violence to themselves and their families.

It is widely agreed that an election without significant Sunni participation would lack legitimacy, because the parliament that will be elected will write the constitution that could govern Iraq for years. But it is unclear whether a three- to four-month delay will make a significant difference in the level of Sunni participation, and it would hand the insurgents a victory by allowing them to derail the political process.

Al-Sistani appears to have similar concerns, people familiar with his thinking said.

"Sistani has been very clear ... he believes the delay in holding elections until now has contributed to the rise in violence; we think if elections were held last year perhaps we would be living in a safer environment today," said Hussain al-Shahristani, a nuclear scientist who fled Iraq during Saddam Hussein's reign. With al-Sistani's backing, Shahristani is organizing a political alliance that includes a large number of independents.

The only way to stem the violence, al-Sistani says, is "through having an elected National Assembly that can negotiate a timetable for the multinational forces to end the occupation," Shahristani said.

With the goal of preparing Iraqis for a January election, al-Sistani has ordered committees in every region to coordinate election preparations. But his word is followed most closely in Shiite areas.

In the Khadimia neighborhood of Baghdad, fliers urging people to vote cover the walls.

"The ballot box is the only guarantee of the rights of all Iraqis. Let us make every drop of Tigris water the property of 25 million Iraqis. Let us make each date palm the property of 25 million Iraqis. Let the future of 25 million be decided in balloting," one ubiquitous notice reads.

Another was more straightforward. "No to dictatorship; no to foreign occupation; the credible election is the only way for Iraqis to move their country in a just direction."

On Sunday, loudspeakers blasted election messages: "Do you know what you are voting for? Are you voting for a president? Are you voting for a prime minister? What are you voting for?"

(Iraqis will vote for neither a president nor a prime minister; they will vote for a National Assembly, which in turn will select a prime minister and president.)

At Bratha mosque, a large Shiite mosque with ties to al-Sistani, the preacher, Jalaluddin Saghir, is an ardent proponent of elections. Two weeks ago he started making the subject a central topic of his Friday sermon.

But, like al-Sistani, he wants to be sure his own people -- Iraqi Shiites -- know that their vote will count. "Some people say that the Shiite are not united; don't believe that, because the Shiite political forces are united," he said, underscoring that if Shiites back a slate of Shiite candidates they will be assured of a strong voice in the next Iraqi government.

In the back streets of Khadimiya, election fever was building. "Now there is less work being done because people are sitting around talking about elections, in houses, in their shops," said Rassan Manhal Feisel, 23, a Shiite employed in a jewelry workshop. "People want to vote. My family is deciding whatever the consequences they will vote -- nothing will dissuade us."
Posted by: tipper || 11/22/2004 9:42:34 PM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  "Heeellloooo Sunni Assholes™. Train departs soon. Get your stupid "relive past glories" asses on now or be left behind!"
Posted by: Frank G || 11/22/2004 22:36 Comments || Top||

#2  Can't see who's for postponing the elections except for foreign troublemakersgovernments.
Posted by: someone || 11/22/2004 23:21 Comments || Top||

#3  This article is wonderful news. What an upper!
Posted by: Mike Sylwester || 11/22/2004 23:29 Comments || Top||

#4  You bomb, you lose. Die or vote.
Posted by: lex || 11/22/2004 23:32 Comments || Top||


Israel's Battle in Fallujah (Moonbat Alert)
It has become clear that Israel played a major role in the battle for Fallujah, despite the American concern to conceal this fact. What news leaked of officers, soldiers, and even rabbis of dual citizenships that took part in the battles, some of which were killed by the resistance's bullets, is only the tip of the iceberg. The killing of an Israeli officer in Fallujah exposed the existence of a large number officers, snipers, and paratroopers in Iraq. Based on Israeli press statistics, Israel currently has no fewer than 1,000 officers and soldiers scattered around the American units working in Iraq. In addition, 37 rabbis are operating within the American troops, which leads to believe that the real number is greater; since Ha'aretz admitted that others are concealing their Jewish identities, which makes them self-driven Israeli citizens. Currently, there is a recruitment campaign coinciding with the escalation of the operations in Iraq, which seeks to send further assistance there. Amongst these campaigns is the incitement of Rabbi Irving Elson in his latest speech given in New York to allocate further "Fighting Rabbis" and encourage them to enlist in the American forces, in addition to another rabbi's advisory stating that those killed in Fallujah are "martyrs."

America needs the Israelis' experience in gang wars in order to manage the battles in the Iraqi cities; given that two generations of its armed forces lack this experience since the end of the Vietnam War. However, the Israeli role is neither technical nor complementary to the American plan. Rather, it is part of the vision established by its military and political leadership prior to the launching of the war, which aims at annulling any regional role for Iraq and eliminating any threat it might cause to its future. The Israeli plan became clear due to various headlines, most prominent of which is dispatching Mossad operatives to establish offices and networks in the north, south, eliminate the Iraqi scientists and intensify the real estate purchase of property and land in the north; specifically in Arbil, Kirkuk and Mosul. This comes as a completion of the previous project, launched ten years prior to the fall of Baghdad, through Jewish Turks.

Israel encourages the Kurdish leaderships to decentralize from Baghdad in administering their regions but at the same time, it aims at having the Kurdish parties play a pivotal role in the post-war Iraq due to the historical relations that it had established with the Kurds. More likely, Israel has advanced in developing the plan announced previously by the minister of infrastructure Joseph Paritzky that aims at laying oil pipelines from Iraq to Israel passing through Jordan; since a Turkish security report recently published by Jumhuriyet confirmed Israel's attempts to activate the line towards Haifa as soon as possible. Based on this vision, the Israelis believe that the American forces are incapable of imposing security and stability in Iraq. This obliged the Israelis to develop their own channels with the local powers beginning at the fulcrum point in the north and advancing in the implementation plan, which they had prepared prior to the fall of the former regime. However, they are now avoiding a confrontation with Turkey, which is worried from their expansion in the north.

In this course, Israel incites the Iraqi Jews to the forefront in order to head the bridge of organizing the relations with the new government and specifically intensify the trade initiatives with Iraq through Jordan. It also wants it to have a word in Iraq's destiny through the indirect influence at the Sharm El-Sheikh summit, which infuriated both Syria and Turkey. The vast and unexpected expansion of the Israeli role in various fields in Iraq, confirms that Israel is the major beneficiary in the continuity of the war, same as it is the first beneficiary from the American escalation with Iran regarding its nuclear file. Iraq is not Russia, and Iran is not China, hence they cause no threat to the U.S., nevertheless, they both represent a threat to the Hebrew state. In conclusion, it is possible to say that the Likudniks, who control decision-making posts in America, are using Bush's campaign against terrorism as a cover-up to accomplish Israel's objectives in Iraq. Hence, the purpose of the Fallujah battle is to break the backbone of the resistance and pave the way for the completion of the Israeli plan.
Posted by: tipper || 11/22/2004 9:27:23 PM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Moonbat, no, it's nut job arabs trying to stir up the faithful. Jeebus where do they come up with this stuff?
Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom || 11/22/2004 21:32 Comments || Top||

#2  Yep, that's the plan - Israel from the sea to the Euphrates river. I just wonder - who's betrayed the plan. Will call Mossad.
Posted by: marek || 11/22/2004 21:49 Comments || Top||


Saddam's cronies may sue US for war crimes
Members of Saddam Hussein's ousted regime are considering suing the Bush administration in the World Court for alleged war crimes in Iraq, the chief of the fallen dictator's legal team said today. Ziad said the legal team could not initiate legal action on its own against the US government in the International Court of Justice because the tribunal refuses to hear any individual cases. "Since the World Court doesn't accept cases from individuals, the lawsuit could be filed on behalf of members of President Saddam's government," al-Khasawneh said.

