#3
If everyone gets the implication of these statements, we will be able to defeat these monsters.
I think only a select few American military leaders fully recognize that we are in a genuine World War with Islam. At some point, we'll need to get over our fastidious preoccupation with niceities like respecting international borders and avoiding collateral damage.
#4
...what drove me and many others to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain and abroad was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary worldwide Islamic state that would dispense Islamic justice.
Man, I don't know how much clearer it can be said. Now, if the deluded and misguided liberals, selfish politicians, or the MSM are thinking that these are just a bunch of disenfranchised young muslims, or that social conditions cause terrorism, or that it is Iraq and not Afghanistan that is causing terrorism, this guy spells it out. These same things have been said at Rantburg for a long time.
#5
Maybe we should drown the moderates in sizzlin' pig fat.
Those select few American military leaders that realize we are in a world war have done their jobs well, considering that the American military is fighting them all over the world.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
07/02/2007 18:24 Comments ||
Top||
A sad but riveting account of attempts by a British policeman to extinguish the fires engulfing one of the attackers at the Glasgow airport . . . .
These are the ultimate human dilemmas. You rush up the stairs of the tallest building in New York even though you suspect that ... best not to think about it. You're a minimum wage security guard at an Israeli supermarket and you wrap your arms around a suicide bomber to keep him from coming through the door thinking in the last tenth of a second of your life: will I ever see my family again? You're an off-duty cop in Glasgow trying to put out a human torch that's still trying to kick you and reach for a detonator.
You're in a place very far from the policy debates. Distantly removed from discussions about the ethics of violence, about the doctrines of minimum force or the Geneva Conventions. You are as far from "root causes" as the Andromeda Galaxy is from the Earth. You are in fact, right in the middle of history. This is the way things happen, in the nonsense place where men are saved or lost; where victory is won or eludes. And you never know why, but know only that you must act.
Posted by: Mike ||
07/02/2007 11:45 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under: al-Qaeda in Britain
#1
Remove the trigger and let them burn. Sorry to say but that would be my gut instinct.
As the bombers return to Britain, Hassan Butt, who was once a member of radical group Al-Muhajiroun, raising funds for extremists and calling for attacks on British citizens, explains why he was wrong.
When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network, a series of semi-autonomous British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology, I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.
By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the 'Blair's bombs' line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.
Continued on Page 49
He is a well meaning chap. Being a former terr insider, he can see the whole thing in a sharp focus, but also it skews his perception because his departure is not yet complete, reflected in his dream of reformation, which contrast with his recognition of the facts about inseparability of Islam and sharia. A handfull of other former terrs that got over their connection with Islam would probably agree with "fat chance", or a degree of it thereof.
Of course, he sees the writing on the wall--that is why he uses the "must" in his plea, as it seems that it is not hard for him to figure out, extrapolate what would ensue if things continue to go the way they do at present.
#3
Well I wish there were more like him, but I'm afraid he misses the central point. A Muslim cannot renounce violence as a means for furthering his religion without a corresponding ignorance or denial of his own creed.
#6
A Muslim cannot renounce violence as a means for furthering his religion without a corresponding ignorance or denial of his own creed.
While it's not bloody likely to occur, it IS the case that new interpretations and rulings could be made. It's happened before in the history of Islam, sometimes peacefully and sometimes causing serious contention.
#7
A Muslim cannot renounce violence as a means for furthering his religion without a corresponding ignorance or denial of his own creed.
Worst of all there does not seem any way of changing this. Certainly not for outsiders and quite so even for Muslims themselves. As Grumenk Philalzabod0723 observed yesterday:
The uncomfortable truth is that Islamic fundamentalism is incompatible with democracy because immodifiable Koranic scripture demands the establishment of a caliphate and the assassination of apostates. What logically follows is this: the only Muslims we can permit to live within our societies are not true Muslims, but some watered down inauthentic version.
What we seek in "moderate" Muslims is, in reality, a non-Muslim. Islam's blasphemy laws and death penalty for apostasy have resulted in nearly a millennia of closed loop doctrinal cycling. Its intensely ossified nature precludes any hope of deviating from such a hidebound ideology. Centuries of Islam's clerical elite have cemented their personal power and authority by entrenching this thoroughly ingrown scripture.
No better example exists than the near-constant bloodshed amongst Muslims over being "more Islamic than thou". The single issue of patrilineal descent from their prophet has fomented internecine slaughter for untold centuries. Their obsessive pursuit of religious purity attains the ridiculous with an entirely straight face. Witness the political suicide performed by hard line Iranian ex-president Khatami, solely by shaking hands with some strange women in Italy.
Sgt. Mom speculated quite articulately about how Islam's brittleness could explain its intransigence and lack of introspection. As with other brittle objects like glass and ceramics, such adamant inflexiblity inhibits ready modification and external stress more often yields shattering results.
This is indicated rather strongly in the case of Islam. Its recalcitrance and intolerance automatically presages catastrophic failure. Such an abrasive nature will either erode any opposition or crack against it trying. The only question of this outcome lies in the West's resolve to resist Islam's predations. If we are resolute in our opposition there is an almost intrinsic implication that Islam must rupture as a result.
#8
I have no doubt that this guy is seen as a sellout to the religion, even to the muted mythical, moderate muslims.
The fact that there are no outraged muslims, no muslim protests against terror, no self-policing speaks volumes about the prevailing attitudes within the community. So, renounce terror? Hardly. I think they privately feel empowered by it.
#9
bravo to the Guardian for printing this (maybe the NYT will do so - don't hold your breath).
but the most interesting thing was that in the comments there were only a few 'but we kill poor Afgans' so we are as guilty responses and a lot of 'Islam really, really has problems' comments
#10
#7
Zen,
Many times in differing explanations you've carefully explained why Islam must be eliminated if western civilization is to survive. What you've stated today, perfectly summarizes and encapsulates the reasoning. I never take time to provide explanations, I just want to abolish it. If it means abolishing millions of Muslims too, I could care less. All the fancy talk is worthless. A showdown is here now and either we respond or we don't. One culture will be eliminated. I know which one I want to eleiminate and I really don't give a rip about the opinion of anyone else.
#11
Many times in differing explanations you've carefully explained why Islam must be eliminated if western civilization is to survive.
