EU grant boosts Palestinian funds
The European Union has agreed to grant $143 million in urgent aid for the Palestinian Authority before a government led by Hamas - which the Europeans consider a terrorist outfit - takes office.
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Iraqi People Continue to Disappoint the Pessimists
February 28, 2006
Iraqi People Continue to Disappoint the Pessimists
By Jack Kelly
The Associated Press reported Monday that Sunni Arabs in Iraq are prepared to end their boycott of talks to form a national unity government, thus disappointing yet again those journalists who've been telling us for two years civil war is imminent.
It seemed last Wednesday as if the pessimists might finally be right after terrorists destroyed the Golden Mosque in Samarra, one of the holiest sites in Shia Islam. Shia militias attacked more than a dozen Sunni mosques in retaliation. An unprecedented three day curfew was imposed in Baghdad in order to curb sectarian violence in which more than 100 people were killed.
The outbreak of violence convinced conservative icon William F. Buckley Jr. that the U.S. mission in Iraq has failed.
"Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans," Mr. Buckley wrote in National Review. "The great human reserves that call for civil life haven't proved strong enough."
Mr. Buckley is of the "realist" school of foreign policy, which believes, in essence, that "freedom and democracy are for me, but not for thee." The lesser breeds without the Law, like Iraq's Arabs, aren't ready for it now, and probably won't be ever. Buckley noted with apparent approval the view of an anonymous soldier quoted in the New York Times who said he can understand why Saddam Hussein was needed to keep the Sunnis and Shiites from each other's throats.
Mr. Buckley's pessimism may be premature. Both Sunni and Shia religious leaders have called for calm. The Moqtada al Sadr, whose militia was in the forefront of the retaliatory attacks on Sunni mosques, prayed publicly Saturday with the Sunni Association of Muslim Scholars. Thousands of ordinary Sunnis and Shias joined together in half a dozen Iraqi cities to demonstrate for peace.
"We have much more evidence of a strong national unity movement in Iraq," said Iraqi Web logger Haider Ajina of the weekend demonstrations. "This attack was supposed to plunge Iraq into sectarian mayhem and senseless massive killing. This did not happen."
These peaceful demonstrations for peace drew little attention from a news media that is eager to report on a civil war, even if it isn't happening.
"Nearly every Iraq story is inaccurate," wrote Ben Connable, a Marine major stationed in Fallujah, in an email to a friend. "The numbers are inflated, the damage exaggerated, the estimates are misleading, and the predictions are based on pure conjecture, often by people far removed from the problem."
"The Iraqi military and police forces have held together and they are doing their jobs," Maj. Connable said. "In 2004, the Iraqi military and police all but collapsed. The fact that Shia soldiers who make up the vast majority of the troops have stayed at their posts, held back the Shia militiamen, and prevented an increase in violence is remarkable. This should be one of the feature stories on the nightly news, but it barely received mention."
Those danged Iraqis. They continue to disappoint by failing to be disappointing. Could it be that most of them value freedom, democracy and peace as much as white Christians do?
This is not to say there isn't plenty of sectarian tension. Things could go south fast if negotiations for a national unity government fail. But things could get better if those who attacked the Golden Mosque are caught.
Al Qaida, which is as eager to start a sectarian civil war as the New York Times is to report on it, is the principal suspect.
"The Golden Mosque bombing will turn out to be another major defeat for the terrorists, if for no other reason than it got the two major Shia factions, the Badr and Sadr groups, to stop fighting each other," predicted StrategyPage.
But some Sunnis are claiming the real culprit is Iran, acting through the Moqtada al Sadr's militia.
There is some evidence to support the Sunni claim. Col. Austin Bay's friend "Sapper," a former combat engineer, says it would take several hours to place the roughly 200 lbs of explosives needed to drop the dome, suggesting an inside job. Guards were handcuffed and put in a safe place rather than killed, solicitude al Qaida has not shown to Shias in the past.
A desperation move by al Qaida, or the Iraqi equivalent of the Reichstag fire? Stay tuned.
Iraqi People Continue to Disappoint the Pessimists
By Jack Kelly
The Associated Press reported Monday that Sunni Arabs in Iraq are prepared to end their boycott of talks to form a national unity government, thus disappointing yet again those journalists who've been telling us for two years civil war is imminent.
It seemed last Wednesday as if the pessimists might finally be right after terrorists destroyed the Golden Mosque in Samarra, one of the holiest sites in Shia Islam. Shia militias attacked more than a dozen Sunni mosques in retaliation. An unprecedented three day curfew was imposed in Baghdad in order to curb sectarian violence in which more than 100 people were killed.
The outbreak of violence convinced conservative icon William F. Buckley Jr. that the U.S. mission in Iraq has failed.
"Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans," Mr. Buckley wrote in National Review. "The great human reserves that call for civil life haven't proved strong enough."
Mr. Buckley is of the "realist" school of foreign policy, which believes, in essence, that "freedom and democracy are for me, but not for thee." The lesser breeds without the Law, like Iraq's Arabs, aren't ready for it now, and probably won't be ever. Buckley noted with apparent approval the view of an anonymous soldier quoted in the New York Times who said he can understand why Saddam Hussein was needed to keep the Sunnis and Shiites from each other's throats.
Mr. Buckley's pessimism may be premature. Both Sunni and Shia religious leaders have called for calm. The Moqtada al Sadr, whose militia was in the forefront of the retaliatory attacks on Sunni mosques, prayed publicly Saturday with the Sunni Association of Muslim Scholars. Thousands of ordinary Sunnis and Shias joined together in half a dozen Iraqi cities to demonstrate for peace.
"We have much more evidence of a strong national unity movement in Iraq," said Iraqi Web logger Haider Ajina of the weekend demonstrations. "This attack was supposed to plunge Iraq into sectarian mayhem and senseless massive killing. This did not happen."
These peaceful demonstrations for peace drew little attention from a news media that is eager to report on a civil war, even if it isn't happening.
"Nearly every Iraq story is inaccurate," wrote Ben Connable, a Marine major stationed in Fallujah, in an email to a friend. "The numbers are inflated, the damage exaggerated, the estimates are misleading, and the predictions are based on pure conjecture, often by people far removed from the problem."
"The Iraqi military and police forces have held together and they are doing their jobs," Maj. Connable said. "In 2004, the Iraqi military and police all but collapsed. The fact that Shia soldiers who make up the vast majority of the troops have stayed at their posts, held back the Shia militiamen, and prevented an increase in violence is remarkable. This should be one of the feature stories on the nightly news, but it barely received mention."
Those danged Iraqis. They continue to disappoint by failing to be disappointing. Could it be that most of them value freedom, democracy and peace as much as white Christians do?
This is not to say there isn't plenty of sectarian tension. Things could go south fast if negotiations for a national unity government fail. But things could get better if those who attacked the Golden Mosque are caught.
Al Qaida, which is as eager to start a sectarian civil war as the New York Times is to report on it, is the principal suspect.
"The Golden Mosque bombing will turn out to be another major defeat for the terrorists, if for no other reason than it got the two major Shia factions, the Badr and Sadr groups, to stop fighting each other," predicted StrategyPage.
But some Sunnis are claiming the real culprit is Iran, acting through the Moqtada al Sadr's militia.
There is some evidence to support the Sunni claim. Col. Austin Bay's friend "Sapper," a former combat engineer, says it would take several hours to place the roughly 200 lbs of explosives needed to drop the dome, suggesting an inside job. Guards were handcuffed and put in a safe place rather than killed, solicitude al Qaida has not shown to Shias in the past.
A desperation move by al Qaida, or the Iraqi equivalent of the Reichstag fire? Stay tuned.
Monday, February 27, 2006
The ASSHOLES at State
READ THIS Senior U.S. envoy vows continued aid to PA even after Hamas takeover
Ports and Borders
Lets look at the real problem SECURITY. The problem is not that DPW is going to run some ports, the problem is the same as the security problem at the Border. The fact that there is NONE. That's what this comes down to. I don't like DPW but they have a hell of a reputation for running some of the best Port Facilities in the world, and they don't like Unions. Right there they've got my vote. However do I think it's a good Idea that ANY ARAB country be involved in running our ports HELL NO.
The problem is GW is weak on the physical border security of this country. The number of terrorists and drug smugglers that are storming over our southern border is a joke. However it's not a laughing matter. The ILLEGAL immigration problem is bankrupting the southern half of the country.
The ports are a major threat. A WMD if one were to be smuggled into the country would more than likely be brought in this way just due to the logistics. Add on top of that the million can version of three card Monty and you would be stupid not to try. Only 5% of the shipping containers are even being looked at let alone subjected to a real search or scan. That is the Governments fault. NOT the fault of DPW or any other Company that would run our ports. Are Government is putting us at risk everyday due to this lack of security.
Every port in the Nation needs to have a Nuclear detection scanner that a ship has to pass through before entering the port. These machines do exist. What the cost of 50 of these machines would be will be astronomical, but what will the cost be of a detonation in Philly, NY, or SF be?
The responsibility for this task rests solely on the Federal Government. Its original and sole purpose by Constitutional Law is to Protect and Defend us. So far on the Homeland front the are grossly negligent on providing what we are paying for.
This is the real issue of this whole debate about the Ports, yet most people are ignoring it. We need a complete revamping of how business is done at our points of entry. Whether those points are by land or Sea. The Military needs to be stationed at our borders and our ports the flow of traffic into the country must be controlled. Right now it is not. We are a nation that is at war and under seige. This is what we need to face, like it or not the wholes that we are providing for the people that want to kill us are there and will be used.
This debate about the Ports could be providing us the vehicle to deal with this vulnerability yet I will lay dollar to donuts that we will miss the opportunity.
Iraq Is Not Lost
February 27, 2006
Iraq Is Not Lost
By Lieutenant Colonel John M. Kanaley
During Napoleon’s occupation of Egypt, a Muslim writer described his fascination and admiration for the French method of jurisprudence even during hostilities. According to historian Bernard Lewis, the writer compared French due process to the extremist Muslims who pretended to be warriors in a holy war but killed people and destroyed human beings for no other reason than to gratify their animal passions. This terrorist tactic is not new to this current war; yet, it is having an adverse effect on how some people define success. Too many have fallen under the influential barrage of the information campaign waged by the terrorists and by those who believe the time has come to leave the Middle-East theater, regardless of the outcome for Iraq.
The latest victim of negative news comes from a most unexpected source-the preeminent conservative thinker of the past half century: William F. Buckley. He once eloquently debated Ronald Reagan during the Carter years on the Panama Canal issue, against the wave of conservative thought at that time. However, he now has presented his perception of failure on the Iraq war in less convincing terms.
The sources contributing to his position are quite questionable. He has apparently relied upon the New York Times to provide a ‘man on the street’ quote from an Iraqi businessman. He continued by mentioning the Iranian president’s usual “blame everything on the Zionists” reference. Buckley’s last source came from an inconclusive thought provided by an “anonymous” American soldier.
To enhance his belief in his essay, “It Didn’t Work”, Mr. Buckley described how the businessman blames Iraq’s problems on America. It is puzzling to rely on this quote, since the man is described as being a member of a Sunni stronghold, so it is not difficult to surmise where his loyalties originate. This same interviewing technique would have produced the same result from Berlin in 1945.
The anonymous soldier that Buckley referred to apparently has come to the realization that he is now aware of why Saddam Hussein was needed to keep the Sunnis and the Shiites from each other’s throats. (Apparently, the news organizations failed to report that Hussein must have finished a close second for the Nobel Peace Prize for his protection of the Shiites). Rather than playing the referee in Baghdad, evidence shows that the butcher was actually leading the Sunni charge against the Shiite throats in a one-way contest of torture and suppression.
It is surprising that such a learned man as Buckley has fallen victim to the misinformation side of this conflict. He attempts to back up his interpretation of this war being a failure by posing some postulates. The first one is that the Iraqi people would put aside their divisions and establish a political environment that guarantees religious freedom. If he assumes that the Iraqis failed in this pursuit, he should review the second paragraph of Article 2 of the Iraqi Constitution which expressly delineates that particular freedom.
Mr. Buckley’s second postulate assumes that Americans would succeed in training Iraqi soldiers to handle insurgents bent on violence. He followed this by saying that this did not happen. His conclusion is absolutely false. What war has he been watching? The training program is currently underway and has succeeded to the extent that the Iraqis are taking on missions and commanding terrain previously under the control of the coalition.
Mr. Buckley went on to ask what we should do when we see that the postulates do not prevail. Unfortunately, he has come to false conclusions because he has negated the postulates without looking at the data, relying instead upon the massive amount of negative reporting, and apparently basing his ultimate conclusion on three unreliable sources in his essay. Eventually, his suggestion is to abandon the postulates.
Why abandon success just because the enemy and the anti-war crowd say it has failed? Therefore, it is sometimes necessary to place the events in Iraq in context. From the signing of the American Declaration of Independence, it took nearly 40 years, a constitutional convention, and four presidents to finally achieve a sense of security in the United States. In the country’s infancy, it was never completely secure with the English, French, and Spanish waiting for the right opportunity to recover all they had lost at the expense of the American quest for freedom and sovereignty.
As the third anniversary of the Iraqi invasion approaches, the success in that country is undeniable. One of world’s bloodiest tyrants has been deposed and the first elections were held less than 22 months later. Nine months afterward, a constitution had been formed and overwhelmingly approved by a public referendum. To cap off the electoral success of 2005, a permanent government was voted upon. A momentous achievement to note was that the voters for the new Council of Representatives included a significant number of Sunnis who had boycotted the first election.
In one of his closing comments, Mr. Buckley assumes that eventually President Bush and the military leaders will acknowledge a tactical setback and instead insist on the survival of strategic policies. He has the tactical and strategic definitions confused. The war has been an overwhelming tactical success. Even the enemy has conceded this, which is why the terrorists have relied upon the sensational news of blowing up innocent civilians. Since they are unable to confront coalition forces or the Iraqi Army, they have targeted the weakest link, yet survive upon the benefits that the mainstream media and the left have provided. Those unwilling to continue the success in Iraq look upon the negative news and are adamant that this must be leading to a civil war, thus, indicating defeat in the overall mission. On the contrary, the President and top military leaders have maintained a consistent vision for success in the strategic arena which requires a firm commitment to ensure a free and democratic Iraq.
It is difficult to witness somebody of Buckley’s stature acknowledging defeat in the last sentence of his essay. Has he fallen for the boisterous negativity of the anti-war crowd? Mr. Buckley, say it isn’t so. The title of your piece is wrong. The strategic mission in Iraq has worked and it continues to do so.
John M. Kanaley is a Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Army. He serves in Baghdad, Iraq.