He declined to identify any former Iraqi officials who might bring such a suit, or say if they were in Iraq or abroad. It was not immediately clear if the action — if it were filed — would create a legal precedent or whether the World Court in The Hague has heard cases previously from toppled governments. "We are toying with the idea of filing the lawsuit," said al-Khasawneh, who heads the legal team appointed by Saddam's wife, Sajida. He said the latest American incursion into the troubled city of Fallujah, including the killing of an apparently unarmed and wounded Iraqi by a Marine at a mosque, was "one of scores of examples of American atrocities". Al-Khasawneh said the legal team was also encouraged by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan's statements describing Iraq's invasion as "illegal". The legal team has enlisted an unspecified number of lawyers from the US, Britain and France to assist in the possible lawsuit, al-Khasawneh said.
Posted by: Anonymoose || 11/22/2004 7:31:40 PM || Comments || Link || [1 views] Top|| File under:

#1 
The legal team has enlisted an unspecified number of lawyers from the US, Britain and France to assist in the possible lawsuit
At the head of the list is Ramsey Clark, no doubt.

One question, asshole: Who's going to take the US into custody for the trial?

This is more proof we shouldn't have ousted Madman Insane's murdering cronies - we should have killed them.

There's still time....
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut || 11/22/2004 19:34 Comments || Top||

#2  Al-Khasawneh said the legal team was also encouraged by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s statements describing Iraq’s invasion as "illegal".
Nice going, a**hole. Guarantee that that statement will figure very prominently in the defense & media circus to come.

Will someone please indict Kofi the Klown, already?
Posted by: lex || 11/22/2004 19:38 Comments || Top||

#3  Ever wonder who pays for all these lawyers? There are hundreds working on Gitmo cases alone.
Posted by: phil_b || 11/22/2004 19:39 Comments || Top||

#4  Just kill this bastard. Make an example out of him.
Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom || 11/22/2004 19:40 Comments || Top||

#5  sounds like a heart attack - 'afghan police-style' - may be in order for a couple of these wingnuts and their clients
Posted by: Frank G || 11/22/2004 19:42 Comments || Top||

#6  Members of Saddam Hussein’s ousted regime are considering suing the Bush administration in the World Court for alleged war crimes in Iraq,..

If it ever came to pass, could the lawsuit be dismissed on grounds of hypocrisy???
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama || 11/22/2004 22:04 Comments || Top||

#7  So who is paying for all the lawyers, and where are the checks coming from, Syria, Switzerland. This is like an international RICO case. Follow the Sunni Money.
Posted by: Alaska Paul || 11/22/2004 22:18 Comments || Top||

#8  Both FOX and CNN had author-commentators whom argued that President Bush's or America's actions in Iraq constitute "war crimes" andor "crimes against humanity" by Bush's/America's wilful violation or dismissal of the UNO and International Laws/Treaties. Once more the USA is guilty of disobeying the UNO by obeying it - funny how the UNO, INTERPOL, and its UNICC are ignoring the help Saddam got from France and Russia, etc. in violating UN-restrictions against Saddam, espec when it came to helping the Clintons and the Anti-American agendists discredit and humiliate America, eventually to destroy us for Socialism, Communism, and OWG where the USA is just another weak, minor, and likely anti-sovereign nation and Sovietized Socialist [World] Republic, the USSA and CPUS, amongst all others.
Posted by: josephmendiola || 11/23/2004 0:06 Comments || Top||


Who'd a Thunk It?
From Memri:

ONE OF ZARQAWI'S KEY AIDES WAS OMAR HADID, A MEMBER OF SADDAM'S PRIVATE GUARDS TEN YEARS AGO, WHO WENT TO AFGHANISTAN FOR TRAINING AT AN AL-QA'IDA BASE. OMAR IS THE BROTHER OF HAMID HADID, THE BUREAU CHIEF OF AL-JAZEERA IN IRAQ, WHICH WAS CLOSED THREE MONTHS AGO, BY THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT FOR INCITING VIOLENCE. (AL-SHARQ AL-AWSAT, LONDON, 11/19/04)

Quelle Surprise!
Posted by: Mercutio || 11/22/2004 3:59:15 PM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Round up the usual suspects Abdula and get my my #4 trunchon. We must get to the bottom of this.
Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom || 11/22/2004 16:53 Comments || Top||


Iraq election may yet be postponed: Arab ministers
This of course is the first news I've seen from the Iraq conference.
Violence and boycotts could yet stop promised Iraqi elections going ahead on time, Arab ministers said, despite Baghdad's confident assertion the landmark vote would be held on January 30. Iraq had somewhat upstaged a major international conference in Egypt on its future by announcing the date for the first post-Saddam Hussein elections a day before the meeting opened.
*snicker*
But not everyone was impressed by its confidence.
Naturally.
Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Gheit, hosting the conference in the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh said the meeting would be deciding whether the vote could be held on time, adding that "the question needs to be re-examined. The debates that will take place ... are very important because they will look at the question of the elections and decide on whether they can take place on the date envisaged or whether it needs more reflection."
"The unofficial position of Egypt is that this question should probably be examined indefinitely. Just in case we've missed anything."
Jordanian Foreign Minister Hani Mulki, asked if the election date was not over-optimistic given the relentless violence in Iraq said: "Dates are not sacred. What is sacred is the process."
"Elections are truly a sacred process. For example, Jordan's next elections are scheduled for...what? Oh. Never mind."
As Iraq faces its first democratic test for decades, violence is still plaguing the country on a daily basis and several Sunni Arab groups have said they will boycott the vote. Whether the Sunni Arab minority -- which dominated Iraq under Saddam Hussein and previous regimes -- take part in large numbers will be a major factor in determining the credibility of the elections.
Sez the Sunni apologists.
"It is important to assure participation in the elections of all the Iraqi forces, even if it is necessary to have another look at the date of the elections," said an Arab delegate to the conference, speaking on condition of anonymity. "If the elections took place but were boycotted, there would be a lack of equilibrium in the Sunni representation," he warned.
And that would be no fault of anybody's other than the non-voters, bub.
The diplomat said that many Arab countries shared this view, even if they were not saying so openly.
"How many countries, Mr. Anonymous Hereditary Kleptocrat?"
"Many countries."
Abul Gheit said that the possibility of a Sunni boycott would be raised with UN Secretary General Kofi Annan when he attends the conference on Tuesday. "He will be asked to give us an idea of what will be done in this respect, given that the United Nations is charged with helping to prepare the Iraqi election."
"We shall go to the United Nations and demand satisfaction. O Kofi, save us!"
But the violence is also a major concern, raising questions about how democratic elections can be organized in a country where large bands of insurgents are still at large and capable of striking hard at civilians and security forces alike.
Stop funding and inciting the violence, then.
"We support all the measures taken for the conduct of the elections with the participation of the factions of the Iraqi people," Jordanian government spokeswoman Asma Khodr said in Amman.
"Except the ones that would allow the Iraqi people to actually make a choice."
But she added: "We are worried that the conditions could prevent the realisation of that objective ... The situation in Iraq worries us and we think it could have negative repercussions on holding the general elections on the date fixed." In Syria, the Ba'athist mouthpiece state-owned daily Ath-Thawra said that the Sharm el-Sheikh conference represented "the best chance for the international parties to affirm the importance of the United Nations and neighbouring countries" in organizing the elections. But it also warned: "The elections must take place on all Iraqi territory and not on 75 percent of the country as the United States hints at due to the insecurity in regions where resistance actions are taking place."
Posted by: Seafarious || 11/22/2004 3:27:23 PM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  When I was in high school, I read a book about the Marsh Arabs called "People of the Reeds" by Gavin Maxwell. In it he said that one of the greatest taboos for these people was to "break wind in public." The embarassment for having done so was so great that the offender would often have to move away to avoid the shame. That being the case, the net result of this meeting should be that most of the Arab participants should just move away.
Posted by: RWV || 11/22/2004 16:16 Comments || Top||

#2  Violence and boycotts could yet stop promised Iraqi elections going ahead on time, Arab ministers said, despite Baghdad's confident assertion the landmark vote would be held on January 30.

WTF business is it of theirs to say when elections in Iraq should be held?
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama || 11/22/2004 16:21 Comments || Top||

#3  Cause once those elections are held they gotta splain to their own folk why they don't get to vote in real elections. That's why tose elections will be held on time.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis || 11/22/2004 16:31 Comments || Top||

#4  I had to read at least 8 reports to get an indication of WTF this conference is about. The best I could find was supporting the political process in Iraq. Just a UN sponsored gabfest. Nothing of interest. Move along.
Posted by: phil_b || 11/22/2004 16:33 Comments || Top||

#5  Asking the counsel of Arab ministers about another nation's electoral process is like asking the editors of The Nation and Mother Jones to come up with a target price for Google stock.