To clarify: Right now, my main position is that Islam must be abolished in all Western countries to preserve their constitutional law and respective cultures. Elimination of it worldwide is another matter and my own view is that it seems rather predictable that Islam will incur the West's nuclear wrath with some hideous atrocity in the not too distant future.
What you've stated today, perfectly summarizes and encapsulates the reasoning.
Thank you, Woozle Elmeter. On topics of this importance I've always felt it was imperative to back one's stance with some sort of reasoned argument.
I never take time to provide explanations, I just want to abolish it.
After years of endless Islamic crapulence, I find it difficult to blame you for feeling that way. My own patience has worn paper thin as well.
If it means abolishing millions of Muslims too, I could care less.
The human part of me would rather avoid this if possible. To date, Islam has done nothing but increase the likelihood of a Muslim holocaust. I believe that our next step should escalate along the lines of David D.'s list of options: (can't find a link so here they are)
The War on Islamic Terrorism:
1. SURRENDER:
Islam's stated mission-- and to Muslims, their manifest destiny-- is to convert the entire world to Islam; we could dispense with this entire war just by becoming Muslims and being done with it. Bow our heads before their hateful god, and accept our fate.
2. APPEASEMENT:
We could try buying them off by giving them what they say they want: let them wipe Israel off the map and indulge their appetite for murdering Jews; set up shariah courts as a parallel legal system here in the US; teach Islam in our public schools; give special rights to Muslims in America; increase Muslim immigration; increase foreign aid to Muslim countries; open up a "dialog" with the Islamists to promote "mutual understanding"; try diplomacy; whatever. Be nice enough to them, and maybe they'll stop attacking us.
3. IGNORE THE ATTACKS:
We could try to just ignore atrocities like the Islamic attacks on 9/11 and in Madrid, London, Bali, Israel and Beslan, and chalk such things up as the necessary price for coexisting with Islam. They're violent savages, and we may as well get used to getting hit every so often.
4. ISOLATE OURSELVES:
We could try withdrawing from the rest of the world and its troubles, keeping our heads down and maintaining a low global profile. Stop the de facto exportation of American/Western culture, if that is what's driving them nuts. And whatever shitstorm breaks loose, just ignore it.
5. CRIMINAL PROSECUTION:
We could go back to the "Law Enforcement Approach": treating Islamic terrorism as a purely criminal matter just like we did during the Clinton administration, hunting down terrorists who attack us and prosecuting them for their crimes-- but only AFTER they've committed them. The Democratic Party has been making it increasingly clear that this is their preferred approach: the "civil liberties" crowd loves it, and it makes lots of work for lawyers and judges.
6. LIBERATION & REFORM:
We can do what we're doing right now in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is trying to see if Arab/Islamic society can be detoxified by introducing democratic self-governance. Maybe it can; maybe it can't. We'll see.
Frankly, the results don't look very promising so far; but barring some catastrophe we'll keep trying there at least so long as Bush is in office. After that, though, people are going to insist on coming to conclusions and I suspect many will conclude that liberation and reform of Islamic society is not going to quell the Islamic tendency toward violence.
7. DOMESTIC OPPRESSION:
We could try to prevent terrorist attacks by turning America into a police state, complete with intrusive government monitoring of all aspects of our lives and the suspension of habeus corpus. Anyone even suspected of terrorist activity or radical Islamic sympathies simply disappears in the middle of the night along with their entire family. People live in constant fear of the authorities.
NOTE: this is what the "Law Enforcement Approach" will morph into when it proves ineffective.
8. CONQUEST & SUBJUGATION:
We could invade Muslim countries, execute their political and religious leaders, outlaw Islam and bulldoze their mosques, and rule them all with an iron fist. Conquer them, rule them, and extirpate the Islamic menace by force.
9. INTIMIDATION / DETERRENCE:
We could respond to terrorist attacks on American soil with extravagantly disproportionate retaliation against the cities and infrastructure of the Muslim world: kill a thousand of us, and we'll kill a million of you. Repeated often enough, and brutally enough, this might eventually deter them from further terrorist attacks.
10. EXPULSION & QUARANTINE:
We could outlaw Islam within the U.S. and expel all Muslims, citizens or not. Forbid entry into the U.S.-- even for brief visits-- to all Muslims regardless of their country of origin and to all nationals, regardless of religion, from countries that are predominantly Muslim. Seal the Canadian and Mexican borders tight with orders to shoot to kill, and NOT bother asking questions later.
11. EXTERMINATION:
We could end this 1,400 year struggle between Islam and the West once and for all, with a war that would last barely a half-hour: simply nuke the entire Islamic world and then let our descendents inherit the guilt from murdering a billion people.
We're currently at option six. I'm unwilling to undergo Orwellian domestic security levels, so that rules out option seven. Simply bombing out the leadership structure of nations who sponsor terrorism is a close approximation to option eight, just without the occupation. My suggestions that the West needs to consider using option nine haven't been particularly well-received. I'm now working on option eleven in a modified form. However, I believe that the quarrantine (q'arantine) needs to manifest as a cordon around the MME (Muslim Middle East) in order to contain this world's recongregated Muslim population. The expulsion of Muslims from Western countries appears to be one of the few humane options we have left.
All the fancy talk is worthless.
I dispute that notion. Using points gathered here and some of my own, I've been able to sway other people's opinions over to a better understanding of why Islam is so evil. It's something we all need to be doing to help save America.
A showdown is here now and either we respond or we don't.
While the showdown may not be here exactly now, I agree that it is a lot closer than most people think. I also feel that we should be working on the assumption of one being necessary in order to best prepare ourselves for what is coming.
One culture will be eliminated.
Given Islam's refusal to reform or coexist, that seems to be a certainty.
I know which one I want to eleiminate and I really don't give a rip about the opinion of anyone else.
However nice it would be to avoid annihilation of the MME, Islam continues to make this entire issue into an "either or" proposition. Given that fact, my money isn't on Islam.
NEW DELHI - In strategic groupings, India and United States are seen as being partners to dilute the influence of China. Recent events only underline such assertions. Suspicions refuse to die as far as India and China are concerned. Recently declassified Central Intelligence Agency documents detail what the US saw as Chinese deception and Indian naivety that led to the 1962 war between the two sides. This will only add to the mutual distrust over the border issues.