Iraq Is Not Lost
By Lieutenant Colonel John M. Kanaley
During Napoleon’s occupation of Egypt, a Muslim writer described his fascination and admiration for the French method of jurisprudence even during hostilities. According to historian Bernard Lewis, the writer compared French due process to the extremist Muslims who pretended to be warriors in a holy war but killed people and destroyed human beings for no other reason than to gratify their animal passions. This terrorist tactic is not new to this current war; yet, it is having an adverse effect on how some people define success. Too many have fallen under the influential barrage of the information campaign waged by the terrorists and by those who believe the time has come to leave the Middle-East theater, regardless of the outcome for Iraq.
The latest victim of negative news comes from a most unexpected source-the preeminent conservative thinker of the past half century: William F. Buckley. He once eloquently debated Ronald Reagan during the Carter years on the Panama Canal issue, against the wave of conservative thought at that time. However, he now has presented his perception of failure on the Iraq war in less convincing terms.
The sources contributing to his position are quite questionable. He has apparently relied upon the New York Times to provide a ‘man on the street’ quote from an Iraqi businessman. He continued by mentioning the Iranian president’s usual “blame everything on the Zionists” reference. Buckley’s last source came from an inconclusive thought provided by an “anonymous” American soldier.
To enhance his belief in his essay, “It Didn’t Work”, Mr. Buckley described how the businessman blames Iraq’s problems on America. It is puzzling to rely on this quote, since the man is described as being a member of a Sunni stronghold, so it is not difficult to surmise where his loyalties originate. This same interviewing technique would have produced the same result from Berlin in 1945.
The anonymous soldier that Buckley referred to apparently has come to the realization that he is now aware of why Saddam Hussein was needed to keep the Sunnis and the Shiites from each other’s throats. (Apparently, the news organizations failed to report that Hussein must have finished a close second for the Nobel Peace Prize for his protection of the Shiites). Rather than playing the referee in Baghdad, evidence shows that the butcher was actually leading the Sunni charge against the Shiite throats in a one-way contest of torture and suppression.
It is surprising that such a learned man as Buckley has fallen victim to the misinformation side of this conflict. He attempts to back up his interpretation of this war being a failure by posing some postulates. The first one is that the Iraqi people would put aside their divisions and establish a political environment that guarantees religious freedom. If he assumes that the Iraqis failed in this pursuit, he should review the second paragraph of Article 2 of the Iraqi Constitution which expressly delineates that particular freedom.
Mr. Buckley’s second postulate assumes that Americans would succeed in training Iraqi soldiers to handle insurgents bent on violence. He followed this by saying that this did not happen. His conclusion is absolutely false. What war has he been watching? The training program is currently underway and has succeeded to the extent that the Iraqis are taking on missions and commanding terrain previously under the control of the coalition.
Mr. Buckley went on to ask what we should do when we see that the postulates do not prevail. Unfortunately, he has come to false conclusions because he has negated the postulates without looking at the data, relying instead upon the massive amount of negative reporting, and apparently basing his ultimate conclusion on three unreliable sources in his essay. Eventually, his suggestion is to abandon the postulates.
Why abandon success just because the enemy and the anti-war crowd say it has failed? Therefore, it is sometimes necessary to place the events in Iraq in context. From the signing of the American Declaration of Independence, it took nearly 40 years, a constitutional convention, and four presidents to finally achieve a sense of security in the United States. In the country’s infancy, it was never completely secure with the English, French, and Spanish waiting for the right opportunity to recover all they had lost at the expense of the American quest for freedom and sovereignty.
As the third anniversary of the Iraqi invasion approaches, the success in that country is undeniable. One of world’s bloodiest tyrants has been deposed and the first elections were held less than 22 months later. Nine months afterward, a constitution had been formed and overwhelmingly approved by a public referendum. To cap off the electoral success of 2005, a permanent government was voted upon. A momentous achievement to note was that the voters for the new Council of Representatives included a significant number of Sunnis who had boycotted the first election.
In one of his closing comments, Mr. Buckley assumes that eventually President Bush and the military leaders will acknowledge a tactical setback and instead insist on the survival of strategic policies. He has the tactical and strategic definitions confused. The war has been an overwhelming tactical success. Even the enemy has conceded this, which is why the terrorists have relied upon the sensational news of blowing up innocent civilians. Since they are unable to confront coalition forces or the Iraqi Army, they have targeted the weakest link, yet survive upon the benefits that the mainstream media and the left have provided. Those unwilling to continue the success in Iraq look upon the negative news and are adamant that this must be leading to a civil war, thus, indicating defeat in the overall mission. On the contrary, the President and top military leaders have maintained a consistent vision for success in the strategic arena which requires a firm commitment to ensure a free and democratic Iraq.
It is difficult to witness somebody of Buckley’s stature acknowledging defeat in the last sentence of his essay. Has he fallen for the boisterous negativity of the anti-war crowd? Mr. Buckley, say it isn’t so. The title of your piece is wrong. The strategic mission in Iraq has worked and it continues to do so.
John M. Kanaley is a Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Army. He serves in Baghdad, Iraq.
Sunday, February 26, 2006
Hamas defends close relations with Iran
Al-Khalil, Feb 23, IRNA
Palestine-Hamas-Iran The Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, has defended close relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran, saying the next Palestinian government would seek closer and stronger ties with Islamic countries.
Hamas' spokesman in the southern West Bank Nayef Rajoub told IRNA that "Americans would be disappointed if they thought that we will seek to please the west at the expense of our relations with the Muslim world." Rajoub, who is expected to assume a ministerial position in the upcoming Hamas-led government, said Hamas viewed Iran as a "sisterly nation that we respect and love." "We will not keep a distance between us and Iran just to please and appease the United States and the oppressive entity (Israel)." Rajoub said Hamas and the Palestinian government would seek to create good relations with all countries including Europe and the US.
"Our problem is with the Zionist regime, with the occupiers of our homeland and oppressors of our people." Rajoub said the resistance against the Israeli occupation would continue as long as the occupation itself continued.
"The resistance itself is not a strategy. It is a means to end this evil occupation and oppression. If the international community gives us credible assurances that the occupation will end soon, then we will observe calm." 2089/260/1771
Palestine-Hamas-Iran The Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, has defended close relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran, saying the next Palestinian government would seek closer and stronger ties with Islamic countries.
Hamas' spokesman in the southern West Bank Nayef Rajoub told IRNA that "Americans would be disappointed if they thought that we will seek to please the west at the expense of our relations with the Muslim world." Rajoub, who is expected to assume a ministerial position in the upcoming Hamas-led government, said Hamas viewed Iran as a "sisterly nation that we respect and love." "We will not keep a distance between us and Iran just to please and appease the United States and the oppressive entity (Israel)." Rajoub said Hamas and the Palestinian government would seek to create good relations with all countries including Europe and the US.
"Our problem is with the Zionist regime, with the occupiers of our homeland and oppressors of our people." Rajoub said the resistance against the Israeli occupation would continue as long as the occupation itself continued.
"The resistance itself is not a strategy. It is a means to end this evil occupation and oppression. If the international community gives us credible assurances that the occupation will end soon, then we will observe calm." 2089/260/1771
Has Iran Crossed the Rubicon?
Amir Taheri, Arab NewsHaving resumed uranium enrichment, has Iran crossed the Rubicon?
The question is dividing commentators and decision-makers both inside and outside Iran.
Some, like former US Vice President Al Gore, believe that Iran is a threat to world peace and must be checked, by force if necessary. Others like Gore's former boss, ex-President Bill Clinton, are convinced that the best way to deal with Iran is to negotiate.
Both, however, may be missing the point.
If military action means a few brief air strikes or missile attacks, it is certain to be counterproductive.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad might even welcome such attacks in the hope that they will lift the uncertainty that is damaging the Iranian economy and undermining his authority. And he would not be wrong.
The ineffective missile attacks that President Clinton launched in Afghanistan and Iraq in the 1990s strengthened the regimes in Kabul and Baghdad in two ways.
First, the attacks demonstrated that when the American Damocles sword falls, it does only limited damage. Secondly, the attacks showed that the US did not pursue the broader objective of regime change, the only thing that would have made the Taleban and the Saddamites to pay attention.
Today, we face a similar situation with Iran.
As long as no regime change is on the agenda the leadership in Tehran would not be swayed by air raids or missile attacks. Constant saber rattling by Tehran's genuine or fake adversaries plays into the hands of a new leadership which is actively seeking a "clash of civilization" provided its hold on power is not threatened.
The new Tehran leadership is flattered by the fact that the United States is treating it as an almost equal adversary rather than a ramshackle Third World regime.
The Iraqi politician Ahmad Chalabi, who has talked to the Iranian leaders recently, is quoted as saying that in today's world only three countries are genuinely free to act as they please: The United States, China and Iran.
Ahmadinejad agrees, but leaves China out. He believes that the world today faces a choice between an Americanized existence or diversity under the leadership of Iran.
If Gore's idea of a muscular answer to Iran is out, should we adopt Clinton's scenario for negotiations?
Once again the problem is that any diplomatic process that Clinton might imagine would play into the hands of the leadership in Tehran.
Here is why: To persuade Tehran to negotiate it would be necessary to postpone referring its dossier to the United Nations' Security Council. And that is precisely what Tehran is working hard to achieve.
Tehran would like nothing better than a resumption of talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in exchange for postponing any action by the Security Council. To lubricate things along the way Tehran might even offer to introduce another "temporary suspension" of its uranium enrichment program within a year or two.
At the same time the Tehran leadership wants to keep the focus on the nuclear issue.
This could win the regime a measure of popular support inside Iran where most people do not know what the fuss is about and resent being treated as "less than the Indians" when it comes to having nuclear weapons. At the same time, exclusive attention to the nuclear issue will push other, potentially more explosive issues, such as violation of human rights, waves of executions, and ethnic unrest in many parts of Iran, out of the limelight.
Manuchehr Motakki, the new foreign minister, has used a Persian proverb to explain Tehran's diplomacy: There is hope from pillar to pillar!
This means that Iran's diplomacy is geared to achieve two things: First, to prevent the emergence of a consensus among the major powers on regime change in Iran and, secondly, to keep the major powers engaged in an open-ended talking process. Thus, Clinton's analysis would play right into the hands of Ahmadinejad.
The Iranian analysis is based on the belief that the current American strategy is the product of "a moment of madness under President George W. Bush." Thus, it is assumed that Bush has been acting out of character for an American president and that, once he is out of office, his successor, whoever it is, will revert to the traditional American policy of "conflict avoidance" and "alliance building" for soft-power action.
All the talk in Tehran, and by extension in Damascus Iran has now established itself as the principal supporter of the Syrian regime, is about "the three-year endurance course" that consists of what is left of President Bush's second and final term in office.
It is on that basis of that analysis that Tehran will not enter any negotiations that would question its right to develop what Ahmadinejad describes as "a full scientific nuclear cycle." And it is also on that basis that President Bashar Assad has decided not only to tell the United Nations to stuff it but also to reassert Syria's dominance in Lebanon through a new Shiite-Maronite alliance underwritten by Tehran.
The irony of all this is that the Bush administration has played the part assigned to it in the Iranian script. It has thrown its lot with the advocates of diplomacy and soft-power thus giving Ahmadinejad the assurance that there will be no unilateral American action against Iran. At the same time, Washington is doing enough saber-rattling to give credence to Ahmadinejad's claim that a "clash of civilizations" is under way with Iran leading one camp and the US another. In the set speech that he delivers during his campaign-like visits to the provinces, Ahmadinejad mocks the major powers for their "obsession with passing resolutions."
"They just don't get it," he told an audience in Bushehr earlier this month. "They think that because they pass a resolution everyone is obliged to obey them. Our message is simple: Pass resolutions until you are blue in the face! We are guided by what the Hidden Imam tells us, not what you dictate in your resolutions."
If the resolutions of the Security Council are meant to serve as sticks, it is already clear that they do not perform that function as far as Iran is concerned. A regime that claims a world leadership in a "clash of civilizations" and promises to "save the world from total Americanization" will not be swayed by such classical tactics.
When it comes to dealing with Iran neither the Gore scenario nor the Clinton alternative are likely to work. The Gore scenario is doomed because even he might not support a full-scale war to change the regime in Tehran. The Clinton scenario would not work because even he would not be prepared to grant what Ahmadinejad demands.
So, what is to be done? Ah, that requires another column, doesn't it?
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Vatican to Muslims: practice what you preach
By Tom Heneghan, Religion Editor
PARIS (Reuters) - After backing calls by Muslims for respect for their religion in the Mohammad cartoons row, the Vatican is now urging Islamic countries to reciprocate by showing more tolerance toward their Christian minorities.
Roman Catholic leaders at first said Muslims were right to be outraged when Western newspapers reprinted Danish caricatures of the Prophet, including one with a bomb in his turban. Most Muslims consider any images of Mohammad to be blasphemous.
After criticizing both the cartoons and the violent protests in Muslim countries that followed, the Vatican this week linked the issue to its long-standing concern that the rights of other faiths are limited, sometimes severely, in Muslim countries.
Vatican prelates have been concerned by recent killings of two Catholic priests in Turkey and Nigeria. Turkish media linked the death there to the cartoons row. At least 146 Christians and Muslims have died in five days of religious riots in Nigeria.
"If we tell our people they have no right to offend, we have to tell the others they have no right to destroy us," Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the Vatican's Secretary of State (prime minister), told journalists in Rome.
"We must always stress our demand for reciprocity in political contacts with authorities in Islamic countries and, even more, in cultural contacts," Foreign Minister Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo told the daily Corriere della Sera.
Reciprocity -- allowing Christian minorities the same rights as Muslims generally have in Western countries, such as building houses of worship or practicing religion freely -- is at the heart of Vatican diplomacy toward Muslim states.
Vatican diplomats argue that limits on Christians in some Islamic countries are far harsher than restrictions in the West that Muslims decry, such as France's ban on headscarves in state schools.
Saudi Arabia bans all public expression of any non-Muslim religion and sometimes arrests Christians even for worshipping privately. Pakistan allows churches to operate but its Islamic laws effectively deprive Christians of many rights.
Both countries are often criticized at the United Nations Human Rights Commission for violating religious freedoms.
"ENOUGH TURNING THE OTHER CHEEK"
Pope Benedict signaled his concern on Monday when he told the new Moroccan ambassador to the Vatican that peace can only be assured by "respect for the religious convictions and practices of others, in a reciprocal way in all societies."
He mentioned no countries by name. Morocco is tolerant of other religions, but like all Muslim countries frowns on conversion from Islam to another faith.
Iraqi Christians say they were well treated under Saddam Hussein's secular policies, but believers have been killed, churches burned and women forced to wear Muslim garb since Islamic groups gained sway after the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.