How do you say STFU in arabic?
Posted by: lex || 11/22/2004 16:34 Comments || Top||

#6  How do you say STFU in arabic?

With a sword, you scurvy infidel dog.
Posted by: Seafarious || 11/22/2004 16:42 Comments || Top||

#7  Isn't this the conference the French wanted Zarqawi to attend?
Posted by: Mrs. Davis || 11/22/2004 16:44 Comments || Top||

#8  This is indeed rich, creamy nuttiness from the usual suspects. Great post, seafarious.

Let's see if a reality translation can make sense of this.

A group of Arab dictatorships who backed the deposed genocidal regime of a neighbor state sit in judgement on when and under what conditions that state can conduct it's first-ever free elections.

The group cites terrorist violence backed by some of their number and perpetrated by their favored Iraqi minority as a reason to delay the vote.

Nope -- this makes no effing sense!

And WTF is this b.s. about the "credibility" of the elections depending on a minority that (1) boycotts the voting (2) generates the mayhem that complicates the situation? I guess you'd have to be a UN bureaucrat, Brookings scholar, or major media pundit to make any sense of that.
Posted by: Verlaine || 11/22/2004 16:48 Comments || Top||

#9  Verlaine you left off one, A total wanker.
Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom || 11/22/2004 16:57 Comments || Top||

#10  Good post, good fisking.

I curse their moustaches. And I mean a really good curse, too, not just "Darn" or "Drat".

Posted by: Matt || 11/22/2004 17:16 Comments || Top||

#11 
We are worried that the conditions could prevent the realisation of that objective
Translation: We're sending as many jihadis and as much money as we can to incite those "conditions" and assure they continue.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut || 11/22/2004 19:43 Comments || Top||


Iraq conference opens in Egypt
What/where/when/who. Will post additional info if interesting things happen. Note that security has been iffy at the Sharm el-Sheikh resort.
Posted by: Seafarious || 11/22/2004 11:13:33 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  No security problems there. It's completely isolated at the base of Sinai, easy to secure. The Sharm el-Sheikh Hilton Farouz is wonderful, best resort I've ever been to, anywhere. I'd take my family back there in a heartbeat.
Posted by: lex || 11/22/2004 15:01 Comments || Top||


Home Front: Tech
Affordable Moving Surface Target Engagement
The U.S. Air Force is conducting naval tests of its AMSTE (Affordable Moving Surface Target Engagement) system. This is an attempt to use airborne radar to continuously track a moving surface target, then drop a JDAM that can have it's target location continuously updated by radio, so that the JDAM will be able to hit and destroy the moving target. After three years of effort, the air force got this to work against a ground target last year. The JDAM went off within three meters of the moving truck it was aiming at. A 2,000 pound bomb was more than enough to take out a truck at that distance. Even a 500 pound JDAM would have worked. This month, tests are being conducted against moving ships. The air force is using its E-8 JSTARS aircraft, which carries a powerful radar that tracks moving objects on the surface (land or water). These tests are also meant to show the air force will be capable of quickly going after ships engaged in terrorist activities. The air force can get bomber and recon aircraft to any point on the planet within 24 hours, which is quicker than the navy can get a ship to some out of the way places.
The Navy will not be happy with this, the Air Force encrouching on it's turf.
Compared to a truck that might be ten meters long and 1.5 meters wide, and traveling at 100 kilometers an hour, a small merchant ship would measure 150 meters long and 20 wide, and be traveling at 30-40 kilometers an hour. The AMSTE system uses software that tracks the target and predicts where it will be in the next minute or so. That's the location AMSTE sends to the JDAM, via the aircraft that dropped it. A JDAM, dropped at 20,000 feet, ten kilometers from the target, takes about five minutes to reach the ground. The bombers fire control software lets the pilot know when the aircraft is close enough to the moving target for the bomb to reach the target no matter which direction it goes. AMSTE is basically a system of software programs that link different aircraft (the one spotting the target and the one dropping the bomb), and insure that the JDAM keeps getting accurate target updates until the last minute (or seconds, actually).

In the next few years, all the services will be getting radios that can communicate with each other, using digital data. This would make it possible for a navy P-3 maritime search aircraft to pass location data, for a ship below, to an air force bomber, that could then drop a JDAM to hit the moving ship. But the big breakthrough is being able to regularly hit moving targets with bombs, day or night and in any weather.
Posted by: Steve || 11/22/2004 10:00:32 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Math. A B-52 bomber drops 51- 500lb bombs. If each bomb is independently and effectively targeted on a "pursuit curve", a single plane can wipe out every vehicle in a moving armored battallion simultaneously. Ow.
Posted by: Anonymoose || 11/22/2004 10:49 Comments || Top||

#2  More math: "A JDAM, dropped at 20,000 feet, ten kilometers from the target, takes about five minutes to reach the ground." That's about 36,000 feet total distance in 300 seconds, or an average speed of 120 feet per second-- barely 80 miles per hour. Minor nit, I know, but someone's math is WAAAAY off here.
Posted by: Dave D. || 11/22/2004 11:02 Comments || Top||

#3  This is cool, but I would have hoped that they (the AF and Navy both) were able to hit a moving ship before this. Their granddaddy's did it with an ironsight, afterall. ;)
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats || 11/22/2004 11:14 Comments || Top||

#4  Have they tested this on slow moving targets? I'm thinking Michael Moore in a brisk waddle would be a good test.
Posted by: Justrand || 11/22/2004 11:15 Comments || Top||

#5  Dave - It looks like someone, a lazy someone, "cheated" and used the standard Terminal Velocity - of a skydiver, not a bomb. Here's a good page for the actual math involved...
Posted by: .com || 11/22/2004 12:23 Comments || Top||

#6  Heck, that's slow even for a skydiver; isn't the terminal velocity for a plummetting human about 125 mph or so?

Just an "enginer's guesstimate", but I would think a bomb of this sort would normally impact at around 400 to 500 mph; and in the case given, would have a time in flight of about 60 seconds.
Posted by: Dave D. || 11/22/2004 12:49 Comments || Top||

#7  Okay, of Michael Moore skydiving, lol! You're right, about the skydiver's Terminal Velocity, when trying to achieve max speed is 120-125 MPH, IIRC. When not trying to do so, the "standard" position, I believe it is in the 80-90 MPH range. Any hardcore skydivers out there? I've only had 3 static jumps - no freefall - and those were 25 yrs ago, lol!
Posted by: .com || 11/22/2004 13:01 Comments || Top||

#8  I love that name, "Affordable Moving Surface Target Engagement." Sounds like the copy from an infomercial:

"Now, engaging surface targets is surprisingly affordable! . . . "
Posted by: Mike || 11/22/2004 14:47 Comments || Top||

#9  It's simply not fair.
Posted by: Whipper-In Barbie || 11/22/2004 17:41 Comments || Top||

#10  It's simply not fair.
Of COURSE it's not fair! That's why we can live our peaceful lives here in the States, without the threat of military encroachment, and why Europe has been able to live pretty darned well under the shield of US military might. We aren't fair - we play to win. There is no prize for second place in a war.
Posted by: Old Patriot || 11/22/2004 18:18 Comments || Top||

#11  That's the problem Mr. Patriot, don't you agree Brazil should have won Miss Congeniality in the last war? You know, WW Deuce.
Posted by: Whipper-In Barbie || 11/22/2004 18:59 Comments || Top||

#12  At the rate weapons are being invented/improved, the Air Force is going to end up almost solely as attack support for the Army, Navy and Marines. We'd better ramp up the Space program again, to give the Top Gun types something exciting to do ;-)
Posted by: trailing wife || 11/22/2004 20:15 Comments || Top||