New Delhi and Washington, meanwhile, are breaking new ground, including in defense-related matters. This week China asked India, the US, Japan and Australia, which are looking to form a quadripartite arrangement with Tokyo taking a lead, to be "open and inclusive". "China believes that to enhance mutual trust, expand cooperation for mutual benefit, it must be open and inclusive," said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gan, reacting to the first meeting of officials of India, the US, Japan and Australia in Manila last month on the sidelines of a Southeast Asian summit.
The Chinese understand what George Bush, John Howard, Shinzo Abe and Manmohan Singh are doing, and they're not happy.
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has sought to allay such anxieties, saying, "I have told Chinese President Hu Jintao that there's no question of ganging up against China. This group isn't a military alliance." (The focus is on disaster management and energy.)
And what bigger disasters could there be than 1) China trying to claim territories that it believes it has a right to and/or 2) China melts down politically and economically?
However, there are other issues as well. Recently, Taiwanese presidential candidate and opposition leader Ma Ying-jeou visited India in what was termed a private and unofficial visit. Officials say the visit was to foster closer economic relations irrespective of India's diplomatic ties with Beijing. Ma met Congress party president Sonia Gandhi, top opposition leaders and business executives.
#3
Officials say the visit was to foster closer economic relations irrespective of India's diplomatic ties with Beijing. Ma met Congress party president Sonia Gandhi, top opposition leaders and business executives.
Actually, I think he was just trying to unload some cat food - cheap.
#4
""I have told Chinese President Hu Jintao that there's no question of ganging up against China. This group isn't a military alliance." (The focus is on disaster management and energy.) "
The Chinese probably noticed the supercarrier involved during the tsunami cleanup.
CIA last week released a heavily redacted version of a 1973 report what it considers its fathers' sins. There was nothing new: In the '70s and '80s, agency employees on all sides of the quarrels over what the CIA should do shopped their versions of the report to whoever would listen on the congressional Intelligence Committees (including myself) as well as to the press.
These quarrels were rooted in the deep political, social and personal animosities that split the CIA's founding generation. Riding the post-Vietnam/Watergate wave of U.S. politics, one CIA faction wrote the report to discredit and oust their bureaucratic rivals.
Freed from independent scrutiny, CIA officers gullibly accepted more information than ever from "walk-in" sources and from foreign governments' intelligence services.
Since then, whenever we have had a intelligence windfall (e.g., access to the East German Stasi files after 1989) we have learned that all or nearly all CIA sources had been controlled by hostile services.
Because this faction succeeded, important changes took place in the CIA. Beginning in 1975, counterintelligence - which was principally quality control of operations - became the responsibility of those conducting the operations. Freed from independent scrutiny, CIA officers gullibly accepted more information than ever from "walk-in" sources and from foreign governments' intelligence services.
Since then, whenever we have had a intelligence windfall we have learned that all or nearly all CIA sources had been controlled by hostile services. In Iraq, in 2003, CIA sources reported watching as Saddam Hussein and sons entered a house with bunker; U.S. aircraft immediately demolished it. But there had never been any bunker, never mind Saddam. As usual, the CIA's agents were doubles.
It was also thanks to lack of independent counterintelligence that one Aldrich Ames was able to turn over to the KGB control of all U.S. human intelligence about the Soviet Union during during the 1980s.
Another change was that, after 1975, the CIA would never again make a serious effort radically to change a foreign situation in America's favor, as in 1953 Iran. Indeed, in the 1980s the CIA fought against congressional and White House attempts to help the Afghan resistance to the Soviet invasion and against enabling Nicaragua's Contras to depose the Communist Sandinistas.
And as CIA covert action became cheap tricks, the agency often focussed on altering U.S. policy: Recall its campaigns to convince the press that Saddam was innocent of terrorism and that Czech intelligence had never seen Mohammed Atta in Prague.
But the most consequential change of all was in personnel and attitude: In all fields and functions, the CIA became the leftmost influence on foreign policy within the executive branch.
Hence, it is ironic that among the documents to which today's CIA points with contrition are ones concerning the agreement between President Lyndon Johnson and then CIA chief Richard Helms, that the CIA would search out the links between foreign communists and Americans who were working to defeat the United States in Vietnam. Is it really improper, when foreign forces are killing Americans, to keep track of those Americans who espouse the killers' cause? After 1975, the CIA led the U.S. government in answering "Yes!"
That is why the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency together were the major lobby for the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which in practice exempted virtually anyone in the United States from intelligence wiretapping. That is why, together with the de-Hooverized FBI, the CIA built the well-known "wall" between foreign intelligence and domestic intelligence - the "wall" that shielded the 9/11 plotters on their way to mass murder.
In our time, as an all too significant percentage of persons in America sympathize with various Arab causes, what might be the argument for not seeking to find out how far those sympathies might incline them to abet murder? I'm sure that today's CIA didn't mean to raise the question of whether those it purged in 1975 might have had a point.
The main impression that the report gives, however, is not that the early CIA was largely a bunch of sorcerers' apprentices. Plots against Fidel Castro's life, involving pills in food and explosives in cigars, spilled ink not blood - because none of the bureaucrats involved felt like taking responsibility. Indeed, while some in the agency were mounting an (incompetent) invasion to oust Castro, others really liked him.
It is not sufficiently remembered that in the 1950s the CIA helped arm Castro (against the U.S. embassy's wishes) and acted to destabilize the regime he was trying to overthrow. The released report says nothing of this, for the same reason that it mentions nothing about the CIA's sponsorship of Iraq's Ba'ath party, and of its 1959 hiring of a young thug named Saddam Hussein, or of its romance with the PLO. The CIA retains illusions and affections.
In sum, as the performance of today's CIA shows its insufficiencies, the agency may have hoped that distancing itself from its ancestors once again would secure its place on a political wave that some see as like unto that of the late 1970s. But then again, the CIA's political judgments have usually been wrong.
Angelo M. Codevilla is a professor of international relations at Boston University and a fellow of the Claremont Institute.
Note that this was published in an Aussie newspaper and not in the Washington Post.
Guantanamo Bay is a humane place for enemy combatants that is worth keeping
IT is disappointing that so many people embrace a contrived image of Guantanamo Bay. Reality for Guantanamo Bay is the daily professionalism of its staff, the humanity of its detention centres and the fair and transparent nature of the military commissions charged with trying alleged war criminals. It is a reality that has been all but ignored or forgotten.