Christians make up only a tiny fraction of the population in most Muslim countries. War and political pressure in recent decades have forced many to emigrate from Middle Eastern communities dating back to just after the time of Jesus.
As often happens at the Vatican, lower-level officials have been more outspoken than the Pope and his main aides.
"Enough now with this turning the other cheek! It's our duty to protect ourselves," Monsignor Velasio De Paolis, secretary of the Vatican's supreme court, thundered in the daily La Stampa. Jesus told his followers to "turn the other cheek" when struck.
"The West has had relations with the Arab countries for half a century, mostly for oil, and has not been able to get the slightest concession on human rights," he said.
Bishop Rino Fisichella, head of one of the Roman universities that train young priests from around the world, told Corriere della Sera the Vatican should speak out more.
"Let's drop this diplomatic silence," said the rector of the Pontifical Lateran University. "We should put pressure on international organizations to make the societies and states in majority Muslim countries face up to their responsibilities."
I also want to add to this article by saying that they should also practice what they preach amongst themselves I mean sure they are forbidon from drawing pictures of Mohhamad but I guess it's OK for one Muslim to blow up another Muslims Mosque LOL
PARIS (Reuters) - After backing calls by Muslims for respect for their religion in the Mohammad cartoons row, the Vatican is now urging Islamic countries to reciprocate by showing more tolerance toward their Christian minorities.
Roman Catholic leaders at first said Muslims were right to be outraged when Western newspapers reprinted Danish caricatures of the Prophet, including one with a bomb in his turban. Most Muslims consider any images of Mohammad to be blasphemous.
After criticizing both the cartoons and the violent protests in Muslim countries that followed, the Vatican this week linked the issue to its long-standing concern that the rights of other faiths are limited, sometimes severely, in Muslim countries.
Vatican prelates have been concerned by recent killings of two Catholic priests in Turkey and Nigeria. Turkish media linked the death there to the cartoons row. At least 146 Christians and Muslims have died in five days of religious riots in Nigeria.
"If we tell our people they have no right to offend, we have to tell the others they have no right to destroy us," Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the Vatican's Secretary of State (prime minister), told journalists in Rome.
"We must always stress our demand for reciprocity in political contacts with authorities in Islamic countries and, even more, in cultural contacts," Foreign Minister Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo told the daily Corriere della Sera.
Reciprocity -- allowing Christian minorities the same rights as Muslims generally have in Western countries, such as building houses of worship or practicing religion freely -- is at the heart of Vatican diplomacy toward Muslim states.
Vatican diplomats argue that limits on Christians in some Islamic countries are far harsher than restrictions in the West that Muslims decry, such as France's ban on headscarves in state schools.
Saudi Arabia bans all public expression of any non-Muslim religion and sometimes arrests Christians even for worshipping privately. Pakistan allows churches to operate but its Islamic laws effectively deprive Christians of many rights.
Both countries are often criticized at the United Nations Human Rights Commission for violating religious freedoms.
"ENOUGH TURNING THE OTHER CHEEK"
Pope Benedict signaled his concern on Monday when he told the new Moroccan ambassador to the Vatican that peace can only be assured by "respect for the religious convictions and practices of others, in a reciprocal way in all societies."
He mentioned no countries by name. Morocco is tolerant of other religions, but like all Muslim countries frowns on conversion from Islam to another faith.
Iraqi Christians say they were well treated under Saddam Hussein's secular policies, but believers have been killed, churches burned and women forced to wear Muslim garb since Islamic groups gained sway after the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.
Christians make up only a tiny fraction of the population in most Muslim countries. War and political pressure in recent decades have forced many to emigrate from Middle Eastern communities dating back to just after the time of Jesus.
As often happens at the Vatican, lower-level officials have been more outspoken than the Pope and his main aides.
"Enough now with this turning the other cheek! It's our duty to protect ourselves," Monsignor Velasio De Paolis, secretary of the Vatican's supreme court, thundered in the daily La Stampa. Jesus told his followers to "turn the other cheek" when struck.
"The West has had relations with the Arab countries for half a century, mostly for oil, and has not been able to get the slightest concession on human rights," he said.
Bishop Rino Fisichella, head of one of the Roman universities that train young priests from around the world, told Corriere della Sera the Vatican should speak out more.
"Let's drop this diplomatic silence," said the rector of the Pontifical Lateran University. "We should put pressure on international organizations to make the societies and states in majority Muslim countries face up to their responsibilities."
I also want to add to this article by saying that they should also practice what they preach amongst themselves I mean sure they are forbidon from drawing pictures of Mohhamad but I guess it's OK for one Muslim to blow up another Muslims Mosque LOL
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein has to be one of biggest Asses
Feinstein Unveils Plan To Make Cross-Border Tunnels A CrimeFeb. 21 - U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Tuesday that she will introduce legislation to make the financing and construction of cross-border tunnels a federal crime, punishable by up to 20 years in prison. Gee you think that would be good Senator then support the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act (HR 4437). That the house passed it will do that and a lot more.
Feinstein spoke inside a warehouse where authorities last month found the longest cross-border tunnel ever discovered along the U.S.-Mexico border.
"Oh, for heaven's sake!" she said as she peered inside the 2,400-foot passageway that leads to a warehouse in Tijuana, Mexico. "Unbelievable, unbelievable." What an ASS as her state goes bankrupt from the costs of ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION she ACTS Shocked LOL
//
Feinstein released a map of 39 secret tunnels discovered on the U.S.-Mexico border since Sept. 11, 2001, the vast majority in and around San Diego and Nogales, Ariz. Authorities found 21 along California's border with Mexico, including eight in San Diego in the past two months.
None were discovered in Texas or New Mexico. One was found along the U.S.-Canadian border last year -- a passage that linked a hut in Langley, British Columbia, to a living room in Lynden, Wash. But there is NO ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION problem right Senator
None of the tunnels have been linked to terrorists and many were never completed, but Feinstein said they represent a threat to national security. OOOH now she's a Hawk LOL
"Think of everything that can be smuggled underground that can do this nation and our people great harm," the California Democrat told reporters. DUH
Feinstein's bill, to be co-sponsored by Arizona Republican Sen. Jon Kyl, would impose jail terms of up to 20 years for building or financing a cross-border tunnel and up to 10 years for landlords who negligently allow them to be built on their property. but I'm sure would grant amnesty to any ILLEGAL that crawled through them.
"It was amazing to all of us that it was legal to build tunnels like this," said San Diego County Sheriff Bill Kolender. Like I said as her State goes bankrupt she can't see the problem.
The massive tunnel discovered last month in San Diego was lit, ventilated and went as deep as 90 feet. Carlos Cardenas Calvillo, a Mexican citizen, who worked at the San Diego warehouse where the tunnel surfaced, was charged with conspiracy to import marijuana.
Feinstein's office estimated that 12 tunnels were discovered along the U.S.-Mexico border between 1990 and September 2001. None were found along the Canadian border during that time. Senator Your an ASS
Iran promises financial assistance to PA
Gee What a Suprprise I wonder who will be one of the first groups to get one of Tehrans NukesIran offered Wednesday to help finance a Palestinian Authority run by Hamas, state radio reported.
The secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, Ali Larijani, announced the offer after a meeting with Khaled Mashaal, exiled leader of the Hamas, in Tehran, the radio said.
Larijani said the decision was taken after the United States said it would not provide aid to an authority governed by Hamas until the group renounced violence, recognized Israel and agreed to abide by existing agreements between Israel and the Palestinians.
"The United States proved that it would not support democracy after it cut its aid to the Palestinian government after Hamas won the elections. We will certainly help the Palestinians," Larijani said, according to the radio.
Mashaal said Tuesday that Iran will have a "major role" in Palestinian affairs. But Hamas leaders in the territories told The Jerusalem Post that they were "not rushing" to embrace that role.
"The ayatollah's regime will have a major role in Palestine," Mashaal said during a meeting in Teheran with Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki. "We trust Iran to help us deal with the challenges facing us today."
Mashaal is visiting Iran as part of a tour of Arab and Muslim countries aimed at gaining political and financial support for the soon-to-be Hamas-led government. The Palestinian Authority faces a serious financial crunch and possible collapse following the landslide Hamas victory in the recent Palestinian legislative elections.
The US, EU and Canada have threatened to stop all assistance to the Palestinian Authority once Hamas takes control.
From Iraq The Model
Terrorists take their boldest step to provoke Civil War in Iraq
Iraq The Model
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Holy Shia shrine bombed in Samarra.
As if we didn't have enough problems already!The quality of the target and the timing of the attack were chosen in a way that can possibly bring very serious consequences over the country.The situation in Baghdad is so tense now, it wasn't like this in the early hours of the morning as it took a few hours for the news to spread but on my way back from clinic I saw pickup vehicles with loudspeakers roaming the streets calling on people to shut their stores in the name of the Hawza and join the protests after the noon prayer to condemn the attack on the holy shrine.Ayatollah Sistani reacted quickly to the escalating anger by issuing a fatwa that forbids his followers from "Taking any action against Sunni sites" obviously to discourage his followers from carrying out retaliatory attacks on Sunni mosques. Sistani has also demanded a 7 day mourning and to consider it a week off but the government so far has announced only a 3 day official mourning.Muqtada cut his tour in Lebanon and is heading back to Baghdad, he called on his followers from Beirut to "have self-control and refrain from violence".Right now there's heavy deployment for the police and other security forces with more frequent checkpoints that are stop-searching cars more often than they usually do.Sporadic gunfire is heard in different spots in Baghdad but no one knows for sure if the firing meant clashes or mere angry shooting in the air.From where I'm sitting now I can hear both Sunni and Shia mosques are condemning the attack through their loudspeakers.I believe there are foreign terror groups behind this attack and I don't think local insurgent would do such a thing, simply because this particular shrine had been in Sunni territory for a thousand years and the residents of Samarra had always benefited from the movement of religious tourism and pilgrimage.Things look scary here in Baghdad and I hope there won't be more updates to report as I can't see a positive thing coming out of this.Update 4:30 pmIt seems that I have no choice but to point out a few important updates that I found from the local media as well as my personal observations:-President Talabani promises to make rebuilding the shrine his personal responsibility and to donate the required money from his own.-Head of the Sunni endowment sheikh Ahmed al-Samarra'I announces that he will allocate 2 billion dinars (~1.4 million $) for the rebuilding of the shrine from the treasury of the Sunni endowment.-Huge demonstrations in many of Iraq's provinces including Samarra and Mosul where thousands of people condemned the attack.-The top 4 Shia Ayatollahs hold a meeting at Sistani's home to discuss the situation.-The Association of Muslim scholars and the Islamic Party condemn the "criminal act".-Retaliatory attacks on reportedly 29 Sunni mosques and the Accord Front warns from the consequences of such violent reactions.-Jafari in a press conference calls for national unity and the leaders of the UIA hold a meeting. A press release is expected to come soon.-The Iraqi TV opened the phone lines to receive the reactions of the audience to the attack and hosts Sunni clerics and politicians in an attempt to relieve the tension.-Baghdad is in undeclared emergency situation, shops closed and streets nearly empty.-Tight security around the shrine of Abu Haneefa in Aazamiya district of Baghdad, this is considered the top shrine/mosque for Sunni Muslims in Iraq.-Masked gunmen attack Shia protestors in at least one neighborhood in western Baghdad and armed clashes in Ghazaliya and Hay al-A'amil.-People exchange phones calls with their relatives and friends to check on them and discourage them from leaving their homes.
Posted by Omar
Iraq The Model
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Holy Shia shrine bombed in Samarra.
As if we didn't have enough problems already!The quality of the target and the timing of the attack were chosen in a way that can possibly bring very serious consequences over the country.The situation in Baghdad is so tense now, it wasn't like this in the early hours of the morning as it took a few hours for the news to spread but on my way back from clinic I saw pickup vehicles with loudspeakers roaming the streets calling on people to shut their stores in the name of the Hawza and join the protests after the noon prayer to condemn the attack on the holy shrine.Ayatollah Sistani reacted quickly to the escalating anger by issuing a fatwa that forbids his followers from "Taking any action against Sunni sites" obviously to discourage his followers from carrying out retaliatory attacks on Sunni mosques. Sistani has also demanded a 7 day mourning and to consider it a week off but the government so far has announced only a 3 day official mourning.Muqtada cut his tour in Lebanon and is heading back to Baghdad, he called on his followers from Beirut to "have self-control and refrain from violence".Right now there's heavy deployment for the police and other security forces with more frequent checkpoints that are stop-searching cars more often than they usually do.Sporadic gunfire is heard in different spots in Baghdad but no one knows for sure if the firing meant clashes or mere angry shooting in the air.From where I'm sitting now I can hear both Sunni and Shia mosques are condemning the attack through their loudspeakers.I believe there are foreign terror groups behind this attack and I don't think local insurgent would do such a thing, simply because this particular shrine had been in Sunni territory for a thousand years and the residents of Samarra had always benefited from the movement of religious tourism and pilgrimage.Things look scary here in Baghdad and I hope there won't be more updates to report as I can't see a positive thing coming out of this.Update 4:30 pmIt seems that I have no choice but to point out a few important updates that I found from the local media as well as my personal observations:-President Talabani promises to make rebuilding the shrine his personal responsibility and to donate the required money from his own.-Head of the Sunni endowment sheikh Ahmed al-Samarra'I announces that he will allocate 2 billion dinars (~1.4 million $) for the rebuilding of the shrine from the treasury of the Sunni endowment.-Huge demonstrations in many of Iraq's provinces including Samarra and Mosul where thousands of people condemned the attack.-The top 4 Shia Ayatollahs hold a meeting at Sistani's home to discuss the situation.-The Association of Muslim scholars and the Islamic Party condemn the "criminal act".-Retaliatory attacks on reportedly 29 Sunni mosques and the Accord Front warns from the consequences of such violent reactions.-Jafari in a press conference calls for national unity and the leaders of the UIA hold a meeting. A press release is expected to come soon.-The Iraqi TV opened the phone lines to receive the reactions of the audience to the attack and hosts Sunni clerics and politicians in an attempt to relieve the tension.-Baghdad is in undeclared emergency situation, shops closed and streets nearly empty.-Tight security around the shrine of Abu Haneefa in Aazamiya district of Baghdad, this is considered the top shrine/mosque for Sunni Muslims in Iraq.-Masked gunmen attack Shia protestors in at least one neighborhood in western Baghdad and armed clashes in Ghazaliya and Hay al-A'amil.-People exchange phones calls with their relatives and friends to check on them and discourage them from leaving their homes.
Posted by Omar
A Great Publication Always worth a Glance
Their's a lot more if you follow the link
Global Jihad Monitor
By Jonathan L. Snow
February 22, 2006
To subscribe, please email GJM@defenddemocracy.org.