#13  Russian military editors are expressing opinions that Russian aircraft carriers should remain small but capable of multi-purpose missions, to include attacks against American surface ships, air defense, and submarines via UAV/UV's. I believe the latter is what Putin really meant by Russia dev weapons that no other nations will have. The Russians know America and its USDOD will be ready for any trad ICBM [fixed silo-mobile-rail], Heavy Bomber, or SSBN/FBM or SurfWar missle and CM attack, hypersonic or not, MIRVed/MRVed or not. This leaves open dedicated, aymmetric Underwater Warfare such that Subs or dedicated surface ships can launch "smart" or "brilliant" missles or UV's capable of remote- or independent UNDERWATER/SUBSURFACE
maneuver and evasion, and won't "pop-up" above-water until the very last moments. ALso, a while back the Russians and Euros were talking about dev underwater, unmanned, commidity tranports capable of being attached andor being remotely controlled by a mother sub [or surface ship], akin to an UW merchant fleet - REPLACE OIL, MINERALS, AND WHEAT WITH HI-TECH MISSLES, CM's, AND ARMED UV's, AND WHAT ONE HAS IS AN UNDERWATER, OFFENSIVE/DEFENSIVE, HIGHLY MOBILE MISSLE BASE/STATION THAT DOESN'T HAVE TO FIRE ITS ASSETS UNTIL AFTER IT PENETRATES GMD AND IS NEAR THE US MAINLAND - notsomuch Long-Range attack, but "near abroad" or poximity attack, as the USA must still obey International Treatises and Laws of the Sea. The greatest reason for China to have KILO-class subs and the like is if it intends to extend it naval and geopol mil reach beyond the littorals of East Asia.
Posted by: JosephMendiola || 11/22/2004 22:16 Comments || Top||


Iraq-Jordan
The Sunni Arab War Against Elections
November 22, 2004: Sunni Arab gunmen continue to fight for control of towns and neighborhoods throughout central Iraq. While some gunmen remain in Fallujah, the majority of those who are active are in Baghdad and Mosul. Both of these cities have large Sunni Arab populations. But Mosul has a large Kurdish population, and Baghdad a large number of Shiites. These non-Sunni populations provide endless numbers of recruits for the army and police. Too many Shia Arab and Kurdish families want revenge on the Sunni Arabs for murder, torture and abuse in the past. While the Sunni Arab thugs have the edge in experience, and reputation, their violence is not overwhelming. The army and police are fighting back, killing and arresting thousands of Sunni Arab gunmen. The Sunni Arabs don't like to dwell on the fact that they are only a fifth of the population, or that they get slaughtered whenever they get into a fight with American troops. Trying to disrupt the January elections is now a major goal for the Sunni Arab extremists. They can do some of that in Sunni Arab areas. But in the next ten weeks, the number of Sunni gunmen available for this may be too low to make much of an impression. The Sunni Arabs are fighting a losing battle. Trying to bring back the good old days of Sunni domination will only work if the Shia Arab and Kurd majority is too weak to resist. No wonder the Sunni Arabs hate foreigners so much.
Posted by: Steve || 11/22/2004 9:42:47 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Bingo. The situation isn't, as the MSM spin it, one of "chaos" caused by US "incompetence." It's the last gasp of the Sunni/Ba'athist elite before they become a minority player in a country dominated by the shi'a.
Posted by: lex || 11/22/2004 11:15 Comments || Top||

#2  It may be their only remaining plausible goal. Once the game is really "on", their time ends. They can "get it" and participate and govern in those areas where they numerically dominate - or be permanently marginalized and, eventually, hunted down for their murderous and larcenous traditions. Choices. The one they want isn't on the list anymore.
Posted by: .com || 11/22/2004 11:17 Comments || Top||

#3  The elections will be fatal to them. Out of 18 Iraqi provinces there are only 4 or so where violence will hinder elections, and all of those are Sunni-dominated. Which means that on February 1, the Iraqi National Assembly will consist of clear electoral winners who are not ~80% Shi'a or Kurd but 95% Shi'a or Kurd.

At some point ordinary, non-Ba'athist, non-jihadist sunnis will figure out that the greatest enemies of sunni empowerment in the new Iraqi reality are the sunni hard boyz themselves. What follows will be fun to watch.
Posted by: lex || 11/22/2004 11:24 Comments || Top||

#4  Possible sunnies are angling for that civil war now or a large sunni massacre in order to further regionalize the conflict by bringing SA and Syrian participation to a much larger degree.
Posted by: Lucky || 11/22/2004 17:34 Comments || Top||

#5  It's too late, IMHO, Lucky. Their time for derailing anything has passed. They're holed up in small pockets in Anbar Province, mainly, and all they can create is a tempest in a teapot. On Jan 30th they'll manage to kill some people, and before then too, of course, but it won't be enough.

The Big Wheel started to turn, IMHO, when Allawi was selected as PM for the interim Gov't. He took awhile to get his sea legs, but he showed exactly the right stuff from post-Najaf on where I believe he began to seriously "get it". His statements about and backing for the Fallujah sweep were perfect and the jihadis don't have many places left they can run to and actually be effective. Hearing an Arab leader say "This is your last chance!" - and meaning it - was a real eye-opener for me, heh, and I'll bet it was UNbelievable to a shitload of Iraqis. Nope. Methinks the Fat Lady's warming up in the wings and soon the morons will have to play border games from Syria or Iran - until Teheran gets some deserved attention, that is...
Posted by: .com || 11/22/2004 17:53 Comments || Top||


Africa: North
German tourists accused of stealing artifacts
Five German tourists who were found on Saturday after going missing for two days in Algeria's southern Sahara region have been accused of stealing archeological artifacts, an Algerian government source said Monday. In an interview published Monday in the newspaper El Watan, the director of the Tassili National Park, Semmadi Mohamed al-Aid, said that the five had made an illegal visit to the park and would also be charged with breaking Algerian tourism regulations.
That explains why they ditched their tour guides.
On Sunday, the Algerian APS news agency reported that police had seized 31 geological samples and 113 archeological artifacts, including ceramics, pestles, millstones and pre-historic tools, from the vehicles of the five German nationals. El Watan also reported Monday that one of the five owned an agency in Germany that sold artifacts and had made at least five visits to the region previously.
Doing a little "tomb raiding" on the side, huh? Hope you enjoy the Algerian prison, I know they're gonna enjoy you.
Not quite a Turkish prison, but I wouldn't want to be there.
After an extensive search, the group was found late Saturday some 95 kilometres from the city of Djanet and immediately arrested. If tried and convicted of the charges, they risk heavy fines and sentences of between 2 and 5 years in prison. Last year 32 European tourists were kidnapped by the GSPC terrorist group as they travelled through southern Algeria.
Kind of makes you wonder if a few of them were also up to no good.
Posted by: Steve || 11/22/2004 9:33:52 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Something about a "lost city of Kadath, where the Old Ones lived..."
Posted by: mojo || 11/22/2004 14:01 Comments || Top||