Today, most of the detainees are housed in new buildings modelled on US civilian prisons in Indiana and Michigan. Detainees receive three culturally appropriate meals a day. Each Muslim detainee has a copy of the Koran. Guards maintain respectful silence during Islam's five daily prayer periods and medical care is provided by the same practitioners who treat American service members. Detainees are offered at least two hours of outdoor recreation each day, double that allowed to inmates, including convicted terrorists, at the supermax federal penitentiary in the US state of Colorado.
Standards at Guantanamo rival or exceed those at similar institutions in the US and abroad. After an inspection by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe in March last year, a Belgian police official said: "At the level of detention facilities, it is a model prison, where people are better treated than in Belgian prisons."
There's a reason why Midnight Express was about a Turkish prison and not Gitmo.
Critics liken Guantanamo Bay to Soviet gulags, but the reality does not match their hyperbole. The supporters of David Hicks, for instance, asserted that he was being mistreated and "wasting away". But at his March trial, where he pleaded guilty to providing material support to a terrorist organisation, he and his defence team stipulated that he was treated properly. Hicks even thanked service members and, as one Australian newspaper columnist noted, he appeared in court "looking fat, healthy and tanned, and cracking jokes".
Some imply that if a defendant does not get a trial that ends like O.J. Simpson's, then military commissions are flawed. They are mistaken. The US constitution does not extend to alien unlawful enemy combatants. They are entitled to protections under common article three of the Geneva Conventions, which ensures they are afforded all the judicial guarantees that are recognised as indispensable by civilised people.
One myth is that the accused can be excluded from his trial and convicted on secret evidence. The administrative boards that determine if a detainee is an enemy combatant and whether he is a continuing threat may consider classified information in closed hearings outside the presence of the detainee. But military commissions may not. The act states: "The accused shall be permitted ... to examine and respond to evidence admitted against him on the issue of guilt or innocence and for sentencing."
Unless the accused chooses to skip his trial or is removed for disruptive behaviour, he has the right to be present and to confront the evidence.
Many critics disapprove of the potential admissibility of evidence obtained by coercion and hearsay. Any statement by a person whose freedom is restrained by someone in a position of authority can be viewed as the product of some degree of coercion. Deciding how far is too far is the challenge. I make the final decision on the evidence the prosecution will introduce.
The defence may challenge this evidence and the military judge decides whether it is admitted. If it is admitted, both sides can argue how much weight, if any, the evidence deserves.
If a conviction results, the accused has the assistance of counsel in four stages of post-trial appellate review. These are clearly robust safeguards.
The Military Commissions Act of 2006 says hearsay is admissible unless it is challenged. The party raising the challenge must persuade the military judge that the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues or misleading the commission, among other reasons. While this standard permits admission of some evidence that would not be admissible in federal courts, the rights afforded to Americans are not the benchmark for assessing rights afforded to enemy combatants in military tribunals.
There is no ban on hearsay among the indispensable rights listed in the Geneva Conventions. Nor is there a ban on hearsay for the UN-sanctioned war crimes tribunals, including the International Criminal Court, the international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and the Special Court for Sierra Leone. The Nuremberg trials also did not limit hearsay evidence. Simply stated, a ban on hearsay is not an internationally recognised judicial guarantee.
Guantanamo Bay is a clean, safe and humane place for enemy combatants and the Military Commissions Act provides a fair process to adjudicate the guilt or innocence of those alleged to have committed crimes. Even the most vocal critics say they do not want to set terrorists free but they scorn Guantanamo Bay and military commissions and demand alternatives. The facts show the present alternative is worth keeping.
Morris Davis is the chief prosecutor in the US Defence Department's Office of Military Commissions.
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/02/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Once the combatants are on ice somewhere stateside, I'm sure the Hatians will be pleased with the upgraded lodging.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
07/02/2007 22:52 Comments ||
Top||
Michael Yon has just posted a report of an entire farming village liquidated by al-Qaeda “fighters” in anticipation of the arrival of American forces. I think that it will be instructive to compare the number of column inches devoted to this with those devoted to Haditha.
Cernig at Newshoggers is unimpressed with attempted atrocities in the UK, stating that what happened with the Glasgow vehicle was all that would have occurred had the London charges gone off–not a catastrophe–whilst blithely ignoring that cannisters were removed from the Jeep before they could go off. Clearly, he states, this is not al-Qaeda’s doing, and that may or may not be so, but it simply would not do to believe that their capacities may have been degraded this substantially by coalition intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan, would it? And it’s not as though there are al-Qaeda trained sleeper agents being sent to Britain, is it?
Posted by: Mike ||
07/02/2007 06:46 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under: al-Qaeda
#1
I'm not going over to Kos-Land to look, but I'd be willing to bet there are plenty of posters there claiming the US killed all those villagers and planted the bodies as a propaganda move to rally opinion against the poor, mis-understood al Qaeda. In fact Sy Hersh is probably working on the story right now, and Michael Moore will produce the film version.
The ten-year US-Israel aid deal has expired, so Israel is asking that military aid levels continue to trend upward. This may seem like a no-brainer from Israel's point of view, but it is a mistake that reflects a myopic view of US-Israel relations. Rest at the link
I found the general at the end of a winding road in the Alborz Mountains 150 miles north of Tehran. He was sitting placidly at a table laden with cherries, nectarines and other fruits. A stream flowed nearby. It was a pleasant and pastoral place to discuss an uncomfortable matter: the tension between Iran and the United States, and the looming possibility of war. The general, Mohsen Rezai, is secretary of Iran's powerful Expediency Council. He's also the former commander of the Revolutionary Guards. He rarely speaks to foreign reporters -- especially Americans. I was surprised when, during a recent visit to Iran, I learned from one of Rezai's aides that he would be willing to meet me at his vacation villa in the mountains.
Given Iran's complex, nearly impenetrable politics, it is difficult to say whether Rezai wanted to deliver a semi-official message, or was freelancing. But it seemed like the former, especially because the government also arranged rare interviews with other senior officials, including Ali Larijani, the main negotiator on Iran's nuclear program. Rezai's intention was clear: No matter what question I asked, he somehow managed to bring the discussion back to Tehran's need to find its way out of its dangerous stalemate with Washington. President Bush "has started a cold war with Iran, and if it's not controlled, it could turn into a warm war," he said. Rezai suggested that Iran is searching hard for a face-saving way to end the standoff over its ever-advancing uranium-enrichment program. He endorsed, in a more forthright way than I have heard from any other senior Iranian official, a "timeout" proposed by Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency. "What it means is for Iran to stay at the [enrichment] level it has reached, with no further progress. By the same token, the U.N. Security Council will not issue another resolution," said Rezai, who indicated that the idea is gaining support inside the Iranian regime. "The Iranian nuclear issue has to be resolved through a new kind of solution like this."