Global Jihad Monitor
February 15-21, 2006
The Big Picture
Hamas admitted on its website this week that it has received funding and training from the Iranian-supported Hezbollah terror group. [Full Story]
French authorities believe anti-Semitism was behind the kidnap, torture, and killing of a Jewish store clerk by a Muslim gang. [Full Story]
49 people died in religious violence in Nigeria that began with protests against the publication of cartoons depicting the prophet Mohamed. [Full Story]
Global Jihad Monitor
By Jonathan L. Snow
February 22, 2006
To subscribe, please email GJM@defenddemocracy.org.
Global Jihad Monitor
February 15-21, 2006
The Big Picture
Hamas admitted on its website this week that it has received funding and training from the Iranian-supported Hezbollah terror group. [Full Story]
French authorities believe anti-Semitism was behind the kidnap, torture, and killing of a Jewish store clerk by a Muslim gang. [Full Story]
49 people died in religious violence in Nigeria that began with protests against the publication of cartoons depicting the prophet Mohamed. [Full Story]
The Free Jack Idema Blogburst
Although the main reason I campaign for the release of illegally-imprisoned U.S. Special Forces soldier Jack Idema and his fellow prisoners, Brent Bennett and Ed Caraballo, is to see a gross injustice put right, it really is worth bearing in mind how valuable men like Jack are to our side in the WoT. A common perception about the fight to rid ourselves of Islamofascism is that the hot-spot right now is Iraq, while hostilities in Afghanistan are, to all intents and purposes, over. Sadly, as the BBC reported yesterday, nothing could be further from the truth:
It is only 200km (125 miles) from Kabul to Khost, but Afghanistan's capital has little control over this rugged border province.For anyone paying attention, this is precisely how al-Qaeda infiltrated Afghanistan during the Taliban era, using cash, assassination and foreign fighters to set in place the system that eventually brought about 9/11.
Government officials in Kabul say well-armed fighters cross regularly from next-door Pakistan, but admit they can do little to stop them.
In remote areas, more than $5,000 (£2,865) in bounty money has been offered to local men to kill senior government workers, one administrator said.
"It is big money. It is al-Qaeda money and it is from the Gulf," he said, referring to Arab supporters of al-Qaeda.
Grasping why history is repeating itself in this way isn't difficult -- All it has taken is for the U.S. State Department to remain stuck in the pre-9/11 mindset of containment and appeasement. Rather than rooting out all the Taliban sympathisers of importance in Afghanistan in 2001, the philosophy that came to govern post-Taliban Afghanistan was, more often than not, one of allowing members of the old regime back into the political life of the country if they agreed to 'renounce violence'.
Now, granted, the idea of peace and reconciliation, of healing divisions after a war draws to an end, is something any reasonable person would desire. Only, here's the problem: we are not dealing with reasonable people. Most of us woke up to that fact on the morning of 9/11, but not, it seems, the U.S. State Department or the Karzai interim government. Both have sought to appease a hard core of Islamofascists with promises of power in exchange for agreements to refrain from violence. What we're beginning to see is just how disastrous a policy this was.
... Though Jack Idema could have told the State Department that back in 2004. We will remember, after all, that Idema and his men were arrested after they captured an 'ex'-Taliban judge, Sidiq, who was in possession of:
- Photographs of himself with Gulbuddin Hekmatyar
- Bomb plans
- Explosive detonators
- al-Qaeda and Hezb-i-Islami documents and recruiting cards
- A letter from Taliban leader Mullah Omar
Two years later, we can see the results of this strategy as entire sections of Afghanistan fall back under the control of Islamofascists, and foreign-funded jihadists pour across the border from Pakistan. If this proves anything, it's that Idema and the Northern Alliance's distrust of 'former' terrorists was entirely appropriate. Moreover, as the recent shift in power from Karzai to the Northern Alliance shows, ordinary Afghans, too, want the Taliban's bloody hands removed from the levers of power once and for all.
Here's Jack, writing just after elections handed power over to the Northern Alliance:
What did you expect? Did you expect Afghan families to vote for the return of the whip and rod? During their brief time in power, the Taliban denied the people all human rights, abolished music and song, televisions and pictures; even personal pictures. All males had to wear turbans and could not cut their beards—violations were met with beatings and executions. Females had no rights except the right to be stoned in public until dead for even a minor infraction. The Taliban closed all schools and medical centers, and established the Ministry of Good and Evil to enforce their belief system on the entire country; everyone had been whipped at least once. To possess any picture, even a gum wrapper with a cartoon on it, meant you violated Islam, and that required a beating. Fly a kite, go to jail. Trim your beard, go to jail. Let your wife go shopping alone, go to jail. Sports were outlawed so they used the Kabul Soccer Stadium to execute women-- hey, don't waste resources. Oh yeah, the Afghan people were going to vote for these psychos again.It's high time Idema was released so he can continue working to fulfil the wishes of both the American and Afghan people -- To rout the Taliban and make sure they never get close to political power again.
So what can we do? Well, anyone reading this with their own blog can sign up for the weekly Free Jack Idema Blogburst by emailing Cao or Rottweiler Puppy for details. I'd urge everyone to do this, as we're still terribly short on takers. If you want to know more about the story, Cao's Blog has a large section devoted to Jack Idema. There's also a timeline here, and, of course, a huge amount of information is available over at SuperPatriots;, without whose work none of us would have learned about Jack's story.
You can also contact the following people and make your feelings known:
Secret US EMBASSY Fax: – 301-560-5729 (Local US Fax: Goes RIGHT TO Ambassador)
c/o US Ambassador Ronald Neuman
6180 Kabul Place
Dulles, VA 20189-6180
US Consul Russell Brown – 011-93-70201908 (Fired)
US Consul Addie Harchik- 011-93-70201908 (denied them water and mail at Thanksgiving)
US Embassy Translator Wahid – new – 011-93-70201902
US Embassy Translator Bashir Momman– 011-93-70201923
US Consul (friend of Jack's Now fired) Dawn Schrepel– 011-93-70201908
Embassy of Afghanistan (Good guys, Northern Alliance)
2341 Wyoming Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20008
Ph: 202-483-6410, Fax: no. 202-483-6488
Ambassador Massoud Khalili (wounded with Massoud)
Islamic State of Afghanistan
Embassy of Afghanistan
New Delhi, India
H.E. Said Tayeb JAWAD (Afghan Ambassador- powerful in US)
Embassy of Afghanistan in Washington
2341 Wyoming Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20008
Tel: (+1-202) 483 6414
Fax: (+1-202) 483 9523
Mr. Jahed Hamrah, Consul General (pro-Taliban)
CONSULATE GENERAL OF
AFGHANISTAN IN NEW YORK
360 Lexington Avenue,
11th Floor New York,
New, York, NY 10017
Tel.: (+1-212) 972 2276 or 972 2277
Fax: (+1-212) 972 9046
Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld
Secretary of Defense
1000 Defense Pentagon – Room # 3E880
Washington, DC 20301-1000
Ph: (703) 692-7100
Fax: (703) 697-9080
Lt General William Boykin
Deputy Undersecretary
of Defense for Intelligence
1800 Defense Pentagon – Room # 3E836
Washington, DC 20301
Ph: (703) 697-0170
Private Fax: (703) 697-9080
Stephen Cambone
Principle Deputy Secretary for Intelligence
1800 Defense Pentagon – Room # 3E
Washington, DC 20310-0100
General Peter J. Shoomaker
Chief of Staff, Department of the Army
200 Army Pentagon – Room # 3E528
Washington, DC 20310-0200
Ph: (703) 695-2077 / Fax: (703) 614-5268
The Honorable John D. Negroponte
Director National Intelligence
New Executive Office Building
725 17th Street, N.W., Room 4203
Washington, DC 20503
The Committee
On Homeland Security
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Chairman Peter Hoekstra
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
H-405, U.S. Capitol
Washington, DC 20515-6415;
Office: (202) 225-4121 / Fax: (202) 225-1991
Toll Free: (877) 858-9040
M. Cherif BASSIOUNI
Independent Expert of the Commission on Human Rights
On the Situation of Human Rights in Afghanistan
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
UNOG-OHCHR;
CH-1211 Geneva 10
Ph: +41(0)22 917 97 27 Fax: +41(0)22 917 90 18
Senator Steven Saland (Jack's Rep and Neighbor)
9 Jonathan Lane
Poughkeepsie, NY 12603
Senator Elizabeth Dole (Jack's Rep)
United States Senate
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 122
Raleigh, NC 27601
Ph: 919.856.4630
Fax: 919.856.4053
Senator Elizabeth Dole (Jack's Rep)
United States Senate
555 Dirksen Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Ph: 202.224.6342
Fax: 202.224.1100
Senator Richard Burr (of Interest)
United States Senate
217 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-3154 / Fax: (202) 228-2981
Senator Bill Nelson (in the fight on Jack's Side)
United States Senate
Hart Senate Office Building
Room 716
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: 202-224-5274 / Fax: 202-228-2183
FL Fax 407-872-7165
Senator Dianne Feinstein (Bennett's Representative)
United States Senate
Hart Office Building, Room 331
Washington, D.C. 20510
(202) 224-3841
Representative Mike McIntyre (Jack's Representative)
United States Congress
2437 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-2731 / Fax (202) 225-5773
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (reference Captain Bennett- CA citizen)
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-445-2841 / Fax: 916-445-4633
Finally, PLEASE NOTE: The SuperPatriots; and Jack images on this site are used with WRITTEN COPYRIGHT PERMISSION and any use by any third party is subject to legal action by SuperPatriots.US;
jack idema
afghanistan
Technorati Search for Jack Idema
The Free Jack Idema Blogroll:
The Pink Flamingo Bar & GrillThe Lone Voice
Red Hot Cuppa Politics
Kender's Musings
Irate Nate
The Devil's Kitchen
Cao's Blog
Big Dog's Weblog
Theodore's World
NIF;
Rottweiler Puppy
Making Headlines
My Newz n' Ideas
Right For Scotland
Freedom Folks
The City Troll
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Anniversary Post
I have been Blogging for 1 year. I hope over this year my presentation has improved. I enjoy the debate and the sharing of ideas and opinions that I've indulged in with you all over the past year. I have made quite a few acquaintances and a couple of enemies. I would say whole heartedly that this continues to be a joy. I would also like to thank all those that come by and leave their comments. Whether left, right or whimpily undecided, I appreciate them all.
I am including my first 3 posts. They explain who I am and what I believe and still apply today.
Thank You
The City Troll
Monday, February 21, 2005
Not Really a Blogger
I hope this works I have been trying to post and this d**n thing won't let me.Ahh it worked, OK first of all just to let you know a little about me and how I will conduct this blog. I don't spell and I don't care but never take my lack of appreciation for the rules of written word as a lack of education or a shallowness of depth of thought. People who look at how things are spelled or whether or not the correct punctuation is being applied are usually doing it to ignore or devalue what the person is saying they can not or will not debate the issue at hand instead they attack the technacalities of how something is written. That is just gutless Bullshit.You will find that my tastes and attitudes are varried but always honest. I am a conservative gun toting oppinionated individual, My beliefs are more along the line of a constitutionalist, but before you label me lets discuss the issue of abortion. This issue is one of the biggest red herring bullshit nonissues that has ever been manipulated into a tool to divert attention and controll the sheep. I would hope and pray and yes I said pray that no woman would ever have to suffer through this process yet I have no right to decide for that woman that she can or can not make that choice for herself. it is between her and her God and her consience. I have never met a woman that after having one has not had mental scars from it. Abortion will never be outlawed no matter who is on the supreme court this whole issue is just a tool by the communist democrats used to scare people and controll their voting base.Guns do not kill people, people kill people. everyone should own and carry a pistol.Criminals comit crime because they are criminals not because society has left them no choice. The homeless 95% of the homeless are drug addicts (alcohal is a drug too) and no matter how much you want to help them you can't, an addict can only end their own cycle of self destruction.The Democrat party are anything but democratic they are the communist party of the united states. They want to be the politburo of America read Marx and you will find the democrat platform.Iraq Iraq is part of the war on terror you idiots. No they didn,t attack us on 9-11 but they were state sponser of terrorism. and they were the best country to stage from for the war that we are just beginning. we will be in Iraq for a minnimum of 10 years we have no choice. The only way to fight this war is from the heart of that region of the world. This is going to be a long and bloody war and Iraq was and is just a battle in that war.This is just a sample of my beliefs I hope you have a little taste of what you may find if you come here.The Troll
Screw The EU and especially the French
It amazes me watching the press try to spin Bush's visit to europe as a trip to make nice to the Euros. The europeans didn't like us before 9-11 They don't like us now nor will they in the future. So fuck um. We need to do what we always do, whats good for us. Remmember if its good for America it can't be wrong. That is what our policy has to be and has been forever. We don't care what the rest of the world thinks. They don't understand the way we think what motivates us what drives us. We are a nation of shithoarders and individualists and we like it that way. We are truely the only nation that could be selfsuficiant if we chose to and that bothers them. but what really bothers them is that if we say we are going to do something we do it. What this visit is all about is Bush telling the Euros that nothing has changed either get on board with us or get the Hell out of the way.
The True symbol of The US
The true symbol that represents the US is not uncle Sam, or the Eagle. The Flag may be our label but the symbol of the Heart of America is embodied in one of our comic book heros. The Batman. Think about it he is just a man after all yet he fights for what he feels is right. He doesn't fight fair, he scares the hell out of those that he chooses to oppose. No super powers, just determination, an unbreakable will, a lot of really neat high tech gadgets. and the willingness to get bloody in the fight for justice. With an inner heart that truly believes that he can make a differance along with the understanding that he must do what he does because he can. Like him we are viewed as the vigilanti and like him we don't care because the rules weren't made so as to allow evil to get away with evil even though that is how other nations seem to want to apply those rules. So you must sometimes break the rules for what is good and right. the end can justify the means.
I am including my first 3 posts. They explain who I am and what I believe and still apply today.