Israel-Palestine
Arafat's Nephew Says Medical Records Do Not Point to 'known Poisons'
Yasser Arafat's medical records show no sign he was poisoned but are inconclusive as to the cause of his death, his nephew said Monday. At a news conference in Paris, Nasser al-Kidwa pinned some of the blame for the Palestinian leader's death on his long confinement to his West Bank headquarters in Ramallah. "I believe the Israeli authorities are largely responsible for what happened, at least because of the confinement of the late president to the compound in very bad conditions for three years," al-Kidwa said about two hours after getting the medical files from French authorities.
"... an' they boxed him in there for what? For nuttin'! He din't do nuttin'!"
Al-Kidwa said the dossier - which is 558 pages, plus X-rays - would be "put at the disposal of the Palestinian Authority," which has launched an inquiry to try to determine a cause of Arafat's death on Nov. 11 in a Paris-area military hospital after two weeks of treatment. The lack of solid information about the cause of death has provided fertile ground for rumors in the Arab world that he was poisoned, despite earlier official denials. "The issue here is the right of the Palestinian people and our duty to reach in the future a final conclusion in this regard," said al-Kidwa. He said toxicology tests were conducted and "no poisons known to doctors were found." He did not rule out poisoning categorically, saying "we don't have proof" that it wasn't a cause.
"Might be one of those sneaky unknown Zionist poisons"
"Iocaine powder! I'd bet my life on it!"
"Hokay, who switched the glass ---- erk ----- [thunk]"
"No! The pellet with the poison's in the flagon with the dragon! The vessel with the pestle has the brew that is true!"
"I am not asserting anything, but we are not in a position to exclude anything given the facts," said al-Kidwa, adding that he had not had time to read the entire dossier yet. He also said that the files gave no clear diagnosis for the reasons of Arafat's death. "For the French authorities, medically, the file was considered closed.
"He's dead, Jean-Luc!"
"For us, and because of the lack of a clear diagnosis, a question mark remains and personally I believe that it will remain there for some time to come," al-Kidwa said. Al-Kidwa, who is also the Palestinian ambassador to the United Nations, was traveling to New York later Monday. He did not say when the dossier would be given to the Palestinian Authority.
... or even how many pages.
French officials have said that judicial authorities here would have acted had they suspected wrongdoing - which is as far as officials can go, without violating medical privacy laws, toward saying that poisoning was not a cause. His nephew took possession of the records Monday, despite objections from Arafat's widow, Suha.
"THOSE ARE MINE! MINE, DAMN YOU! THEY'RE WORTH MONEY!"
Suha Arafat, who also has taken possession of his medical records, had threatened a legal fight to prevent other family members from obtaining them. Her lawyers said late Sunday that the Percy Military Training Hospital that treated her husband "would alone face the consequences" if the records were released to any other family members. "Madame Arafat fully understands the diplomatic and historic reasons that exist, but that does not mean the state should be able to ignore the law," the lawyers' statement said. Al-Kidwa played down Suha Arafat's objections, saying "the Palestinian people have the right to know."
"Something terrible's gonna happen to her car. Just ignore her."
French officials have been caught between medical privacy laws and a desire to ensure that the rumors about Arafat's death do not disturb the transition of power in the Palestinian Authority. French law does not specify how closely related a family member must be to have access to medical information, and French officials said they had determined that al-Kidwa qualifies.
"He's close enough for us to pass this hot potato to him"
Posted by: Steve || 11/22/2004 8:42:13 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  it was Suha-cide
Posted by: PlanetDan || 11/22/2004 8:58 Comments || Top||

#2  "inconclusive as to the cause of his death"
It's the medically undetectable meme toxin called 'evil'.
Posted by: Wo || 11/22/2004 9:08 Comments || Top||

#3  Suha, you say!
Anyhow, I thought she had done a runner with the medical files to Morocco, on Arafish's private jet.
Posted by: tipper || 11/22/2004 9:08 Comments || Top||

#4  Maybe he did die of AIDS then?

It used to be 'see Paris and die', now it seems it's 'see a French hospital and die' - he did pop his clogs rather quickly after putting himself in their tender care didn't he?
Posted by: Tony (UK) || 11/22/2004 9:14 Comments || Top||

#5  wonder how much all those tests cost

regarding AIDs; we still don't have the actual blood count numbers (white cell count, T count)
Posted by: mhw || 11/22/2004 9:18 Comments || Top||

#6  This screaming sow can't join her "husband" in hell fast enough for me - take her off the world stage now, Paleos!
Posted by: Frank G || 11/22/2004 9:55 Comments || Top||

#7  Arafat died of AIDS while in Paris. And I don't want to see Ms. Hilton's next video!
Posted by: BH || 11/22/2004 10:16 Comments || Top||

#8  OK, so the middle east "peace process" depends on a nation whose elite can't stage a funeral, can't come clean about where their leader was born, how he died, or where his people's looted billions are, can't stage a funeral without gunfire.... oh and also has shown not the slightest inclination or aptitude for operating courts, schools, hospitals, normal government agencies, or a free press.

Looks like the "peace process" is gonna be in limbo for a decade or two. Or three, or...
Posted by: lex || 11/22/2004 11:09 Comments || Top||

#9  Like I said, we clean up well.
Posted by: The Mossad || 11/22/2004 11:11 Comments || Top||

#10  Of course the 'Zionist Death Ray' (patent pending) is undetectable! What did you expect?
Posted by: CrazyFool || 11/22/2004 11:27 Comments || Top||

#11  Is man-love an "unknown poison?" How about "Neverland ranchitis," which is caused by exposure to kids?
Posted by: BA || 11/22/2004 11:54 Comments || Top||

#12  photo caption:

"Ethel! My pills!"
Posted by: Querent || 11/22/2004 12:31 Comments || Top||

#13 
Le Monde cited “very good sources” as saying Arafat died of a blood disorder called disseminated intravascular coagulation, or DIC


Le Monde says that the French Docs did not want to do the biopsy they felt was necessary because they felt it was "too dangerous" to do a liver biopsy with Arafat's low platelets (this could cause bleeding)

I can tell you that I have done MANY invasive procedures, including liver biopsies, on patients with low platelets. When the biopsy is necessary, we just give the patient an infusion of platelets, then do the biopsy. A liver biopsy can also be done "internally" through a transjugular approach. Sacre Bleu! But this would be MODERN medicine, .


A very sarcastic physician!
Posted by: Sholuter Ulolutle1664 || 11/22/2004 12:51 Comments || Top||

#14  Modern medicine as opposed to socialist french medicine?
He is dead and thats good enough for me. How is not as important as is.
Posted by: Phitle Glavise4997 || 11/22/2004 14:00 Comments || Top||

#15  No sign he was poisoned. No poison we know of that would cause those symptoms. He had enough money to turn his home into a modern hospital and to fly in the finest doctors in the arab world (snicker!) on his personal plane. So, the only conclusion we can draw is. . .

It was the Joooooo's fault.

Posted by: PlanetDan || 11/22/2004 14:32 Comments || Top||

#16  "Suha-cide" LMAO.

The important thing is: he's still dead.
Posted by: Matt || 11/22/2004 14:57 Comments || Top||

#17  No known poison ==> unknown poison.
(QED, MidEast style.) I'd guess that'll be the received wisdom 3 months from now.
Posted by: James || 11/22/2004 16:43 Comments || Top||

#18  And thanks BH, I needed the visual. Jeez I know the Tie Chelsea's Tube Trust Fund was set up to be inviolate... but maybe just a little for a small operation on the kid in 10 years or so> Say 50 million?
Posted by: Shipman || 11/22/2004 18:41 Comments || Top||

#19  Arafat.Is.Dead.Stupid. (AIDS to me and you)
Posted by: MacNails || 11/22/2004 20:48 Comments || Top||


Iraq-Jordan
Chalabi and the Iraqi elections
Most of the article discusses the INC's latest runin with the Iraqi authorities, but the interesting bit is this:
Since June, Mr. Chalabi has formed the Shiite Political Council, a coalition of largely religious parties that includes the party of Muqtada al-Sadr. The Shiite political bloc intends to run a slate of candidates in elections scheduled for January and has already received the blessings of the foremost religious authority for the Shiites, Ayatollah al-Sistani. Because Shiites make up approximately two-thirds of the Iraqi population, Mr. Chalabi's political bloc is seen as the prohibitive favorite for the elections.
Looks like his early self-rebranding as a Shia leader may have worked out.
Mr. Chalabi met this weekend with Sunni and Kurdish political leaders in northern Iraq to discuss the elections, which are being boycotted for now by the largest Sunni parties.
"Please, don't vote. Then we can write the consitution to screw you all royally."
Mr.Chalabi told those assembled, "To say all Sunnis are Baathists is not fair, to say that the only way to rule Iraq is for the Sunnis to be on top is not going to happen either, to say that every Sunni wants to be outside the political process is also wrong. If you claim security is bad and that's why we should postpone the elections, why don't you focus on what will happen if you don't have elections? Remember, we have been fighting for elections for more than a decade."
Remarkably enlightened, all considered.
Iraq's transitional assembly yesterday voted to postpone the Iraqi election until January 30.
Posted by: someone || 11/22/2004 3:15:18 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  What bothers me is the dots. We know Sadr had connections to Iran. There were claims Chalabi had connections to Iran. Now Sadr and Chalabi are part of the same coalition?