Rezai also suggested that the talks recently begun in Baghdad between Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, and his Iranian counterpart, Hassan Qomi, had taken the edge off the sense of threat felt in Tehran. The talks amounted to a long-overdue acknowledgment by Bush that he must deal with the regime, Rezai contended, sounding pleased.
Rezai's effort at outreach suggests that the policy of diplomatic coercion being pursued by the United States, Britain, France and Germany is working, at least to some degree. Iran has grown weary of its economic and political isolation, and senior officials in Tehran remain preoccupied with the possibility of a U.S. military strike. Now Iran is eager to satisfy ElBaradei's demands for further clarity on the illicit history of its program -- so much so that Larijani met twice with him last week. What is not clear is whether the Bush administration will accept a "timeout," as opposed to a full suspension of Iran's enrichment activities. It also is not clear, despite Rezai's hopes, that Bush has given up on regime change; hence the "presidential finding" Bush recently signed that authorizes the CIA to conduct non-lethal operations to harass the Iranian regime. Having isolated Tehran diplomatically, the Bush administration seems content to simply wait until it "caves."
But my 10-day visit to Iran in late June, mostly spent in Tehran, convinced me that any hopes that Iran will just give up are badly misguided. Yes, the regime is under pressure, but it isn't close to having its back to the wall economically, despite its recent move to ration gasoline, which provoked violent protests. Stores are well stocked, the streets are thronged with shoppers, and flower stores and luxury goods abound, indicating that people in this oil-rich economy still have plenty of disposable income. The U.N. sanctions and the quiet pressure on international banks to cut off business with Iran inflict some pain, but they are generally nuisances and not deal-breakers. And the sanctions are shot full of holes: European businesses do vibrant trade with Iranian counterparts, and Iranians have just shifted their business dealings from dollars to Euros.
Even so, the comments by Rezai and Larijani indicate that, with 18 months left in Bush's presidency, Iran may be offering his administration a last chance at a new relationship. At least twice before, the administration has slapped down such overtures. In late 2001, Iran provided invaluable assistance in stabilizing the post-Taliban government led by Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan, pledging $550 million worth of assistance (about the same amount promised by the United States) at a January 2002 donors' conference. A week later, Bush declared Iran part of the "axis of evil" during his second State of the Union address -- a stinging rebuff that Iranians still talk about bitterly. Then, in the spring of 2003, Iranian officials used their regular Swiss intermediary to fax a two-page proposal for comprehensive talks to the State Department, including discussions of a "two-state approach" to the Israeli-Palestinian issue. That, too, was ignored.
The Bush team is in danger of letting the current opening from Iran pass it by as well. The administration doesn't seem to recognize that diplomatic coercion by itself can't work -- not with a country that has turned its nuclear program into a national crusade. And one hears little acknowledgment from senior U.S. officials that the United States and Iran share some critical interests.
It is this impression of inevitably clashing interests that Rezai was trying hard to dispel. He pointed out that his is the only country that can help Washington control Shiite militias in Iraq, slow the Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan and tame Hezbollah's still-dangerous presence in Lebanon all at once. "If America pursues a different approach than confronting Iran, our dealings will change fundamentally," he said.
My conversations with hard-liners and reformers inside Tehran also suggested something deeper: that under the right circumstances, Iran may still be willing to stop short of building a bomb. "Iran would like to have the technology, and that is enough for deterrence," says S.M.H. Adeli, Iran's moderate, urbane former ambassador to London. Still, the Iranians themselves recognize that a more dramatic shift in policy is unlikely to happen on Bush's watch. "Mr. Bush's government is stuck at a crossroads" between confrontation and engagement, "and it can't make a decision," Rezai said. "We have a saying in Farsi: When a child walks in darkness, he starts singing or making loud noises because he's afraid of the dark. The Americans are afraid to negotiate with Iran, and that's why they're making a lot of loud noises." Whether or not that's true, new noises are clearly coming from Tehran. Washington should listen.
Michael Hirsh is a senior editor at Newsweek.
Posted by: Pappy ||
07/02/2007 00:05 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#1
Best I can figure, we share no critical interests. Our interests are directly conflicting on all the major issues. Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Israel and oil come to mind. It would have been nice of the reporter to inform me of what these mutual interests are.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
07/02/2007 0:26 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Iran was broke before the Bush administration. Over 40% of the population is on the government payroll. And government wages are extremely low. The private sector is dominated by monopoly firms, owned by the Ayatollahs. The Koran mentions a "khums" tax in which 20% of all booty became the property of the "prophet." Shiites - but not Sunnis - claim that religious political leaders are entitled to "khums." This type of parasitism ensures continued backwardness in Iran. Conditions are ripe for both a commercial and democratic revolution. All that is needed is a US trigger. Axis of evil rhetoric won't do it.
#8
Consider the source,
Iran is not as rosy as this guy wants you to believe. Their stock market is in taters, inflation is running out of control, foreign investment has dried up considerably, and people are rioting in the streets. But this smug asshole sits in his mountain villa and tries to convince a reporter that everything is well in hand. And he buys it hook, line and sinker. I think if we keep up the pressure, they are going to squeak, face saving or not.
#9
But again, Iran was negotiating with Europe for 13 years all the while sponsoring the people bombing all of the world and still developing their capability and laughed about what suckers the Europeons are. I recall a Fatwa made by clerics in Iran that the development of nuclear bombs was "un-islamic". whats up?
#11
"We have a saying in Farsi: When a child walks in darkness, he starts singing or making loud noises because he's afraid of the dark. The Americans are afraid to negotiate with Iran, and that's why they're making a lot of loud noises."
I remember your little proverb, Mike, the next time that syphlitic little pygmy starts running his mouth again.
But Mike musta forgot all that shit...
#12
The private sector is dominated by monopoly firms, owned by the Ayatollahs.
Recent reports indicate the Revolutionary Guard has surpassed the clerics in economic power, but that doesn't detract from your argument.
Note that Hirsh reports on the urban areas. Nothing about the rural portions (the main source of the IRGC and clerics' support). And 'trade' is fine, if the Iranians also benefit from it. The high unemployment levels indicate otherwise.