Thank You
The City Troll
Monday, February 21, 2005
Not Really a Blogger
I hope this works I have been trying to post and this d**n thing won't let me.Ahh it worked, OK first of all just to let you know a little about me and how I will conduct this blog. I don't spell and I don't care but never take my lack of appreciation for the rules of written word as a lack of education or a shallowness of depth of thought. People who look at how things are spelled or whether or not the correct punctuation is being applied are usually doing it to ignore or devalue what the person is saying they can not or will not debate the issue at hand instead they attack the technacalities of how something is written. That is just gutless Bullshit.You will find that my tastes and attitudes are varried but always honest. I am a conservative gun toting oppinionated individual, My beliefs are more along the line of a constitutionalist, but before you label me lets discuss the issue of abortion. This issue is one of the biggest red herring bullshit nonissues that has ever been manipulated into a tool to divert attention and controll the sheep. I would hope and pray and yes I said pray that no woman would ever have to suffer through this process yet I have no right to decide for that woman that she can or can not make that choice for herself. it is between her and her God and her consience. I have never met a woman that after having one has not had mental scars from it. Abortion will never be outlawed no matter who is on the supreme court this whole issue is just a tool by the communist democrats used to scare people and controll their voting base.Guns do not kill people, people kill people. everyone should own and carry a pistol.Criminals comit crime because they are criminals not because society has left them no choice. The homeless 95% of the homeless are drug addicts (alcohal is a drug too) and no matter how much you want to help them you can't, an addict can only end their own cycle of self destruction.The Democrat party are anything but democratic they are the communist party of the united states. They want to be the politburo of America read Marx and you will find the democrat platform.Iraq Iraq is part of the war on terror you idiots. No they didn,t attack us on 9-11 but they were state sponser of terrorism. and they were the best country to stage from for the war that we are just beginning. we will be in Iraq for a minnimum of 10 years we have no choice. The only way to fight this war is from the heart of that region of the world. This is going to be a long and bloody war and Iraq was and is just a battle in that war.This is just a sample of my beliefs I hope you have a little taste of what you may find if you come here.The Troll
Screw The EU and especially the French
It amazes me watching the press try to spin Bush's visit to europe as a trip to make nice to the Euros. The europeans didn't like us before 9-11 They don't like us now nor will they in the future. So fuck um. We need to do what we always do, whats good for us. Remmember if its good for America it can't be wrong. That is what our policy has to be and has been forever. We don't care what the rest of the world thinks. They don't understand the way we think what motivates us what drives us. We are a nation of shithoarders and individualists and we like it that way. We are truely the only nation that could be selfsuficiant if we chose to and that bothers them. but what really bothers them is that if we say we are going to do something we do it. What this visit is all about is Bush telling the Euros that nothing has changed either get on board with us or get the Hell out of the way.
The True symbol of The US
The true symbol that represents the US is not uncle Sam, or the Eagle. The Flag may be our label but the symbol of the Heart of America is embodied in one of our comic book heros. The Batman. Think about it he is just a man after all yet he fights for what he feels is right. He doesn't fight fair, he scares the hell out of those that he chooses to oppose. No super powers, just determination, an unbreakable will, a lot of really neat high tech gadgets. and the willingness to get bloody in the fight for justice. With an inner heart that truly believes that he can make a differance along with the understanding that he must do what he does because he can. Like him we are viewed as the vigilanti and like him we don't care because the rules weren't made so as to allow evil to get away with evil even though that is how other nations seem to want to apply those rules. So you must sometimes break the rules for what is good and right. the end can justify the means.
Iranian fatwa approves use of nuclear weapons
By Colin Freeman and Philip Sherwell
in Washington
(Filed: 19/02/2006)
Iran's hardline spiritual leaders have issued an unprecedented new fatwa, or holy order, sanctioning the use of atomic weapons against its enemies.
In yet another sign of Teheran's stiffening resolve on the nuclear issue, influential Muslim clerics have for the first time questioned the theocracy's traditional stance that Sharia law forbade the use of nuclear weapons.
One senior mullah has now said it is "only natural" to have nuclear bombs as a "countermeasure" against other nuclear powers, thought to be a reference to America and Israel.
The pronouncement is particularly worrying because it has come from Mohsen Gharavian, a disciple of the ultra-conservative Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah-Yazdi, who is widely regarded as the cleric closest to Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Nicknamed "Professor Crocodile" because of his harsh conservatism, Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi's group opposes virtually any kind of rapprochement with the West and is believed to have influenced President Ahmadinejad's refusal to negotiate over Iran's nuclear programme.
The comments, which are the first public statement by the Yazdi clerical cabal on the nuclear issue, will be seen as an attempt by the country's religious hardliners to begin preparing a theological justification for the ownership - and if necessary the use - of atomic bombs.
They appeared on Rooz, an internet newspaper run by members of Iran's fractured reformist movement, which picked them up from remarks by Mohsen Gharavian reported on the media agency IraNews.
Rooz reported that Mohsen Gharavian, a lecturer based in a religious school in the holy city of Qom, had declared "for the first time that the use of nuclear weapons may not constitute a problem, according to Sharia."
He also said: "When the entire world is armed with nuclear weapons, it is permissible to use these weapons as a counter-measure. According to Sharia too, only the goal is important."
Mohsen Gharavian did not specify what kinds of "goals" would justify a nuclear strike, but it is thought that any military intervention by the United States would be considered sufficient grounds. Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi has previously justified use of suicide bombers against "enemies of Islam" and believes that America is bent on destroying the Islamic republic and its values. The latest insight into the theocracy's thinking comes as the US signals a change in strategy on Iran, after the decision earlier this month to report it to the United Nations Security Council for its resumption of banned nuclear research.
While Washington has made it clear that military strikes on Iran's nuclear sites would be a "last resort", White House officials are also targeting change from within by funding Iranian opposition groups.
The secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, said the Bush administration would seek an extra $75 million (£43 million) from Congress to help to support Iran's fractured pro-democracy movement and fund Farsi-language satellite broadcasts.
The announcement is the clearest public indication that Washington has adopted a two-track approach to Iran, combining the diplomatic search for a united international condemnation of its illicit nuclear programme with efforts to undermine the regime's status.
The new tactic amounts to the pursuit of regime change by peaceful means, although that phrase is still not stated as official US policy. Washington hopes that a dedicated satellite channel beamed into Iran will encourage domestic dissent, such as the current strike by bus drivers - the most significant display of organised opposition since the 1999 and 2003 student protests.
Ms Rice unveiled the change of tactics a week after a visit to Washington by a senior British delegation that pressed for a co-ordinated Western policy on using satellite television and the internet to bolster internal opposition. The State Department had previously been wary of the two-track strategy.
As the Sunday Telegraph reported last week, Pentagon strategists have been updating plans for a another policy of "last resort" - blitzing Iranian nuclear sites in an effort to stop the regime gaining the atomic bomb.
The bus strike, which has led to the jailing of more than 1,000 drivers, was originally sparked by an industrial dispute over unpaid wages benefits. But the robustness of the state response has indicated the nervousness of the Ahmadinejad regime over any internal dissent.
Reports from Iran say that Massoud Osanlou, the leader of the bus drivers' union, was arrested at his home by members of the Basij, the pro-regime militia, and had part of his tongue cut out as a warning to be quiet.
But the dispute already risks disillusioning Mr Ahmadinejad's core of working class support - among them municipal workers - who voted him into power on his promises to improve the lot of Iran's poor.
Our Friends In The Middle East
Courtesy NEO
How They Vote In The UN
CLASSIFICATION: Unclassified
CAVEATS: None
Hat Tip: Razor Sharp Claws
Below are the actual voting records of various Arabic/Islamic States which are recorded in both the US State Department and United Nations' records: Kuwait votes against the United States 67% of the time. Qatar votes against the United States 67% of the time. Morocco votes against t he United States 70% of the time. United Arab Emirates votes against the U. S. 70% of the time. Jordan votes against the United States 71% of the time. Tunisia votes against the United States 71% of the time. Saudi Arabia votes against the United States 73% of the time. Yemen votes against the United States 74% of the time. Algeria votes against the United States 74% of the time. Oman votes against the United States 74% of the time. Sudan votes against the United States 75% of the time. Pakistan votes against the United States 75% of the time. Libya votes against the United States 76% of the time. Egypt votes against the United States 79% of the time. Lebanon votes against the United States 80% of the time. India votes against the United States 81% of the time. Syria votes against the United States 84% of the time. Mauritania votes against the United States 87% of the time.
US Foreign Aid to those that hate us:Egypt, for example, after voting 79% of the time against the United States, still receives $2 billion annually in US Foreign Aid. Jordan votes 71% against the United States and receives $192,814,000 annually in US Foreign Aid. Pakistan votes 75% against the United States and receives $6,721,000 annually in US Foreign Aid. India votes 81% against the United States receives $143,699,000 annually in US Aid. Perhaps it is time to get out of the UN and give the tax savings back to the American workers who are having to skimp and sacrifice to pay the taxes. Pass this along. Everyone needs to know. Might even mention it to your congressman, who knows it anyway what a disgrace...Frank Burns (M*A*S*H) was right when he was teaching English to the local Koreans, 'Get us out of the UN!' You tell 'em, Ferret Face!
posted by C R Mountjoy -
How They Vote In The UN
CLASSIFICATION: Unclassified
CAVEATS: None
Hat Tip: Razor Sharp Claws
Below are the actual voting records of various Arabic/Islamic States which are recorded in both the US State Department and United Nations' records: Kuwait votes against the United States 67% of the time. Qatar votes against the United States 67% of the time. Morocco votes against t he United States 70% of the time. United Arab Emirates votes against the U. S. 70% of the time. Jordan votes against the United States 71% of the time. Tunisia votes against the United States 71% of the time. Saudi Arabia votes against the United States 73% of the time. Yemen votes against the United States 74% of the time. Algeria votes against the United States 74% of the time. Oman votes against the United States 74% of the time. Sudan votes against the United States 75% of the time. Pakistan votes against the United States 75% of the time. Libya votes against the United States 76% of the time. Egypt votes against the United States 79% of the time. Lebanon votes against the United States 80% of the time. India votes against the United States 81% of the time. Syria votes against the United States 84% of the time. Mauritania votes against the United States 87% of the time.
US Foreign Aid to those that hate us:Egypt, for example, after voting 79% of the time against the United States, still receives $2 billion annually in US Foreign Aid. Jordan votes 71% against the United States and receives $192,814,000 annually in US Foreign Aid. Pakistan votes 75% against the United States and receives $6,721,000 annually in US Foreign Aid. India votes 81% against the United States receives $143,699,000 annually in US Aid. Perhaps it is time to get out of the UN and give the tax savings back to the American workers who are having to skimp and sacrifice to pay the taxes. Pass this along. Everyone needs to know. Might even mention it to your congressman, who knows it anyway what a disgrace...Frank Burns (M*A*S*H) was right when he was teaching English to the local Koreans, 'Get us out of the UN!' You tell 'em, Ferret Face!
posted by C R Mountjoy -
Monday, February 20, 2006
The Tehran-Hamas Terror Axis
The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies BackgrounderThe Tehran-Hamas Terror Axis
Jonathan L. Snow February 7, 2006
Context
Since Iran's 1979 Revolution, the ruling clerics have sought to export their concept of Militant Islamism throughout the Muslim world.
Many Palestinian terrorists embraced the Islamist message, actively taking up arms to fight “infidels” and the West.
Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) was a product of the Iranian Revolution. Iran still funds, trains, and directs this terrorist group. PIJ is also linked to Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood and the Syrian Baathist regime.
Hamas, the largest of the Palestinian terrorist groups, is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, and also has strong, and growing, ties to the Iranian regime.
With extremist President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad now leading Iran toward the development of nuclear weapons and threatening to destroy Israel and the West, and Hamas now in control of the Palestinian parliament, the Tehran-Hamas terrorist axis has become more dangerous than ever.
Iran-Hamas Ties
Hamas began as a Sunni extremist group at the beginning of the “First Intifadah” in 1987. While initially hostile to the Shiite Iranian regime, within a few short years relations warmed between the two.
After Israel disrupted the Hamas network in the early 1990s, many of Hamas' expelled leaders found refuge across the region, including in Iran. Hamas took this setback as an opportunity to reorganize, moving a great deal of its leadership abroad. Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Jordan soon became important bases of Hamas activities.
Relations between Hamas and Iran flourished during this period. Hamas established its first “ambassador” to Tehran, Imad al-Alami, after his deportation from Gaza in 1990. He has since risen through the ranks of Hamas, and according to the U.S. Treasury, “Al-Alami has had oversight responsibility for the military wing of Hamas within the Palestinian territories. As a Hamas military leader, al-Alami directs sending personnel and funding to the West Bank and Gaza.” Hamas is currently represented in Tehran by Abu-Osama Abd-al-Moti.
Iran spends millions of dollars every year funding Hamas activities. While estimates on the exact funding vary, an investigative report from 1993 claims that Iran budgeted nearly $30 million that year to aid Hamas. A more recent report from the Council on Foreign Relations notes that diplomats estimate that Iranian support to Hamas could amount to $20-30 million per year.
Leaders of Hamas and Iran joined together to call for the destruction of Israel. At the “World Without Zionism” conference in Tehran in October 2005, both Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hamas' representative in Tehran, Abu-Osama Abd-al-Moti, called for the destruction of the Jewish state. While Ahmadinejad's comments were widely reported, those by Hamas' Abd-al-Moti were not, though his language closely mirrored Ahmadinejad's.
The Iranian President held a strategy session in Damascus with Hamas and other terrorist groups. On his most recent trip to Syria in January 2006, Ahmadinejad made a point of meeting with the leaders of various Palestinian terror groups, including Hamas' Khalid Mishall.
In Their Own Words
Hamas' representative in Tehran, Abu-Osama Abd-al-Moti, on Iranian support: “With your [Iranian] help and support and the support of the entire Islamic nation, our people can remain steadfast and confront Israel and America until this cancerous gland is removed.” (At the “World Without Zionism” conference in Tehran, October 2005)
Ahmadinejad on Hamas' electoral victory: “We thank God that struggles, self-sacrifices and martyrdom seeking attempts of the children of Palestinian nation have today resulted in the first stage of victory.” (Congratulating Hamas leader Khalid Mishall on the terrorist group's electoral victory, January 2006)
Senior Hamas Leader Mousa Abu Marzuk on Iranian threats: “The [recent] meetings of the Iranian president, Mr. Khatami, with different Palestinian groups in Damascus were the real display of Iran's attitude toward the Zionist regime and Tehran's clear message to Tel Aviv.” (June 1999)
Hamas founder Sheik Ahmad Yassin on Iran's desire to destroy Israel: “I found that the Iranians have an intense desire to liberate Palestine and to endure all the U.S. harassment and difficulties in order to achieve this objective.” (August 1998)
Jonathan L. Snow February 7, 2006
Context
Since Iran's 1979 Revolution, the ruling clerics have sought to export their concept of Militant Islamism throughout the Muslim world.
Many Palestinian terrorists embraced the Islamist message, actively taking up arms to fight “infidels” and the West.
Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) was a product of the Iranian Revolution. Iran still funds, trains, and directs this terrorist group. PIJ is also linked to Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood and the Syrian Baathist regime.
Hamas, the largest of the Palestinian terrorist groups, is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, and also has strong, and growing, ties to the Iranian regime.