I'm sure Chalabi needs all the numbers he can get to beet out Sistani (or whomever Sistani puts up) but linking with Sadr seems an unwise political move.
Posted by: rjschwarz || 11/22/2004 10:53 Comments || Top||


Afghanistan/South Asia
Intelligence Buruau sez Kashmir insurgency declining
EFL
Sources in the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) told TFT the Home Ministry's report had given a 'nothing-has-changed' assessment of violence in J&K. The Home Ministry report submitted to the PM by Home Minister Shivraj Patil after his visit to J&K expressed concern over the internal security situation in the state and cited an increase in attacks on political personalities and surrendered militants. The IB report showed a different picture, stressing that the strength of the militant cadres had reduced by 40 per cent to about 2,100 men in J&K as against the estimated strength of 3,500 two years ago.

"The reduction in the number of militants killed was mainly due to the reluctance of militants to take on the Security Forces directly," said the IB report. "What they have resorted to instead is reliance on more grenades and IEDs to attack security forces and periodic demonstrative actions." During the past 12 months ending with August 2004, the number of militancy-related incidents dropped from 2,795 to 2,368. Also, attacks on the security forces declined significantly from 1451 last year to 1,248 with a resultant decline in casualties of security personnel from 402 to 316. In all, 2395 deaths including those of security personnel and militants were reported as against 2,839 that were reported last year. There has also been a decline in the number of militants killed from 1535 to 1250. However, the percentage of foreign mercenaries among the militants killed was higher this year than it was last year: 435 out of 1250 as against last year's figures of 483 out of 1535. The IB report also mentioned that infiltration had declined sharply to an estimated 421 incidents in the first eight months of the year, as against 927 in the same period in 2003 and 986 in 2002.

According to PMO sources, there are an estimated 83 training camps in operation, 47 of which are in AJK, 10 in the Northern areas and 26 in other parts of Pakistan. Of the 47 camps in AJK, 19 are new camps, 21 are old and seven have reopened at previous locations. "The communication network of the militants also remains well-organised with 32 control stations clustered in six well known locations in AJK and one in Pakistan," said a PMO source. "Messages are going out from as many as 1200 locations to Jammu and Kashmir with an average monthly volume of about 13,000 messages." These figures prove that although Indian authorities have tried their best to reduce the volume of wireless traffic, they have failed miserably. Although the IB and Home Ministry reports were staggeringly different, they did agree on one point, that of the rise of militant training camps in the AJK and the communication and monetary support being provided to the militants based in Jammu and Kashmir. "Dr Manmohan Singh will talk to the Pakistani prime minister [Shaukat Aziz] about this when he visits Delhi on November 23," sources in the PMO told TFT. However, sources in Islamabad denied that any camps were operating in AJK or anywhere in Pakistan.
Posted by: Paul Moloney || 11/22/2004 2:11:10 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:


Iraq-Jordan
Iraq conference to open in Egypt
World powers were set to gather for a historic conference at a luxury resort hotel on Iraq's future in Egypt on Monday, with the focus sharpened by the announcement that the country's first post-Saddam Hussein elections will be held on January 30. The two-day gathering of some 20 foreign ministers and four international organisations in the resort of Sharm el-Sheikh has been in the pipeline ever since Iraq's interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi called for an international forum during a Cairo visit in July. Further impetus to the conference came when the so-called Paris Club of creditor nations agreed to cut Iraq's debt to it—which totals a whopping 40 billion dollars (30 billion euros) -- by 80 percent.

The Iraqi electoral commission gave those attending the conference another topic for debate by calling for both Iraqi and international observers to monitor the elections and expressing the hope that the United Nations would play an important role in the vote. Among Iraq's neighbours, which are to meet first on Monday ahead of plenary sessions, Iran warned that the first day of the conference, which will focus on regional issues, could be the most contentious. Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said his country would "protest against the methods of the United States, insist on the necessity of withdrawing American troops from Iraq and the organisation of elections on schedule."
"They're making us nervous!"
Syria and Turkey have also sought to coordinate their position, especially their concerns over Kurdish autonomy. Both Ankara and Damascus fear that Iraqi Kurdish aspirations for greater self-rule could destabilise their own Kurdish regions.
Turks could have fixed this before the war.
The conference will also bring together Iraq's interim government with officials from the Group of Eight industrialised nations, the Arab League and Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC). A 14-point draft Sharm el-Sheikh declaration is based on an Egyptian text that was amended during several preparatory meetings held in Cairo, amid wrangling between France and the United States. It stresses "the leading role of the United States Nations in supporting, as circumstances permit, the political process in Iraq", especially in providing support for the holding of elections by the end of January.
Not that the UN could actually lead at this point.
The draft also calls on Iraq's neighbours to prevent militants coming and going from Iraq and stresses that the mandate of US-led troops in the country is not open ended.
Posted by: Steve White || 11/22/2004 12:33:57 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Mandate? they admit we have a mandate?

Someone telephone Chiraq with the news.
Posted by: too true || 11/22/2004 10:26 Comments || Top||


Africa: North
Will Nato bring Algeria closer to Israel?
Interesting background information.
ALGIERS — Although they are technically at war, Algeria and Israel have become partners in the Nato-Mediterranean dialogue that includes six Arab countries, in addition to the Jewish state. Algeria has been in a state of war with Israel since 1967 and has rejected any attempt to normalise relations as long as Israel did not end its occupation of Arab territories, allowing the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital.

Algerian President Abdel Aziz Boutefliqa reiterated more than once during the campaign that preceded his re-election in April that there would be no normalisation of relations with Israel during his mandate. Nevertheless, Boutefliqa gave his army chief of staff General Ahmed Kaed Saleh the go-ahead sign to attend the meeting of Nato's top military people with the chiefs of staff of countries involved in the Mediterranean dialogue, which comprise, in addition to Algeria and Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia, Morocco and Mauritania.

The meeting held in Brussels on Wednesday was the second of its kind to be attended by both Israel and Algeria, although they are in a declared state of enmity. Commenting on the controversial situation, former Algerian Ambassador in Spain Abdel Aziz Rahabi said, "in principle, Algeria has no problem in taking part in such meetings as long as they are multilateral. Algeria, on the other hand, totally opposes bilateral meetings with Israel," Rahabi told United Press International.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Steve White || 11/22/2004 12:28:11 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Thank you very much. I'll pass.
Posted by: gromgorru || 11/22/2004 8:25 Comments || Top||


Terror Networks & Islam
Biological attacks 'next terror step'
SUICIDE bombings would give way to chemical and biological warfare in the next generation of terror attacks, a terrorist expert told an emergency medicine conference in Adelaide today. "Terrorist groups were using chemical and biological agents in their training and it was just a matter of time before they used them for war," Dr Rohan Gunaratna, the head of the International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research at Singapore's Institute for Defence and Strategic Studies, said. "We're seeing a new generation of terrorists being trained in the use of chembio (chemical and biological) weapons. Today we're seeing, increasingly, the standard training of terrorist organisations are becoming chembio ... (and) in the future, these organisations will use these agents. Last month, there were 75 car bombings in Iraq. "Why? Because they were trained in car bombings. In many ways, now we are seeing these groups are being trained to use these (chemical and biological) agents. It's a question of time that a group that has such intentions (for chemical and biological warfare) will develop these capabilities."

Dr Gunaratna told the conference that chemical and biological agents, including ricin, and protective suits had been discovered during worldwide raids on terror groups. A Jemaah Islamiah (JI) manual for chemical and biological weapons had also been found. Dr Gunaratna said the manual showed terror groups were intent on using chemical and biological warfare. "If JI members manufacture a device using the formula in that manual (then) certainly they will perish (or) at least they will become very sick ... because they are not taking the proper safeguards to manufacture these agents."