Conditions are ripe for both a commercial and democratic revolution. All that is needed is a US trigger. Axis of evil rhetoric won't do it.
Neither will negotiations. Negotiations accord a level of respect. That's the last thing that needs to given to Iran's power cliques.
The events in Lebanon are a clear demonstration of the fact that the refugee camps should not be considered as permanent settlement for the Palestinian refugees . Time for the Arab and the world community to shoulder the responsibility for the Palestinian refugees, since they have become a major burden for Lebanon , a country that has been pushed to accept disproportionate responsibility for them.
The following are well known facts :
Both the Arab world and the West are to blame for the plight of the Palestinian refugees
The history of western anti-Semitism ultimately led to the creation of Israel and the displacement of the Palestinian people
All Arab countries have abused their Palestinian refugee populations for political motives
Lebanon is a small country of 3.5 million people with a sensitive demographic composition. The Lebanese people are unanimous in categorically rejecting the permanent settlement of the 500,000 Palestinian refugees on their soil because they will cause a demographic imbalance in the very delicate mosaic of the Lebanese population.
Israel has so far refused to grant the refugees the Right of Return because, following the example of Lebanon , it too fears a demographic imbalance.
The refugee camps in Lebanon never were, are not, and will never be the permanent home of the refugees.
In order to end the terrible plight that these refugees have lived for the past 60 years, and until their final status is determined between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, the refugees should be encouraged to leave the squalid camps of Lebanon and emigrate for re-settlement in the following countries:
West Bank :The Palestinian Authority should re-settle those refugees who wish to return to Palestine . It is, after all, their country! For one, there are upwards of 20 Palestinian refugee camps in Palestine itself, where the refugees live in squalid conditions. Why is Lebanon the only host country to be singled out for "mistreating" its refugees? Second, having the Palestinians in Lebanon , Syria , and Egypt where they still live in refugee camps, return to Palestine will get them even closer to the Palestine they left behind and to the dream of one day returning to Haifa and Jaffa and the hills of the Galilee . They will be in their own country, will have the right to work and travel like all other Palestinians living under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian National Authority. Third, let the Palestinian Authority embark on its own settlement of the West Bank to compete with Israels settlement of Jewish settlers from Brooklyn, New York: With money from the Saudis who love their Palestinian brothers, the Palestinian Authority should expropriate land from Palestinians in the West Bank, build sprawling settlements on the sunny hills of the West Bank and sell them at affordable prices to those refugees from Lebanon who wish to go home.
Israel : Until the Right of Return is finally decided, Israel should at least financially compensate those refugees who agree to waive their Right of Return, thus helping in their re-settlement elsewhere. If the Jews were never able to forget Jerusalem , Judea and Samaria after 2,000 years, why should the Palestinians be expected to forget their Palestine after 60 years?
Arab Countries : The 21 Arab Member States of the Arab League should, each in proportion to its population density, accept the re-settlement of those refugees who wish to do so. A quota system may be adopted such that the largest and wealthiest countries re-settle larger numbers of refugees than smaller and poorer countries. For example, Saudi Arabia is the wealthiest of the Arab countries and with the lowest population density. Also, the Saudis has always had problems accommodating foreign workers whom they badly need because of cultural and religious differences. 95% of Palestinian refugees are Sunni Moslems and they will fit perfectly well in Saudi society and will provide it with integrated and educated labor force that the Palestinian refugee population represents. A win-win situation for everyone.
The West - The traditional countries of emigration - US, Canada, Mexico, Central and Latin America, Australia, and New Zealand as well as those European countries who were directly responsible for the genesis of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (e.g. Germany, the UK, etc.) should offer to permanently settle on a quota basis those of the refugees who elect to do so. Moreover, those in the West like Robert Fisk and his ilk of the Guardian and the Independent who pontificate to the Lebanese about how to treat their Palestinian refugees, may want to assume the responsibility for the Palestinian problem that their colonial UK itself created by promising the "promised Land" to both Arabs and Jews, in one of the most treacherous acts of colonial England. Perhaps Robert Fisk would like to open a brand new Palestinian Refugee Camp in Leeds , right next to the new Pakistani centers of the future Islamic Kingdom of England. Perhaps one day, Lebanon will open those same refugee centers, now evacuated of Palestinian refugees, to the new refugees like him from Europe !
The Palestinian refugee problem is not Lebanon s responsibility. Lebanon has no legal or moral obligation to the refugees beyond the shelter it gave them for 60 years and the wars and devastation they inflicted on it over the past 40 years through their political and military organizations (PLO, Al-Saika, PFLP, DFLP, Ahmad Jibril, Fatah, Fatah Al-Islam, Fatah this and Fatah that and everything in between).
It is time for the world to unburden Lebanon of the Palestinian refugees:
Give the refugees a chance for a better life
Allow Lebanon to finally be on the track of recovery. The Nahr Al-Bared events show that it is time to abrogate the 1969 Cairo Accord because the Palestinians have failed to maintain order inside their camps. The Nahr Al-Bared Camp should not be rebuilt, and the faster the other Palestinian camps are dismantled and the refugees resettled according to the proposal above, the better off Lebanon will be.
Contribute to the final resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/02/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Both the Arab world and the West are to blame for the plight of the Palestinian refugees
Oh, the blamegame and fingerpointing. How could we live without it?
The history of western anti-Semitism ultimately led to the creation of Israel and the displacement of the Palestinian people
The first part, okay, that was the case. The second part, why no one mentions the more than equal displacement of Jewish people?
All Arab countries have abused their Palestinian refugee populations for political motives
#2
The history of western anti-Semitism ultimately led to the creation of Israel and the displacement of the Palestinian people
Actually, when you lose a war, you create new boundaries and environments. In 1948, the 'Arab' world launched an attack to destroy the UN action to create both an Jews and Paleo homeland. They lost. Three years before, the world was cleaning up after the Nazis and in doing so sent millions of Sileasian Germans from their ancestorial roots never to return again with the land incorporated by the "Great Powers" into modern Poland. Crap happens when you lose. The Germans have learned to live with it. Better get a hint. The Paleos were promised by their Arab 'brothers' they'd get to return upon the destruction of Israel. Didn't happen. Given the quality of government apply displayed by their Arab brothers, it probably wouldn't have made much difference for them, if it had.