With extremist President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad now leading Iran toward the development of nuclear weapons and threatening to destroy Israel and the West, and Hamas now in control of the Palestinian parliament, the Tehran-Hamas terrorist axis has become more dangerous than ever.
Iran-Hamas Ties
Hamas began as a Sunni extremist group at the beginning of the “First Intifadah” in 1987. While initially hostile to the Shiite Iranian regime, within a few short years relations warmed between the two.
After Israel disrupted the Hamas network in the early 1990s, many of Hamas' expelled leaders found refuge across the region, including in Iran. Hamas took this setback as an opportunity to reorganize, moving a great deal of its leadership abroad. Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Jordan soon became important bases of Hamas activities.
Relations between Hamas and Iran flourished during this period. Hamas established its first “ambassador” to Tehran, Imad al-Alami, after his deportation from Gaza in 1990. He has since risen through the ranks of Hamas, and according to the U.S. Treasury, “Al-Alami has had oversight responsibility for the military wing of Hamas within the Palestinian territories. As a Hamas military leader, al-Alami directs sending personnel and funding to the West Bank and Gaza.” Hamas is currently represented in Tehran by Abu-Osama Abd-al-Moti.
Iran spends millions of dollars every year funding Hamas activities. While estimates on the exact funding vary, an investigative report from 1993 claims that Iran budgeted nearly $30 million that year to aid Hamas. A more recent report from the Council on Foreign Relations notes that diplomats estimate that Iranian support to Hamas could amount to $20-30 million per year.
Leaders of Hamas and Iran joined together to call for the destruction of Israel. At the “World Without Zionism” conference in Tehran in October 2005, both Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hamas' representative in Tehran, Abu-Osama Abd-al-Moti, called for the destruction of the Jewish state. While Ahmadinejad's comments were widely reported, those by Hamas' Abd-al-Moti were not, though his language closely mirrored Ahmadinejad's.
The Iranian President held a strategy session in Damascus with Hamas and other terrorist groups. On his most recent trip to Syria in January 2006, Ahmadinejad made a point of meeting with the leaders of various Palestinian terror groups, including Hamas' Khalid Mishall.
In Their Own Words
Hamas' representative in Tehran, Abu-Osama Abd-al-Moti, on Iranian support: “With your [Iranian] help and support and the support of the entire Islamic nation, our people can remain steadfast and confront Israel and America until this cancerous gland is removed.” (At the “World Without Zionism” conference in Tehran, October 2005)
Ahmadinejad on Hamas' electoral victory: “We thank God that struggles, self-sacrifices and martyrdom seeking attempts of the children of Palestinian nation have today resulted in the first stage of victory.” (Congratulating Hamas leader Khalid Mishall on the terrorist group's electoral victory, January 2006)
Senior Hamas Leader Mousa Abu Marzuk on Iranian threats: “The [recent] meetings of the Iranian president, Mr. Khatami, with different Palestinian groups in Damascus were the real display of Iran's attitude toward the Zionist regime and Tehran's clear message to Tel Aviv.” (June 1999)
Hamas founder Sheik Ahmad Yassin on Iran's desire to destroy Israel: “I found that the Iranians have an intense desire to liberate Palestine and to endure all the U.S. harassment and difficulties in order to achieve this objective.” (August 1998)
Saturday, February 18, 2006
Lawmaker argues for large deployment of border troops
By Jerry SeperThe Washington Times Published February 18, 2006
WASHINGTON -- A Georgia Republican says President Bush needs to immediately order at least 36,000 federal troops to the U.S.-Mexico border to stop a flood of illegal aliens. "There's no excuse for this. We know right now how to bring this flood of illegal immigration to a virtual halt within the next two weeks," Rep. Charlie Norwood said during a House floor speech this week. "We need somewhere between 36,000 and 48,000 troops immediately deployed to the southern border.
"We need the president to order the Department of Defense to fund the mission 100 percent," Mr. Norwood said. "And we need new legislation forcing the issue if action is not forthcoming." Mr. Norwood has submitted legislation to give 600,000 state and local police officers authority to enforce U.S. immigration law, but it has stalled in the House Judiciary Committee. In the meantime, Mr. Norwood said a million illegal aliens enter this country each year under the nation's current enforcement policies and by the time U.S. Border Patrol manpower increases approved in this year's budget are in place and newly authorized technology and fencing is operable, more than 4 million additional illegals will enter the United States. "We know it will happen because it happens every year under current enforcement policy, and we're going right ahead with the same old plan," he said. "We'll continue crowing about how we're adding 1,500 new border agents in 2007 that won't be in the field until 2009, letting another 2 million illegal aliens walk across. "We'll rattle on about how we're adding technology and fencing that won't be ready until 2010, allowing another million illegals in," he said. "Right now, with our current budget and reform plans, we are by default agreeing to allow an additional 4 million illegal aliens into our country, the equivalent of the entire population of South Carolina." Mr. Norwood said the Minuteman Project in April in Arizona and in October all along the U.S.-Mexico border showed that between 18 and 24 additional enforcement personnel per mile could effectively secure the nation's border. "And it wasn't just the Minuteman Project that revealed these statistics," he said. "The U.S. Border Patrol conducted similar demonstration projects in 1993 -- 'Operation Blockade' in El Paso and 'Operation Gatekeeper' in San Diego -- that produced nearly identical results," he said. Mr. Norwood said the deployment of troops to the border would cost $2.5 billion a year, less than 4 percent of the minimum $70 billion a year the nation currently is spending covering the health care, education and incarceration costs of illegal aliens. He also said it would take a week to get U.S. troops on the line, the same length of time it took the U.S. Northern Command to place 70,000 National Guard and U.S. Army troops on the Gulf Coast in response to Katrina.
WASHINGTON -- A Georgia Republican says President Bush needs to immediately order at least 36,000 federal troops to the U.S.-Mexico border to stop a flood of illegal aliens. "There's no excuse for this. We know right now how to bring this flood of illegal immigration to a virtual halt within the next two weeks," Rep. Charlie Norwood said during a House floor speech this week. "We need somewhere between 36,000 and 48,000 troops immediately deployed to the southern border.
"We need the president to order the Department of Defense to fund the mission 100 percent," Mr. Norwood said. "And we need new legislation forcing the issue if action is not forthcoming." Mr. Norwood has submitted legislation to give 600,000 state and local police officers authority to enforce U.S. immigration law, but it has stalled in the House Judiciary Committee. In the meantime, Mr. Norwood said a million illegal aliens enter this country each year under the nation's current enforcement policies and by the time U.S. Border Patrol manpower increases approved in this year's budget are in place and newly authorized technology and fencing is operable, more than 4 million additional illegals will enter the United States. "We know it will happen because it happens every year under current enforcement policy, and we're going right ahead with the same old plan," he said. "We'll continue crowing about how we're adding 1,500 new border agents in 2007 that won't be in the field until 2009, letting another 2 million illegal aliens walk across. "We'll rattle on about how we're adding technology and fencing that won't be ready until 2010, allowing another million illegals in," he said. "Right now, with our current budget and reform plans, we are by default agreeing to allow an additional 4 million illegal aliens into our country, the equivalent of the entire population of South Carolina." Mr. Norwood said the Minuteman Project in April in Arizona and in October all along the U.S.-Mexico border showed that between 18 and 24 additional enforcement personnel per mile could effectively secure the nation's border. "And it wasn't just the Minuteman Project that revealed these statistics," he said. "The U.S. Border Patrol conducted similar demonstration projects in 1993 -- 'Operation Blockade' in El Paso and 'Operation Gatekeeper' in San Diego -- that produced nearly identical results," he said. Mr. Norwood said the deployment of troops to the border would cost $2.5 billion a year, less than 4 percent of the minimum $70 billion a year the nation currently is spending covering the health care, education and incarceration costs of illegal aliens. He also said it would take a week to get U.S. troops on the line, the same length of time it took the U.S. Northern Command to place 70,000 National Guard and U.S. Army troops on the Gulf Coast in response to Katrina.
Iranian suicide bombers threaten Britain and US
18/02/2006 - 17:59:27
A gathering of Iranians who claim the are dedicated to becoming suicide bombers warned the United States and Britain today of attacks on coalition military bases in Iraq if there were a strike against Tehran’s nuclear facilities.“With more than 1,000 trained martyrdom-seekers, we are ready to attack the American and British sensitive points if they attack Iran’s nuclear facilities,” said Mohammad Ali Samadi, spokesman of Esteshadion (Martyrdom Seekers).“We have registered more than 52,000 people who willingly are ready to defend their country.”“If they strike, we have a lot of volunteers. Their (US and British) sensitive places are quiet close to Iranian borders,” Samadi said after a gathering of about 200 students for a seminar on the suicide-bombing tactics at Tehran’s Khajeh Nasir University.Samadi reviewed the history of the suicide bombing as a weapon, praising it as the most effective Palestinian tactic in their confrontation with Israel.The organisers also showed video clips of suicide attacks against Israelis, including one in the Morag settlement near Rafah in Gaza strip in February 2005. One settler, three Israeli soldiers and the two attackers were killed in the attack.Hasan Abbasi, the main speaker also praised suicide-bombers, but denounced attacks against “innocent people as al-Qaida did in New York".Abbasi told the audience of potential martyrs that Iran was not seeking nuclear weapons as claimed by the United States and some of its allies.“Our martyrdom-seekers are our nuclear weapons,” said Abbasi, a university instructor and former member of the elite Revolutionary Guards.After his speech, about 50 students filled out membership applications .“This is a unique opportunity for me to die for God, next to my brothers in Palestine. That was why I signed up,” said Reza Haghshenas, 22, an electrical engineering student.A 23-year-old woman student, Maryam Amereh, said: “We are trying to defend Islam. It’s a way to draw the attention of others to our activities.”But Rahim Hasanlu, a 22-year-old industrial management student, sipped his orange juice and declared himself not interested in joining. “I just attended to learn what they’re saying, that’s all.”Esteshadion was formed in late 2004, calling for members on a sporadic basis at Friday prayer ceremonies, state-sponsored rallies and at the group’s occasional meetings.Those who join have three choices: To train for suicide attacks to defend Iran’s national interests, for suicide attacks against Israel or the assassination of British author Salman Rushdie, who was sentenced to death by former Iranian leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini for his 1989 book, “Satanic Verses”.
A gathering of Iranians who claim the are dedicated to becoming suicide bombers warned the United States and Britain today of attacks on coalition military bases in Iraq if there were a strike against Tehran’s nuclear facilities.“With more than 1,000 trained martyrdom-seekers, we are ready to attack the American and British sensitive points if they attack Iran’s nuclear facilities,” said Mohammad Ali Samadi, spokesman of Esteshadion (Martyrdom Seekers).“We have registered more than 52,000 people who willingly are ready to defend their country.”“If they strike, we have a lot of volunteers. Their (US and British) sensitive places are quiet close to Iranian borders,” Samadi said after a gathering of about 200 students for a seminar on the suicide-bombing tactics at Tehran’s Khajeh Nasir University.Samadi reviewed the history of the suicide bombing as a weapon, praising it as the most effective Palestinian tactic in their confrontation with Israel.The organisers also showed video clips of suicide attacks against Israelis, including one in the Morag settlement near Rafah in Gaza strip in February 2005. One settler, three Israeli soldiers and the two attackers were killed in the attack.Hasan Abbasi, the main speaker also praised suicide-bombers, but denounced attacks against “innocent people as al-Qaida did in New York".Abbasi told the audience of potential martyrs that Iran was not seeking nuclear weapons as claimed by the United States and some of its allies.“Our martyrdom-seekers are our nuclear weapons,” said Abbasi, a university instructor and former member of the elite Revolutionary Guards.After his speech, about 50 students filled out membership applications .“This is a unique opportunity for me to die for God, next to my brothers in Palestine. That was why I signed up,” said Reza Haghshenas, 22, an electrical engineering student.A 23-year-old woman student, Maryam Amereh, said: “We are trying to defend Islam. It’s a way to draw the attention of others to our activities.”But Rahim Hasanlu, a 22-year-old industrial management student, sipped his orange juice and declared himself not interested in joining. “I just attended to learn what they’re saying, that’s all.”Esteshadion was formed in late 2004, calling for members on a sporadic basis at Friday prayer ceremonies, state-sponsored rallies and at the group’s occasional meetings.Those who join have three choices: To train for suicide attacks to defend Iran’s national interests, for suicide attacks against Israel or the assassination of British author Salman Rushdie, who was sentenced to death by former Iranian leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini for his 1989 book, “Satanic Verses”.
T-SHIRT TERROR!
A Great Post from David Vance at A Tangled Web. I love Calderoli the first politician out of Europe I've heard being Honest
I had to comment on this story, which you may have already read about. I refer to the resignation of Italian Reforms Minister Roberto Calderoli after a mob attacked an Italian consulate in Libya yesterday over a T-shirt worn by the minister that was printed with a Danish cartoon depicting the prophet Muhammad.
Calderoli, 49, had the T-shirts printed with the cartoons earlier this week and wore one on an Italian television talk show Feb. 14. He said the shirts weren't meant to provoke Muslims, but instead to invite ``real dialogue.''
Naturally, Muslims went on the rampage to demonstrate how they engage in "real dialogue" and as a consequence, Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi ensured Calderoli resigned. Berlusconi also apologised to the next of kin that rioting Muslims killed in Libya!
By way of contrast, Calderoli said;
I may even be sorry for the victims, but what happened in Libya has nothing to do with my T-shirt,'' That's not what's at stake. What's at stake is Western civilization.`It's time to stop making up stories about looking for dialogue with these people,'' Calderoli said on Feb. 14, adding it was ``hypocritical'' to distinguish between ``terrorist Islam and pacifist Islam.''
He has a point - where is the voice of APOLOGY from moderate Muslims for the raging hatred and intolerance of their co-religionists? Berlusconi may grovel and try to ingratiate himself with Islam but they, like we, see his act of dhimmitude for what it is. Hats off to Calderoli!
Germans allegedly helping Iran on nukes
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
BERLIN
Several German companies are under investigation for alleged involvement in Iran's disputed nuclear program, a German magazine reported Saturday.
Police searched the premises of eight firms as well as private homes on February 8 as part of the investigation, the Spiegel weekly said in an article released before its publication Monday.
Horst Salzmann, a spokesman for federal prosecutors, declined to comment on the report.
According to Spiegel, one firm from Cologne was involved in a planned delivery to Iran of equipment to detect radiation contamination on clothes and human skin.
Elsewhere on Saturday, French President Jacques Chirac said that the UN's nuclear watchdog would determine the ambitions of Iran's nuclear program, steering clear of the tough line taken by his foreign minister who recently called it a clandestine weapons program.