Dr Gunaratna said al-Qaeda would pose less of a threat in the future, as other terror organisations took up its cause. "Today al-Qaeda is a very weak group (with) only about 500 members. But the groups it trains, which includes Jemaah Islamiah, the group that did the Bali bombing — these groups are behaving like al-Qaeda and that is the single biggest threat we are facing. Before al-Qaeda came into contact with Jemaah Islamiah ... Jemaah Islamiah never did a suicide attack. But as al-Qaeda is slowly dying, it has imparted its knowledge to about 30 different groups — it has armed, trained and financed and, most importantly, ideologised."
Posted by: tipper || 11/22/2004 12:06:54 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  America should put the word out now : Biologicals in New York = Mecca glows for the next 10,000 years.
Posted by: Les Nessman || 11/22/2004 0:48 Comments || Top||

#2  Why only Mecca? I think Amman, Damascus, Tehran, Cairo, and Riyadh should be turned into parking lots. After all if Allah had not willed it they wouldn't be possible parking lots.
Posted by: Thomas J. Jackson || 11/22/2004 1:44 Comments || Top||

#3  America should put the word out now : Biologicals in New York = Mecca glows for the next 10,000 years.

Close, but no cigar, Les. We need to reserve our atomic strikes for retaliation against nuclear terrorism. Any chembio attacks on western cities should result in Medina (and/or Mecca) being contaminated with the identical same pathogen or toxin immediately before the haj.

"Ooooh, sorry guys, no pilgrimage this year. I guess your fanatic brethern really spoiled the party for you. Maybe you need to consider doing something about purging them from your ranks."

Another similar strike results in both shrines being contaminated right before the haj.

Yet another strike and the shrines stay contaminated on a 24-7-365 basis until there are fifteen successive calendar months free from Islamist atrocities. All cleanup costs would be borne by the Islamic church. Let them experience the consequences of inadequately condemning terrorism.

Retaliation in kind will best demonstrate to all Islam how fraught with danger their dalliance with terrorism is. One nuclear terrorist attack and Medina is a glowing sheet of glass. I doubt another strike would happen if they realized that Mecca was next. This policy needs to be openly announced and signed on by the non-Muslim world.

I still have to wonder if it might be better to simply take both shrines by military action and hold them hostage against all future Islamist terror atrocities. Both shrines would become the ultimate "flypaper" for jihadis and we could establish a splendid kill zone perimeter around each of the locations. Land mines, IR pointed automatic rifles and other anti-personnel ordnance could really thin out the ranks of international terrorism and any other Islamic fanatics who felt compelled to liberate their holy sites.

Just a thought.
Posted by: Zenster || 11/22/2004 1:54 Comments || Top||

#4  Z, slightly OT but your suggestion for walling off Mecca and Medina might also be a good recipe for the Sunni cities of Iraq.
Posted by: V is for Victory || 11/22/2004 7:03 Comments || Top||

#5  I may be missing something here, but I thought the US had disavowed Bio and Chemical weapons, having stated that an attack using WMD (NBC) will be responded to by using the WMD the US has left - ie Nukes.

Having said that, Zensters' ideas do seem to have some mileage in them...
Posted by: Tony (UK) || 11/22/2004 9:09 Comments || Top||

#6  I think that's the kind of promise to which one is not bound after the other guy breaks it.

Personally, I'd prefer a covert infestation during the nest high pilgrimage season that does not mainifest symptoms until the carier has returned home and spread it there.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis || 11/22/2004 9:22 Comments || Top||

#7  Don't want to spoil the fun but Gunaratna is a very questionable 'expert'. He's an expert on the Tamil Tigers but he just jumped on the middle east bandwagon, proclaimed himself an expert but there's probably Rantburgers out there like Fred who know more than Rohan.
Posted by: Anon1 || 11/22/2004 10:03 Comments || Top||

#8  If we were to retaliate with an attack on Mecca, we would be admitting that the enemy is not merely Islamic extremism, but Islam itself. Therefore, why hit just one city? Hit them all.
Posted by: BH || 11/22/2004 10:10 Comments || Top||

#9  Bio against people is terribly overrated. Production isn't the problem, it's dispersal. The only kind of agents that are effective are pulmonary diseases, and then only in situations where people are crowded together and have no public health care system. Ironically (new information), even most pulmonary infections are spread *not* by coughing and sneezing, but by touch--that is, hand contact or touching something an infected person has touched. If you frequently wash your hands, or better yet, use Purell, your chance of even getting the #1 lethal bio threat, influenza, drops radically. (Flu kills between 30-50,000 Americans every year.) Other than that, it is next to impossible to determine if a bio attack has occurred, unless you catch them in the act--so retaliation is pretty futile.
Posted by: Anonymoose || 11/22/2004 10:36 Comments || Top||

#10  Washing your hands well five times a day reduces your chance of getting the flu 80%.

Bio is the WMD that would be the most difficult to deliver. Too many points of failure. If you die before reaching your target, you don't get the virgins. And... you must ensure that your bio agent survives the trip from Nowherestan. And... you get the idea.

American medicine deals with epidemics all the time. West Nile, flu, HIV, and so on. Heck, unless the disease is uncommon, we might not even know it was a WMD attack.
Posted by: Chuck Simmins || 11/22/2004 11:01 Comments || Top||

#11  Bio against people is terribly overrated.

Hmmmmm.... Let's see. Quarter cup of (non-lethal) anthrax killed 5 people, shut down half a dozen buildings (are they open YET?), cost untold $$$ and disrupted government. Good thing it wasn't a suitcase full of the lethal kind.
Posted by: Rawsnacks || 11/22/2004 11:02 Comments || Top||

#12  Rawsnacks, those attacks (2) represent the only successful anthrax attacks out of more than a handful of attempts. The Aum in Japan failed more than once, for example.

It also proved that bio WMD may not be as deadly as the "experts" state.
Posted by: Chuck Simmins || 11/22/2004 12:01 Comments || Top||

#13  Did I mention that the anthrax was not even dispersed? The Aum failed because they didn't have the goods. The 2001 people had the goods.

We're lucky it wasn't an antibiotic resistant strain... how many people would have died?

What was proved is a capability. What was proved is that the anthrax is here.
Posted by: Rawsnacks || 11/22/2004 14:52 Comments || Top||

#14  Do some research on how effective smallpox was against Indian tribes and South-sea islanders. Nobody gets a smallpox vaccination any more, but there are dozens of strains of weapons-grade smallpox available. It's easy to spread, and some of the more virulent strains are resistant to the most common antibiotics. Of course, the person carrying the stuff into the States would most likely be the first to succumb to it, but even if it didn't kill anybody, a rapidly-spreading infection of that kind could incapacitate several tens of thousands of people. That would be an economic blow, if nothing else.

We're dealing with people who will do ANYTHING. It's best not to put on blinders, or think something is impossible. Nothing is truly impossible for people willing enough to commit themselves to anything that will harm us or our economy.
Posted by: Old Patriot || 11/22/2004 18:46 Comments || Top||

#15  I don't know about you, but when I see Hawk-eye award winner Les Nessman reporting prior to Thanksgiving, I get very nervous, a fear that is now almost 34 years old.
Posted by: Whipper-In Barbie || 11/22/2004 19:07 Comments || Top||

#16  As a person of interest, I can say without qualification that biological weapons are WAY overrated
Posted by: Stephen Hatfill || 11/22/2004 19:30 Comments || Top||

#17  Any attack is not good obviously but I wonder how much damage a biological attack would really do. I tend to think that a car bomb driven into a crowded mall during Christmas shopping scares me a lot more and seems a lot more likely.
Posted by: BillH || 11/22/2004 19:31 Comments || Top||

#18  Someone, maybe Zenster, noted that coordinated, simultaneous small arms attacks on many different large suburban malls could wreak as much havoc as most of the plausible or probably wmd scenarios.
Posted by: lex || 11/22/2004 19:39 Comments || Top||

#19  Bio against people is terribly overrated. Depends on the agent. I lived thru SARS in Singapore and saw how one infected person who took a 30 minute taxi ride nearly brought a modern medical system to its knees.
Posted by: phil_b || 11/22/2004 19:46 Comments || Top||


Africa: North
Not Even a Band-Aid
Following the week that Band Aid released Band Aid 20, an all-star recording to aid the starving Sudanese in Darfur, the documentary-maker Daniel Wolf argues that the first Band Aid fundraiser of 1985 only made matters worse for the victims of famine ["The Myth of Band Aid, "Sunday Mail (Brisbane, Queensland), November 21]. By the release twenty years of another all-star recording, "Do They Know It's Christmas?" and the associated Live Aid concerts, Bob Geldof raised $150 million for famine relief in Ethiopia. At the time, many fans of rock music believed that they had accomplished great good, saved Ethiopia, and "fed the world." They did not.