#3
They've been in the camps for over 50 years, they don't look like camps, they look like cities. There are no tents. If the camps are squalid, then they are to blame, they administrate the camps themselves and chase away any outsiders. They are cockroaches, in 59 years they havent done a goddamned thing to better themselves. And we just keep throwing money at them like we are one track imbeciles.
#4
Moreover, those in the West like Robert Fisk and his ilk of the Guardian and the Independent who pontificate to the Lebanese about how to treat their Palestinian refugees, may want to assume the responsibility for the Palestinian problem that their colonial UK itself created by promising the "promised Land" to both Arabs and Jews, in one of the most treacherous acts of colonial England. Perhaps Robert Fisk would like to open a brand new Palestinian Refugee Camp in Leeds , right next to the new Pakistani centers of the future Islamic Kingdom of England. Perhaps one day, Lebanon will open those same refugee centers, now evacuated of Palestinian refugees, to the new refugees like him from Europe !
July 1, 2007: Al Qaeda continues to take a beating, but you can ignite a media firestorm just saying that. One of the most irritating things about the war on terror, is trying to keep score. Unlike a conventional war, where you can measure territory won and lost, as well as casualties, the current conflict does not really lend itself to those measurements. But there are things that can be measured.
Al Qaeda operations continue to decline, as the number of al Qaeda members, and leaders killed or captured, goes up. Then there's al Qaeda media activity. Up until last Fall, 93 percent of al Qaeda Internet announcements were video. Since then, most of them are just audio, and sounding increasingly less confident. There is good reason for that lack of confidence.
American and Pakistani attacks (usually with missiles or smart bombs) along the Afghan border in the last two years have killed an increasing number of foreign fighters. DNA tests can tell if someone is from the region, or elsewhere in the world. But that's not what worries al Qaeda, it's the increasing amount of accurate information the counter-terror forces are getting.
No one is talking, but al Qaeda chatter claims that either the Americans have some wondrous new bit of technology, or Yankee money has corrupted more al Qaeda members to give up information.
The Taliban is suffering the same kind of casualties, and coming up with the same paranoid theories. More people in Pakistan and Afghanistan, some of them innocent, are being accused of spying, and killed by the Taliban and al Qaeda.
Some of those multi-million dollar rewards for terrorists have been collected. Some openly, some more discretely. There is some reason to be paranoid.
Al Qaeda is eagerly recruiting other Islamic terrorist organizations, usually ones that have recently taken a big beating in their home country, to become part of al Qaeda. That's about the only growth al Qaeda is experiencing.
In Iraq, former Sunni Arab allies of al Qaeda have openly turned on the organization, and are eagerly hunting them down and killing them. Al Qaeda is fighting back, now sending death squads after Sunni Arab tribal chiefs. Does that sound like something a winner would be doing?
Al Qaeda is having some success in the Western media, and among Moslems living in Europe. But those expatriate Moslems are handicapped by many of their brethren who are not enthusiastic about Islamic terrorism. The police get tips, make arrests, and al Qaeda losses a few more true believers.
Al Qaeda is desperate for another highly visible attack in the West. Many such operations are apparently being planned, but by amateurs who can get no help from al Qaeda experts. Most of al Qaedas traveling experts are dead or in prison. Inspiring amateurs to attempt poorly planned attacks, like the recent ones in Britain, only discourage recruits. That's because another bunch of wannabes get sent away for long prison terms.
This is a fate worse than death for Islamic terrorists. There are no 72 virgins in Western prisons, unless you consider the fact that you may be turned into one.
#3
Both al-Q and the Taliban are making what to some of their number must realize is a dreadful error: they are starting blood feuds with people you don't want to start blood feuds with.
Ironically, doing so creates "anti-victory", in which by your actions you permanently deny yourself territory in war. Extremely bad tactics.
Are you saying he's wrong? He may be too pretentious for your liking, but I'd say he was spot on.
Posted by: Natural Law ||
07/02/2007 12:49 Comments ||
Top||
#3
NL: Are you saying he's wrong? He may be too pretentious for your liking, but I'd say he was spot on.
It's the Barbara Tuchman crap that's hard to take. The idea that nobody wants war but it happens anyway is bullcrap. Wars don't happen by accident. They happen for two reasons - the two sides have national objectives that are incompatible and zero sum and neither side is willing to appease the other. Wars happen because the opposing sides value their objectives over peace. War is the means of deciding whose objectives will prevail. What nobody wants is casualties. But without casualties, wars wouldn't decide anything. Like it or not, it's attrition that causes one side to back down.
#4
The writer's chief contention is that Iran's proxy forces can not be precisely controlled and that the primary players like Israel, Iran and America will inevitably be drawn into a more direct clash.
As I see it, there are even more wild cards in play. The events of 9/11/01 activated the Jacksonian ethic in U.S. foreign policy and this force is far from quiescent. The American public, by and large, can see the connection between Islamic attacks around the world and Iran's intentions (the image of Iranians burning a U.S. flag while chanting, "Death to America" come to mind). Although the current administration wishes to consolidate the situation in Iraq before addressing the Iranian problem, Iranian complicity in the production of EFPs used in Iraq or a major attack on U.S. interests around the world with Iranian fingerprints on it could provoke calls for retaliation against the head of the Islamofascist snake.
There is also a divide in Tehran itself between the realists (most of the generals) who recognize that a direct confrontation with America would be ruinous for Iran and the idealists (like Ahmadinejad) who see it as a divine mission. Political setbacks like the riots over a raising of gas prices could impel the idealists to seek a confrontation to improve their image at home, with the possibility that a miscalculation causes the situation to escalate prematurely (the capture of the English seamen was a bonanza but the stakes have now been raised).
This was not how Gordon Brown hoped to begin his term as Britains new prime minister. But shortly after assuming office last Wednesday, Brown found himself facing a full-blown terror spree: 36 tension-filled hours that saw two car bombs discovered in London and found grim punctuation this weekend when a Jeep Cherokee, manned by Islamic terrorists, crashed in a fiery blaze into the main terminal of Scotlands Glasgow Airport.
No one familiar with the events of recent years will surprised to learn that the suspects are all Muslims. Media accounts of the Glasgow attack described the men as Asian, a common shorthand for Britons of Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin, and witness accounts left little doubt about the attackers faith tradition: Those on-scene in Glasgow recalled that one of the attackers, even as he was engulfed in flames, bellowed Allah, Allah while resisting police. And while reports that one of the attackers had donned a Hamas-style suicide belt await further corroboration, British counter-terror forces have no illusions about whom theyre dealing with. Lord John Stevens, a former police chief who has been tapped as a terrorism adviser to Brown, made that abundantly clear when he noted that [t]his weekend's bomb attacks signal a major escalation in the war being waged on us by Islamic terrorists.