Chirac said it was not his role to say whether Iran was secretly making nuclear weapons.
"There are experts who are qualified to speak on the subject, and they are from the International Atomic Energy Agency," Chirac told a news conference in Bangkok. "Let's see what the experts say ... we are not going to enter into what-if in this situation."
On Thursday, French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy called Iran's nuclear activity a "clandestine military nuclear program" and accused Tehran of ignoring the international community's demand to suspend all nuclear activity.
It was France's most direct attack on Tehran in an escalating international dispute and a departure from Europe's traditional diplomatic caution.
BERLIN
Several German companies are under investigation for alleged involvement in Iran's disputed nuclear program, a German magazine reported Saturday.
Police searched the premises of eight firms as well as private homes on February 8 as part of the investigation, the Spiegel weekly said in an article released before its publication Monday.
Horst Salzmann, a spokesman for federal prosecutors, declined to comment on the report.
According to Spiegel, one firm from Cologne was involved in a planned delivery to Iran of equipment to detect radiation contamination on clothes and human skin.
Elsewhere on Saturday, French President Jacques Chirac said that the UN's nuclear watchdog would determine the ambitions of Iran's nuclear program, steering clear of the tough line taken by his foreign minister who recently called it a clandestine weapons program.
Chirac said it was not his role to say whether Iran was secretly making nuclear weapons.
"There are experts who are qualified to speak on the subject, and they are from the International Atomic Energy Agency," Chirac told a news conference in Bangkok. "Let's see what the experts say ... we are not going to enter into what-if in this situation."
On Thursday, French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy called Iran's nuclear activity a "clandestine military nuclear program" and accused Tehran of ignoring the international community's demand to suspend all nuclear activity.
It was France's most direct attack on Tehran in an escalating international dispute and a departure from Europe's traditional diplomatic caution.
IRAN'S E.M.P. THREAT TO AMERICA
War Footing by Frank Gaffney
There is reason to believe the Iranian regime is working toward a capability that could destroy America as we know it. A blue-ribbon commission's report to the Congress last year (http://empcreport.ida.org/) found a single nuclear weapon detonated in space high above the United States could unleash an immensely powerful electromagnetic pulse (EMP). An EMP wave a million times stronger than the most powerful radio transmitter would damage or destroy the electrical grid and unshielded electronic devices upon which our society utterly depends. The effect [dramatized in this short video] could be "catastrophic" -- possibly reducing America from a 21st century superpower to a pre-industrial society in the blink of an eye.
View video about the EMP threat: Windows Media
There is reason to believe the Iranian regime is working toward a capability that could destroy America as we know it. A blue-ribbon commission's report to the Congress last year (http://empcreport.ida.org/) found a single nuclear weapon detonated in space high above the United States could unleash an immensely powerful electromagnetic pulse (EMP). An EMP wave a million times stronger than the most powerful radio transmitter would damage or destroy the electrical grid and unshielded electronic devices upon which our society utterly depends. The effect [dramatized in this short video] could be "catastrophic" -- possibly reducing America from a 21st century superpower to a pre-industrial society in the blink of an eye.
View video about the EMP threat: Windows Media
Thursday, February 16, 2006
A MATTER OF LIFE OR DEATH
I am not one for advocating contacting your Senator or Congressman as a gimmick on like some Radio Show. However the idea of allowing the UAE to own and operate 6 of our Ports is just insane. We are at WAR with Radical Islam the UAE still recognizes the Taliban as a legitimate Government and is a KNOWN SUPPORTER OF TERRORISM. We cannot allow them to Run our Ports. Within in a year we would have a Nuke or a Biological Bomb go off in one of our Cities and it will have been smuggled through one of these Ports.
Please Contact the White House and Tell Them NOT to Allow this Deal comments@whitehouse.gov
Please Contact the White House and Tell Them NOT to Allow this Deal comments@whitehouse.gov
US House of Representatives Approves Resolution on Hamas
By Dan Robinson Washington16 February 2006
The House of Representatives has overwhelmingly approved a resolution opposing any new U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority unless Hamas revokes its call for the destruction of Israel. The resolution is symbolic, but House members have introduced separate legislation that would provide for strong sanctions against the Palestinian Authority.
The resolution expresses the sense of Congress that no U.S. aid should be provided if any party holding a majority of seats in the Palestinian legislature advocates the destruction of Israel.
In speeches on the floor of the House of Representatives, lawmakers voiced their opposition to any U.S. taxpayer dollars going to the Palestinian Authority until Hamas changes its stated goals and renounces violence.
"When Hamas looks at America, at the [Bush] administration, at the [U.S.] Congress, they must see nothing but fierce, unrelenting, and implacable rejection," said Congressman Gary Ackerman, a New York Democrat. "There can be no political absolution for this pack of killers. And the very idea of giving our taxpayers money to these bloody-handed fanatics, people who have slaughtered our own citizens, is offensive."
Although supporting the resolution, House International Relations Committee Chairman Henry Hyde adopted a slightly different approach. He describes the Hamas legislative election victory as an expression of Palestinian frustration with corruption in the Fatah party. He cautions against temptations to abandon what he calls ways of remaining constructively engaged with the Palestinian people and the (Palestinian) Authority.
"Tying the hands of the [Bush] administration is not in the interests of the U.S. national security," said Hyde. "We need to react with some care. Hurting the Palestinian people will reward terrorist regimes like Syria and Iran which seek to exploit the suffering of the Palestinians for their own selfish reasons."
In a written statement, the new House Republican leader, John Boehner, said approval of the symbolic resolution sends a message to Hamas that the United States will not support terrorist organizations.
Although the House-passed resolution was symbolic in nature, a bipartisan group of House lawmakers recently introduced separate legislation proposing a range of tough sanctions against the Palestinian Authority.
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the key sponsor, says Hamas continues to endorse the worst sort of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish propaganda.
"Hamas' victory in the parliamentary election poses a direct threat to U.S. strategies for regional stability," she said. "We must not and cannot allow taxpayer funds to directly or indirectly assist or support in any way Hamas or any other Palestinian terrorist groups that glorify blood, bloodshed, and terror and uses violence as a political tool."
Ros-Lehtinen has been negotiating with the White House on the final form this legislation would take.
At present, it proposes cutting off assistance to the Palestinian Authority, banning U.S. officials from diplomatic contacts with Hamas members and denying visas to officials or members of the Authority.
The House of Representatives has overwhelmingly approved a resolution opposing any new U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority unless Hamas revokes its call for the destruction of Israel. The resolution is symbolic, but House members have introduced separate legislation that would provide for strong sanctions against the Palestinian Authority.
The resolution expresses the sense of Congress that no U.S. aid should be provided if any party holding a majority of seats in the Palestinian legislature advocates the destruction of Israel.
In speeches on the floor of the House of Representatives, lawmakers voiced their opposition to any U.S. taxpayer dollars going to the Palestinian Authority until Hamas changes its stated goals and renounces violence.
"When Hamas looks at America, at the [Bush] administration, at the [U.S.] Congress, they must see nothing but fierce, unrelenting, and implacable rejection," said Congressman Gary Ackerman, a New York Democrat. "There can be no political absolution for this pack of killers. And the very idea of giving our taxpayers money to these bloody-handed fanatics, people who have slaughtered our own citizens, is offensive."
Although supporting the resolution, House International Relations Committee Chairman Henry Hyde adopted a slightly different approach. He describes the Hamas legislative election victory as an expression of Palestinian frustration with corruption in the Fatah party. He cautions against temptations to abandon what he calls ways of remaining constructively engaged with the Palestinian people and the (Palestinian) Authority.
"Tying the hands of the [Bush] administration is not in the interests of the U.S. national security," said Hyde. "We need to react with some care. Hurting the Palestinian people will reward terrorist regimes like Syria and Iran which seek to exploit the suffering of the Palestinians for their own selfish reasons."
In a written statement, the new House Republican leader, John Boehner, said approval of the symbolic resolution sends a message to Hamas that the United States will not support terrorist organizations.
Although the House-passed resolution was symbolic in nature, a bipartisan group of House lawmakers recently introduced separate legislation proposing a range of tough sanctions against the Palestinian Authority.
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the key sponsor, says Hamas continues to endorse the worst sort of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish propaganda.
"Hamas' victory in the parliamentary election poses a direct threat to U.S. strategies for regional stability," she said. "We must not and cannot allow taxpayer funds to directly or indirectly assist or support in any way Hamas or any other Palestinian terrorist groups that glorify blood, bloodshed, and terror and uses violence as a political tool."
Ros-Lehtinen has been negotiating with the White House on the final form this legislation would take.
At present, it proposes cutting off assistance to the Palestinian Authority, banning U.S. officials from diplomatic contacts with Hamas members and denying visas to officials or members of the Authority.
The Region: Appeasement redux
Required Reading
By BARRY RUBIN
We have come full circle. Here is how the last great historical era began, the one we seem to be starting over afresh.
It's January 30, 1933, and here's what the Cleveland Press reports from Washington under the headline, "US Unruffled by Hitler Rise."
"High authorities here regard with complacence Adolf Hitler's rise to power in Germany... They [express] faith that Hitler would act with moderation... Experts based this belief on past events showing that so-called radical groups usually moderated, once in power."
The Philadelphia Evening Bulletin stated that Hitler seemed extreme in the past, but "Lately, however, there have been indications of moderation."
Perhaps you had to be nice to them to bring about this moderation, as advocates of appeasement proposed.
There were good arguments for that case. Germany was strong, and it was better not to provoke it; perhaps it was better to have it as a friend. Germany could be a profitable trading partner; economic embargoes didn't work any way.
Could the democratic countries really preach to Germany given their own sins of imperialism and injustice? Wasn't confrontation worth avoiding at any price, especially faced with the horrors of war? And what about Germany's genuine grievances as victim of mistreatment by Britain, France and America?
Was it really proper to interfere in Germany's internal affairs (this was the US government's position) or to try to impose the values of other countries on it? Six years later, in 1939, after allying with Nazi Germany, Soviet foreign minister Molotov explained that "fascism is a matter of taste."
And, of course, there was always the final resort: The Germans weren't against "us" but merely against the Jews, who were thus the ones pushing conflict with Germany for their own interests.
Sound familiar? Just substitute Iran, Hizbullah, Hamas, radical Islamists, Iraqi insurgents or Syria. All of these groups are aligned, while the West displays its divisions and doubts.
BUT, OF course, a lot happened back in the 1930s to drive away that kind of thinking for more than a half-century. Democratic countries found it impossible to appease Germany, even by feeding one of their own - Czechoslovakia - to it. They had to fight a desperate war, coming closer to defeat than we like to recall.
Then, after a brief period of renewed wishful thinking in dealing with Joseph Stalin's USSR, starting in 1945, these lessons were reinforced.
The Cold War was America's fault, many of the best intellectual minds explained. Stalin had limited defensive and legitimate demands. Yet, again, radical forces would not let the democratic world betray itself. They kept pushing and showing their true nature until it had to respond, like it or not. Finally, it was understood that concessions and apologies only made the aggressors more confident of their own strength and the decadent weakness of democratic foes.
It seems, however, that this whole cycle of experience has been forgotten by all too many people, and even whole countries. Thus Russia and France base their indecently quick and unconditional invitations to Hamas leaders to be official guests on the assertion that they can persuade the organization to moderate.
First, they do not consider it to be a terrorist group (apparently terrorism, like fascism, is a matter of taste). Second, it is coming to power due to an election (as did Communists and fascists). And third, only appeasement - excuse me, "constructive engagement" - will work.
Or, in Russian President Vladimir Putin's words, "We are deeply convinced that burning bridges is the easiest, but not a very promising activity."
WE HAD it explained to us by The Washington Post. Hamas, it said, "Probably... will seek to implement its moderate campaign platform, which promised an uncorrupted and effective government while working out a modus vivendi with Israel." Excessive pressure on the new regime, it warned, "would likely only strengthen the Islamists or trigger a resumption of terrorism."
In other words, aspirants to genocide never lie and if you don't bother them they won't kill you.
The Economist spoke in similar terms in a February 2 editorial: "Having to keep voters sweet may instead force [Hamas] to pay less heed to its ideology of destroying Israel and more to the Palestinians' real needs and achievable goals."
John Negroponte, director of US intelligence, agreed, telling the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that same day that the Hamas victory did not necessarily mean an end to hopes of a negotiate peace agreement.
"Hamas must now contend with Palestinian public opinion that over the years has supported the two-state solution." If this is the assessment of US intelligence analysts, something is seriously wrong.
But this notion does reflect a New York Times editorial saying Hamas will be "compelled" to become moderate by its need to deliver material improvements to the Palestinians - leaving us to explain only how the PLO managed to ignore such alleged pressures for 40 years and why Hamas - which has risen so effectively through terrorism, inciting hatred and demanding total victory - will now reverse itself.
Unfortunately, Hamas does not share this viewpoint. It can burn all the bridges it wants and suffer little or no consequences; at least, not from the appeasers.
Much of the same pattern applied to the PLO, Osama bin Ladin, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, and Islamist Iran in the recent past.
Yet what faith can one put in the courage of a European Union which endlessly preaches unity, then totally abandons one of its members, Denmark, when it is subjected to assault on the basis of cartoons published in a newspaper which supposedly enjoys free speech?
After the September 11, 2001, terror attacks on America many called them a Pearl Harbor-like wake-up call to Western unity and the democratic struggle against totalitarian, anti-freedom forces. Yet there are probably more people, at least among respected Western elites, who think the problem is Islamophobia, America and Israel rather than radical Islamism, terrorism and corrupt dictatorships blaming their bad systems on others.
What year is it anyway?
The writer is director of the Global Research in International Affairs Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs.
Lead Curtesy of FDD
By BARRY RUBIN
We have come full circle. Here is how the last great historical era began, the one we seem to be starting over afresh.
It's January 30, 1933, and here's what the Cleveland Press reports from Washington under the headline, "US Unruffled by Hitler Rise."
"High authorities here regard with complacence Adolf Hitler's rise to power in Germany... They [express] faith that Hitler would act with moderation... Experts based this belief on past events showing that so-called radical groups usually moderated, once in power."
The Philadelphia Evening Bulletin stated that Hitler seemed extreme in the past, but "Lately, however, there have been indications of moderation."
Perhaps you had to be nice to them to bring about this moderation, as advocates of appeasement proposed.
There were good arguments for that case. Germany was strong, and it was better not to provoke it; perhaps it was better to have it as a friend. Germany could be a profitable trading partner; economic embargoes didn't work any way.
Could the democratic countries really preach to Germany given their own sins of imperialism and injustice? Wasn't confrontation worth avoiding at any price, especially faced with the horrors of war? And what about Germany's genuine grievances as victim of mistreatment by Britain, France and America?