Ghastly images of starving Ethiopians in 1984 shocked the world. What was not understood at the time was the famine was largely created by the government of Colonel Mengistu Haile Mariam. After a severe drought in the region, Mengistu withheld food supplies to the area and destroyed crops in order to suppress a rebellion. In October, 1984, Mengistu launched a major offensive into the famine-stricken areas in the north. Troops set up road blocks to prevent the aid shipments of food.

Excerpt from headland
Posted by: headland || 11/22/2004 11:03:30 PM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Where is the money?
Posted by: raptor || 11/22/2004 7:32 Comments || Top||

#2  Wait a minute.

I am no fan of Geldof, nor or any leftist sympathizers he may or may not have run around with.

But please, keep this perspective. Band Aide may have been silly, it may have even been corrupt, but the only element in this story that made matters worse was Mengistu.

Geldof et al were a buncha silly twits is all. Want to do an audit of the program, allow me to help but for Christ sakes know that it was an Ethiopian commie who did this famine. Geldof only tried to help.
Posted by: badanov || 11/22/2004 7:56 Comments || Top||

#3  Geldof was trying to help without knowing the facts on the ground, and ended up abetting the thug responsible. I'm neither for or against Geldof, but this story illustrates the problem with high-profile individuals getting involved in something they know nothing about in order to "make a change".
Posted by: BH || 11/22/2004 10:23 Comments || Top||


Iraq-Jordan
Omar Hadid is Zarqawi's Darth Vader
A mid-30s Iraqi electrician whose religious fervor drew suspicion from Saddam Hussein's agents long before U.S. forces invaded Iraq became the most-feared man in Fallujah during the city's six months under insurgent control. While U.S. official pronouncements about rebel leaders have focused on Jordanian terror suspect Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, rebel fighters and others who escaped the U.S. assault on Fallujah say the real power there was wielded by Omar Hussein Hadid, technically al-Zarqawi's underling but in fact the Iraqi face that allowed al-Zarqawi to remain there. "Inside Fallujah, Omar was the leader. Even Abu Musab couldn't say no to him," said a mufti, or spiritual adviser, who sat on the council that directed the insurgents in Fallujah. Now hiding in Baghdad, the cleric spoke to Knight Ridder on condition of anonymity. "If Abu Musab didn't cultivate the support of Omar, he never would've been allowed to stay in Fallujah," the mufti said.

U.S. officials for the past year have struggled to know who precisely is directing the Iraqi insurgency in the so-called Sunni Triangle north and west of Baghdad. That information was especially difficult to come by when the insurgency was a shadowy movement made up of mobile groups conducting ambushes and planting roadside bombs. But during the months that Fallujah was under insurgent control, leaders became more public, holding meetings and directing their forces. Now, with the U.S. assault scattering those leaders and their followers, details of who ran the city are emerging in interviews with people who witnessed, and in some case, participated in the events. The tale of Hadid's ascent to deputy commander of al-Zarqawi's group is now the stuff of legend in filthy camps for displaced residents, in the village homes of his tribesmen and even in an upscale restaurant in Baghdad where the mufti met with a reporter.

The story underscores that while Iraqi insurgents may draw inspiration from foreign radicals, their leadership is largely homegrown, with deep roots in local traditions. From an early age, Hadid, a tall, stocky man whose smile reveals chipped teeth, was known as a Salafi, the follower of a puritan Islam who stood out even in conservative Fallujah, known as Iraq's City of Mosques. Long before American forces became his target, Hadid took potshots at Saddam's secular government - unthinkable acts for most Iraqis, but especially brazen for Sunnis who often benefited from Saddam's patronage. As a teenager, Hadid picked fights and "made people uneasy," said his uncle, Abu Mohamed Hadid, who lives in the family's tribal lands on the outskirts of Fallujah. His first outlaw act was shooting a policeman in the leg - a scandal that was settled in tribal courts with Hadid's family paying compensation to the officer, the uncle said.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Dan Darling || 11/22/2004 7:36:47 PM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  hissss...hissss
"I find your lack of faith...disturbing."
Posted by: mojo || 11/22/2004 1:36 Comments || Top||

#2  From an early age when he was a junkyard slave who raced pods, Hadid, a tall, stocky man whose smile reveals lava-burned and chipped teeth, was known as a kid with an off-the-scale midi-chlorian count Salafi, the follower of a puritan Islam who stood out even in Mos Espa spaceport, home of the Boonta Eve open conservative Fallujah, known as Iraq’s City of Mosques.

Wait a minute; don't be dissing the Puritans so. I understand they were better than history paints them.
Posted by: Steve from Relto || 11/22/2004 9:02 Comments || Top||

#3  This goes in the Classics!
Posted by: Korora (abu Oh look! A red-bellied woodpecker!) || 11/22/2004 15:14 Comments || Top||


Terror Networks & Islam
Binny trying to issue orders to Zarqawi
Osama bin Laden or other senior al Qaeda leaders are trying to communicate with Abu Musab Zarqawi, who is operating what the United States concedes is a "very effective" terrorist ring in Iraq, a senior general said yesterday. Lt. Gen. Lance Smith, the deputy chief of U.S. Central Command, said intelligence shows that bin Laden now communicates strictly through couriers. This is to avoid having his voice electronically intercepted, which could give away his location in the vast Pakistani tribal lands near Afghanistan. Hence you end up using very slow means of trying to communicate, whether it's couriers that carry compact discs from Pakistan or Afghanistan through Iran or through other countries to Zarqawi," Gen. Smith told reporters at the Pentagon.



The disclosure is further evidence that the Jordanian-born Zarqawi, who has maintained links with al Qaeda, now is apparently a full-fledged member. It means that American troops are trying to kill or capture one of al Qaeda's most effective and deadly terrorists, and perhaps the second-most-revered among Islamic militants, after bin Laden himself. "We do have indications that we believe they are trying to communicate," Gen. Smith said. "Whether it is to congratulate him on having announced that he wants to be part of al Qaeda, or whether it's to communicate and give him instructions or what it is, we don't know. But we do believe that through the process they are trying to communicate."
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Dan Darling || 11/22/2004 4:42:16 PM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Which gets gassed with the baked beans?
Posted by: Capt America || 11/22/2004 17:06 Comments || Top||



Who's in the News
95[untagged]

Bookmark
E-Mail Me

The Classics
The O Club
Rantburg Store
The Bloids
The Never-ending Story
Thugburg
Gulf War I
The Way We Were
Bio

Merry-Go-Blog











On Sale now!


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.
Click here for more information

Meet the Mods
In no particular order...
Steve White
Seafarious
tu3031
badanov
sherry
ryuge
GolfBravoUSMC
Bright Pebbles
trailing wife
Gloria
Fred
Besoeker
Glenmore
Frank G
3dc
Skidmark

Two weeks of WOT
Mon 2004-11-22
  Association of Muslim Scholars has one less "scholar"
Sun 2004-11-21
  Azam Tariq murder was plotted at Qazi's house
Sat 2004-11-20
  Baath Party sets up in Gay Paree
Fri 2004-11-19
  Commandos set to storm Mosul
Thu 2004-11-18
  Zarqawi's Fallujah Headquarters Found
Wed 2004-11-17
  Abbas fails to win Palestinian militant truce pledge
Tue 2004-11-16
  U.S., Iraqi Troops Launch Mosul Offensive
Mon 2004-11-15
  Colin Powell To Resign
Sun 2004-11-14
  Hit attempt on Mahmoud Abbas thwarted
Sat 2004-11-13
  Fallujah occupied
Fri 2004-11-12
  Zarqawi sez victory in Fallujah is on the horizon
Thu 2004-11-11
  Yasser officially in the box
Wed 2004-11-10
  70% of Fallujah under US control
Tue 2004-11-09
  Paleos: "He's dead, Jim!"
Mon 2004-11-08
  U.S. moves into Fallujah

Better than the average link...



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.
44.223.5.218
Help keep the Burg running! Paypal:
WoT Operations (37)    Non-WoT (17)    Opinion (4)    (0)    (0)