That prompts the question: Why now? By way of explanation, some news reports in the wake of the Glasgow attack cited a posting last week on an Islamist chat room. Signed by one Osama al-Hazeen, reputedly a repeat visitor to the site, it threatened attacks in retaliation for the war in Iraq and the knighting of author Salman Rushdie, who insulted and slandered Islam. The first theory in particular appeals to those, on the antiwar Left and isolationist Right, who see the U.S.-led military intervention in Iraq as the wellspring of jihadist wrath. The obvious flaw in that argument is that Scotland is headed by a nationalist government whose first minister, Alex Salmond of the Scottish National Party, has been the leading opponent of the war in Iraq, even supporting efforts to impeach Tony Blair over the invasion. The Glasgow attack thus demonstrates yet again that opposition to U.S.-foreign policy is no protection against Islamic terror, while exposing the hollowness of jihadists grievances and the opportunism of their apologists in the West.
Far more credible is the explanation suggested by Nile Gardiner, a fellow in Anglo-American security policy at the Heritage Foundation. The timing of the attack is significant because al-Qaeda associates attacks with historical developments and we are just days away from the anniversary of the 7-7 bombings, Gardiner told FrontPage yesterday. The recent attacks, he said, are also meant to test the resolve of the new British government. Al-Qaeda thinks that, compared to Blair, [Gordon] Brown is the weaker link, and the attack in Glasgow is part of their strategy to split Britain off from the United States in the war on terror. Gardiner speculated that Brown is unlikely to cave in to demands to withdraw forces from Iraq, though he noted that many on the Left will be clamoring for precisely that.
Browns task now is to show that he can be trusted to handle the terror threat. His early moves have been encouraging. Beyond unequivocally condemning terrorism as an act of evil in all circumstances, and sparing his countrymen familiar platitudes about the religion of peace, the Scottish prime minister has sought to give police broad powers to conduct investigations. Brown also revealed his plans to push forward a slate of counterterrorism measures, among them a provision to allow prosecutors to use evidence collected by phone and email taps in terrorism trials and another that would enable police to detain terror suspects for upward of 90 days without charge. (On the latter measure, Brown finds strong opposition from the Tories, a fact that goes a long way toward explaining the electoral weakness of Britains leading conservative party.) To those who wondered whether Blairs successor would have his clarity about the terrorism threat, it was a welcome sign that Britain is not about to unfurl the white flag.
Authorities, to be sure, have also benefited from the ineptitude of the terrorists. For example, the London car bombs were evidently so crudely made that it would have taken nothing short of divine intervention for their lethal contents -- including gas, gasoline and nails -- to explode as intended. Similarly, security officials have said that one of the suspects in the planned London attacks allowed a crystal clear picture of him to be snapped by the citys security cameras. Meanwhile, the driver of the Jeep in Glasgow plowed straight into the airport security posts, which prevented him from driving into the busy terminal. One shudders to imagine the carnage that would have ensued had the would-be terrorists been competent as well as crazed.
It seems almost unnecessary to point out that the latest attacks show that the Islamists war is global in scope and that it is driven more by religious fanaticism than a rational response to the policies of the West. But of course that elementary point needs restating when it eludes Democratic presidential candidates like John Edwards, who has declared that the global war on terror is a fiction, conjured up by the Bush administration needlessly to frighten Americans. That line may gladden the hearts of Democratic primary voters, but in a world where even Scottish civilians have to fear for their lives, Edwardss see-no-terror approach is the closest that contemporary politics comes to fantasy.
Posted by: anonymous5089 ||
07/02/2007 10:46 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under: al-Qaeda in Britain
#1
No one familiar with the events of recent years will surprised to learn that the suspects are all Muslims. Media accounts of the Glasgow attack described the men as Asian, a common shorthand for Britons of Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin, and witness accounts left little doubt about the attackers faith tradition: Those on-scene in Glasgow recalled that one of the attackers, even as he was engulfed in flames, bellowed Allah, Allah while resisting police.
"Asians" not a PC term. Jacob Laksin not a "dumb whore". And no mistaking the guys shouting "Allah" for the IRA.
#2
Also, I am by no means convinced these attacks are meant to change UK foreign policy. It seems just as likely the jihadis see these attacks as good-in-themselves. They enjoy killing women and children and so they set out to kill women and children. If they could have worked in captive-taking and rape I am certain they would have done so as well. The Koran enjoins them to these acts and promises them an ever-lasting reward (more eternal child-rape) and they hoped to get it. These acts may have no deeper meaning than that.
#3
I've only heard a few of Brown's comments, but it sounds to me like he's going to kick ass not kiss ass like Blair. Even Blair now admits his policies were wrong and not nearly enough strong actions and sanctions were taken as he allowed more and more Pak animals into Britain.
#5
Oh dear. I'm sorry, lotp, I know that isn't at all funny... The Philippines have lots of spare doctors and nurses, don't they? I recall bunches of them in the German hospital where trailing daughter #2 was born, and they already speak charming English (and at least half of the women are looking for husbands!).
#6
Could be, TW. I've mostly read about Fillipino doctors coming over as nurses, tho.
At a minimum, expelling many of the immigrant doctors from the UK could cause disruptions within the NHS at the same time as other disruptions due to budget woes. Not something a new Labour government would want to take on if they weren't forced to by strong public pressure, I suspect.
#1
Rorty, who died on 8 June 2007, argued that such exclusivity might be central to preserving world harmony. He wrote that in order to be publicly tolerant and accepting, people might require a haven where they retreat to the comfort of their moral equals and relish a familiar order.
#2
I like the ambition of the writer, but to say that the US government allows immigration of foreigners as a morally comfortable counterbalance to abuse of foreigners in Gitmo, ignores the fact that there is a case for special treatment of enemy combatants who were captured in failed states (like Afghanistan). Indulgence of illegal immigration is a factor of political cowardice, rather than from guilt caused by elites who exclude the foreign born from their in-group. However, it is true that time spent by white liberals in their private cottages, is passed in a colored free zone. I have seen that hypocritical lifestyle, first hand.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
By Siddharth Srivastava 