Was it really proper to interfere in Germany's internal affairs (this was the US government's position) or to try to impose the values of other countries on it? Six years later, in 1939, after allying with Nazi Germany, Soviet foreign minister Molotov explained that "fascism is a matter of taste."
And, of course, there was always the final resort: The Germans weren't against "us" but merely against the Jews, who were thus the ones pushing conflict with Germany for their own interests.
Sound familiar? Just substitute Iran, Hizbullah, Hamas, radical Islamists, Iraqi insurgents or Syria. All of these groups are aligned, while the West displays its divisions and doubts.
BUT, OF course, a lot happened back in the 1930s to drive away that kind of thinking for more than a half-century. Democratic countries found it impossible to appease Germany, even by feeding one of their own - Czechoslovakia - to it. They had to fight a desperate war, coming closer to defeat than we like to recall.
Then, after a brief period of renewed wishful thinking in dealing with Joseph Stalin's USSR, starting in 1945, these lessons were reinforced.
The Cold War was America's fault, many of the best intellectual minds explained. Stalin had limited defensive and legitimate demands. Yet, again, radical forces would not let the democratic world betray itself. They kept pushing and showing their true nature until it had to respond, like it or not. Finally, it was understood that concessions and apologies only made the aggressors more confident of their own strength and the decadent weakness of democratic foes.
It seems, however, that this whole cycle of experience has been forgotten by all too many people, and even whole countries. Thus Russia and France base their indecently quick and unconditional invitations to Hamas leaders to be official guests on the assertion that they can persuade the organization to moderate.
First, they do not consider it to be a terrorist group (apparently terrorism, like fascism, is a matter of taste). Second, it is coming to power due to an election (as did Communists and fascists). And third, only appeasement - excuse me, "constructive engagement" - will work.
Or, in Russian President Vladimir Putin's words, "We are deeply convinced that burning bridges is the easiest, but not a very promising activity."
WE HAD it explained to us by The Washington Post. Hamas, it said, "Probably... will seek to implement its moderate campaign platform, which promised an uncorrupted and effective government while working out a modus vivendi with Israel." Excessive pressure on the new regime, it warned, "would likely only strengthen the Islamists or trigger a resumption of terrorism."
In other words, aspirants to genocide never lie and if you don't bother them they won't kill you.
The Economist spoke in similar terms in a February 2 editorial: "Having to keep voters sweet may instead force [Hamas] to pay less heed to its ideology of destroying Israel and more to the Palestinians' real needs and achievable goals."
John Negroponte, director of US intelligence, agreed, telling the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that same day that the Hamas victory did not necessarily mean an end to hopes of a negotiate peace agreement.
"Hamas must now contend with Palestinian public opinion that over the years has supported the two-state solution." If this is the assessment of US intelligence analysts, something is seriously wrong.
But this notion does reflect a New York Times editorial saying Hamas will be "compelled" to become moderate by its need to deliver material improvements to the Palestinians - leaving us to explain only how the PLO managed to ignore such alleged pressures for 40 years and why Hamas - which has risen so effectively through terrorism, inciting hatred and demanding total victory - will now reverse itself.
Unfortunately, Hamas does not share this viewpoint. It can burn all the bridges it wants and suffer little or no consequences; at least, not from the appeasers.
Much of the same pattern applied to the PLO, Osama bin Ladin, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, and Islamist Iran in the recent past.
Yet what faith can one put in the courage of a European Union which endlessly preaches unity, then totally abandons one of its members, Denmark, when it is subjected to assault on the basis of cartoons published in a newspaper which supposedly enjoys free speech?
After the September 11, 2001, terror attacks on America many called them a Pearl Harbor-like wake-up call to Western unity and the democratic struggle against totalitarian, anti-freedom forces. Yet there are probably more people, at least among respected Western elites, who think the problem is Islamophobia, America and Israel rather than radical Islamism, terrorism and corrupt dictatorships blaming their bad systems on others.
What year is it anyway?
The writer is director of the Global Research in International Affairs Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs.
Lead Curtesy of FDD
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Arab-owned American ports?
VERY IMPORTANT STORY
TODAY'S EDITORIAL
February 15, 2006
Some of the country's busiest ports -- New York, New Jersey, Baltimore and three others -- are about to become the property of the United Arab Emirates. Do we really want our major ports in the hands of an Arab country where al Qaeda recruits, travels and wires money? The U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment, a Treasury Department-dominated group which reviews foreign investments, allows such purchases. The committee approved a $6.8 billion transaction between the ports' current British owners and Dubai Ports World, a government-owned United Arab Emirates firm. The United Arab Emirates was home to Marwan al-Shehhi, a September 11 hijacker; the country is a transit point for al Qaeda, including several other September 11 hijackers; al Qaeda's financing activities have involved the UAE; al Qaeda finds sympathizers there with ease, as it does in other Arab countries. The Bush administration calls the United Arab Emirates an ally in the war on terror. But the UAE plays the same game Saudi Arabia does of quelching terrorists at home and turning a blind eye everywhere else. It would be easy to caricature this sale: The purchase doesn't entail young Arab firebrands replacing longshoremen, nor would it displace American ownership. The storied British firm that currently owns them, the Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., probably isn't much better equipped against terrorist infiltration than Dubai Ports World. But then, the poor state of port security is precisely the point. We should be improving port security in an age of terrorism, not outsourcing decisions to the highest bidder. The ports are thought to be the country's weakest homeland-security link, with good reason. Only a fraction of the nation's maritime cargoes are inspected. This deal appears to be all about money. Dubai Ports World is "a business and its money is the same color as everyone else's, only it's got more of it," one banker told the Baltimore Sun. Where does the money come from? As a private company, Dubai Ports World's claim of 20 percent annual growth since 2001 is all but unverifiable, and its inner workings opaque. For all we know, Dubai Ports World is an undeclared arm of a foreign government. The root question is this: Why should the United States have to gamble its port security on whether a subsidiary of the government of the United Arab Emirates happens to remain an antiterrorism ally? The Committee on Foreign Investment is the wrong place for this decision to be made; it appears to be little more than a rubber stamp. Sen. Chuck Schumer, New York Democrat, among others, is asking tough questions about this deal. For once, we agree with him: President Bush should overrule the committee to reject this deal. If that doesn't happen, Congress should take action. The country's ports should not be owned by foreign governments; much less governments whose territories are favored by al Qaeda.
TODAY'S EDITORIAL
February 15, 2006
Some of the country's busiest ports -- New York, New Jersey, Baltimore and three others -- are about to become the property of the United Arab Emirates. Do we really want our major ports in the hands of an Arab country where al Qaeda recruits, travels and wires money? The U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment, a Treasury Department-dominated group which reviews foreign investments, allows such purchases. The committee approved a $6.8 billion transaction between the ports' current British owners and Dubai Ports World, a government-owned United Arab Emirates firm. The United Arab Emirates was home to Marwan al-Shehhi, a September 11 hijacker; the country is a transit point for al Qaeda, including several other September 11 hijackers; al Qaeda's financing activities have involved the UAE; al Qaeda finds sympathizers there with ease, as it does in other Arab countries. The Bush administration calls the United Arab Emirates an ally in the war on terror. But the UAE plays the same game Saudi Arabia does of quelching terrorists at home and turning a blind eye everywhere else. It would be easy to caricature this sale: The purchase doesn't entail young Arab firebrands replacing longshoremen, nor would it displace American ownership. The storied British firm that currently owns them, the Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., probably isn't much better equipped against terrorist infiltration than Dubai Ports World. But then, the poor state of port security is precisely the point. We should be improving port security in an age of terrorism, not outsourcing decisions to the highest bidder. The ports are thought to be the country's weakest homeland-security link, with good reason. Only a fraction of the nation's maritime cargoes are inspected. This deal appears to be all about money. Dubai Ports World is "a business and its money is the same color as everyone else's, only it's got more of it," one banker told the Baltimore Sun. Where does the money come from? As a private company, Dubai Ports World's claim of 20 percent annual growth since 2001 is all but unverifiable, and its inner workings opaque. For all we know, Dubai Ports World is an undeclared arm of a foreign government. The root question is this: Why should the United States have to gamble its port security on whether a subsidiary of the government of the United Arab Emirates happens to remain an antiterrorism ally? The Committee on Foreign Investment is the wrong place for this decision to be made; it appears to be little more than a rubber stamp. Sen. Chuck Schumer, New York Democrat, among others, is asking tough questions about this deal. For once, we agree with him: President Bush should overrule the committee to reject this deal. If that doesn't happen, Congress should take action. The country's ports should not be owned by foreign governments; much less governments whose territories are favored by al Qaeda.
Watching The MSM Foam at The Mouth LOL
As the MSM meltsdown over the fact that they weren't called before the ambulance was, they miss golden opportunities to report news and to at least pretend that they are objective.
Hugh Hewitt has on his site this information: "I searched the online sites of the four papers above, btw, for any story of Al Gore's remarks in Saudi Arabia on Sunday in which the once and possibly future candidate for the presidency charged the United States with "terrible abuses" against Arabs in the aftermath of 9/11, and of "indiscriminately round[ing] up" of Arabs who were then held in "unforgivable" conditions.
I could find no articles on the story in the four papers.
The "Cheney cover-up" meme is wholly fabricated while the MSM itself covers for the former vice president's slander on the country made in front of a foreign audience."
There was also Harry Reid that hid his stroke for 3 days, I won't even bring up Teddy (manslaughter) Kennedy.
Here is another opportunity that the MSM has blown The Hildabeast (Hillary Clinton) had these comments :
"Asked at a press conference for her reaction about how the White House has handled the incident, US Senator Hillary Clinton called the Bush administration's failure to be more forthcoming "troubling."
"A tendency of this administration -- from the top all the way to the bottom -- is to withhold information ... to refuse to be forthcoming about information that is of significance and relevance to the jobs that all of you do, and the interests of the American people," Clinton said.
"Putting it all together, going back years now, there's a pattern and it's a pattern that should be troubling," she said at a press conference calling for a more robust federal response to the Hurricane Katrina disaster.
The former first lady continued: "The refusal of this administration to level with the American people on matters large and small is very disturbing, because it goes counter to the way our constitutional democracy ... is supposed to work."
Now why didn't the "Journalist" ask Hillary about her delay in holding the Vince Foster Suicide note for 30 hours or about her delay in "finding" the Rose lawfirm records untill after the Statute of Limitations had ran out?
The MSM press has as much credibility as Iranian President Imamadjihad and about as much love for the truth and the US as he does also. This might also explain these numbers:
Look at these numbers for total viewers from Mediabistro:
6pm: Hume: 1,448,000 / Dobbs: 745,000 / Abrams: 290,000
7pm: Shep: 1,458,000 / Blitzer: 625,000 / Hardball: 534,000 / Showbiz: 123,000
8pm: O'Reilly: 2,244,000 / Zahn: 647,000 / Countdown: 479,000 / Grace: 529,000 / On The Money: 223,000
9pm: H&C: 1,379,000 / King: 751,000 / Rita: 284,000 / Prime News: 346,000 / Mad Money: 182,000
10pm: Greta: 1,088,000 / Cooper: 594,000 / Scarborough: 293,000 / Grace: 272,000 / Deutsch: 121,000
11pm: O'Reilly repeat: 1,000,000 / Cooper: 373,000 / Situation: 169,000 / Showbiz repeat: 149,000 / On The Money repeat: 59,000
When you watch Idiots like Gregory call the white house press secretary a "Jerk" because he won't give him answers he likes, while at the same time they won't even ask a Democrat a question that might even hint at some of their impropriety. It is no wonder they have hemorrhaged readers and viewers as their lack of credibility is exposed on a daily basis.
Thanks HH for some info in this story
Hugh Hewitt has on his site this information: "I searched the online sites of the four papers above, btw, for any story of Al Gore's remarks in Saudi Arabia on Sunday in which the once and possibly future candidate for the presidency charged the United States with "terrible abuses" against Arabs in the aftermath of 9/11, and of "indiscriminately round[ing] up" of Arabs who were then held in "unforgivable" conditions.
I could find no articles on the story in the four papers.
The "Cheney cover-up" meme is wholly fabricated while the MSM itself covers for the former vice president's slander on the country made in front of a foreign audience."
There was also Harry Reid that hid his stroke for 3 days, I won't even bring up Teddy (manslaughter) Kennedy.
Here is another opportunity that the MSM has blown The Hildabeast (Hillary Clinton) had these comments :
"Asked at a press conference for her reaction about how the White House has handled the incident, US Senator Hillary Clinton called the Bush administration's failure to be more forthcoming "troubling."
"A tendency of this administration -- from the top all the way to the bottom -- is to withhold information ... to refuse to be forthcoming about information that is of significance and relevance to the jobs that all of you do, and the interests of the American people," Clinton said.
"Putting it all together, going back years now, there's a pattern and it's a pattern that should be troubling," she said at a press conference calling for a more robust federal response to the Hurricane Katrina disaster.
The former first lady continued: "The refusal of this administration to level with the American people on matters large and small is very disturbing, because it goes counter to the way our constitutional democracy ... is supposed to work."
Now why didn't the "Journalist" ask Hillary about her delay in holding the Vince Foster Suicide note for 30 hours or about her delay in "finding" the Rose lawfirm records untill after the Statute of Limitations had ran out?
The MSM press has as much credibility as Iranian President Imamadjihad and about as much love for the truth and the US as he does also. This might also explain these numbers:
Look at these numbers for total viewers from Mediabistro:
6pm: Hume: 1,448,000 / Dobbs: 745,000 / Abrams: 290,000
7pm: Shep: 1,458,000 / Blitzer: 625,000 / Hardball: 534,000 / Showbiz: 123,000
8pm: O'Reilly: 2,244,000 / Zahn: 647,000 / Countdown: 479,000 / Grace: 529,000 / On The Money: 223,000
9pm: H&C: 1,379,000 / King: 751,000 / Rita: 284,000 / Prime News: 346,000 / Mad Money: 182,000
10pm: Greta: 1,088,000 / Cooper: 594,000 / Scarborough: 293,000 / Grace: 272,000 / Deutsch: 121,000
11pm: O'Reilly repeat: 1,000,000 / Cooper: 373,000 / Situation: 169,000 / Showbiz repeat: 149,000 / On The Money repeat: 59,000
When you watch Idiots like Gregory call the white house press secretary a "Jerk" because he won't give him answers he likes, while at the same time they won't even ask a Democrat a question that might even hint at some of their impropriety. It is no wonder they have hemorrhaged readers and viewers as their lack of credibility is exposed on a daily basis.
Thanks HH for some info in this story
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)