LA2AL-Quds

soon and very soon

Friday, December 30, 2005

Nice.

Karma's a bitch.

Wednesday, December 28, 2005

Why does it take Interpol three fricking years to put out an APB on Zarqawi?

Tuesday, December 27, 2005

Good thing Europe signed the Kyoto Protocol.

Bowl Schedule

Friday, December 23, 2005

Join the team.

The new Presidential dollar, featuring all 37 of the nation's dead presidents, will begin rolling out of the U.S. Mint in 2007 under a bill signed by President Bush. Here's the first, the Original W.:


The Ghost of Violence Past...Lebanon rebuilt itself from the ruins of civil war, but again finds itself peering into an abyss

Operation Iraqi Children

Merry Christmas and Happy Chanukah!


I'm off to LA and then to Tempe Arizona for the Fiesta Bowl. GO IRISH!

All I have to say is:

1. Thank God I'm flying Jet-Blue

and

2. Thank God I'm flying into Long Beach and NOT LAX

Tuesday, December 20, 2005

Laughable.

French counterterror agents arrest three...but Muslim extremism is not a problem in France right?

Not sure how accurate this report is, and I'm too lazy to do any analysis on it at the moment (I'm busy reading) but it's interesting nonetheless.

A great, but rather lengthy, article about the US pushing for democratic reform in the heart of the Muslim World in Yemen is in today's Washington Post.

I think it shows that this administration is serious about pushing for democratic reform in the Middle East as a way to fight Muslim extremism and terrorism. Of course one of the reasons we can push Yemen harder, than say Kuwait or Saudia Arabia, is their lack of natural resources upon which we are dependent. It is progress though, and somewhat hopeful to see that the days of financially and militarilty supporting despots in the Middle East (despite no popular support), under the guise of regional stability, are long over.

Monday, December 19, 2005

Man this guy's really on a roll.

Reshuffling the final regular-season USA TODAY football coaches' poll according to each school's football graduation rate.

Sunday, December 18, 2005

Nomar in Dodger Blue!!! Christmas come early, I finally have a reason to start cheering for the Dodgers again.

Friday, December 16, 2005

This is Peter Suderman's Syriana review in the National Review. Needless to say I did not agree, and felt so strongly to write him in response:

Mr. Suderman,

As an avid reader of the National Review I was particularly disappointed in your recent "review" of Syria. I am quite comfortable in assuming that you have never studied anything remotely close to Islamic History nor have you traveled anywhere in the Middle East. Your article is itself a stunning example of typical American ignorance with regard to cultural, historical, and national nuisances.

First off, Syriana does not open with a "throng of Arab men" quarreling. The men are Pakistani (I would make the stereotype that few Arabs play Cricket). The men look different than Arabs, dress differently than Arabs, and do not even speak Arabic. They are cheap labor often exploited throughout the Arab-Oil world, most notoriously in Saudi Arabia.

Secondly, the "simmering nervous score" that opens the movie is the Muslim call to prayer, which is sounded five times a day throughout the Muslim World. I personally find the mu'azin's (the Arabic title of the man who sings the call to prayer, although today it's mostly done with a tape or cd through a PA system) call beautiful and quite artful. Although I suppose some Muslims would view Catholic singing at the beginning of Mass a "simmering nervous score". Still, perhaps others might have an appreciation for it.

You describe the world of Syriana as one in which "every word is a half-truth spoken in code", and for that you are quite right. Arabic is a masterful language, whose perspicacity and depth, when properly woven by a skilled Arab poet, is rivaled only by Shakespeare's mastery of the English language. The very nature of Arabic as a language is that it's ambiguous. For Arabs, words can be weapons. Literally. Arab history is littered with stories of battles being fought not with the sword, but by the two armies' most skilled poet. The two men would battle a war of insults and arguments until one was the clear winner. But I digress.

Ultimately, no matter what the "conventional liberal piffle" was (I'm still trying to decide which part of it was), I thought Syriana to be thought provoking and debate engaging. I found it refreshing to go to a film which actually required some interaction with the audience, challenging them to struggle with the material instead of numbing the brain for 2 hours with violent special effect and driveled dialogue.

I am also not quite sure if you have ever spent time in out nation’s capital, for all the great things our government does for countries around the world, to not think that it’s a place of relative "low moral gravity" is a bit naïve. Back scratching, conflicts of interest and a general lack of integrity are very much alive in Washington DC.

I thought George Clooney’s and Jeffrey Wright’s performances to be spectacular. Clooney’s Arabic and Farsi were flawless, as someone who in the past was comfortable lobbing Clooney in with the wacko-Left crowd of Hollywood like Michael Moore and Al Franken, it was pretty clear to me that the man has some clue of the current realities of the Middle East, where things are often ambiguous and not as cut and dried as some politicians and oil executives would have us believe. Wright’s cold, business-like demeanor was particularly realistic; he would be most deserving of an Oscar nod. I do, however, agree with your assessment of Matt Damon’s performance. I’m not sure whom I would have cast, but I did not feel he was able to pull off the frustration you accurately believe he is trying to express.

As for the little doubt of the film’s "devoutly liberal pedigree", I’m not quite so sure. Obviously Clooney’s leftist credentials are unquestionable, but I found myself surprised by the air of objectivity in Syriana, unless you are involved in the Oil Industry. I often found myself questioning which side and character to cheer for; the rogue Prince Nashir, who genuinely seeks the betterment of his own people through political progressivism and non-economic oil dependency on his, not American, terms, even though he actively courts the support of Muslim fundamentalists; or, the oil executives, who despite being incredibly avarice in their pursuit of filthy lucre, are pursuing an oil merger that is ultimately in the average American’s best interests.

Most fellow Conservatives I know who have seen the film found it incredibly relevant, thought provoking, and eerily realistic. At the end of the day, Matt Damon’s exclamation that "this is a fight to the death", is the reality of politics and economics in the Middle East. And until the United States is willing to curtail our pusillanimous and pathetic dependence on foreign sources of oil, the US government and oil companies will have to work in ways to promote the spread of democratic process and values, deal in circumstances which may be ethically confusing, and confront persons and ideologies which would see the destruction of the American way of life, all this in a part of the world where the vast majority of Americans do not know the difference between an Arab or a Pakistani, or between Arabic and Farsi.

I submit to you that perhaps this film, in a non-partisan debate, could be a productive source of constructive criticism of some American policies in the region. Perhaps at the very least it would be a good opportunity for Americans to be exposed to a culture, language, and religion of which their appreciation for and general knowledge of is extremely lacking, as you have made so painfully clear.

Thursday, December 15, 2005

The Caddie Shack 2 dibacle aside, Jackie Mason is hilarious.

Hassan has some cool pics. Allahu Akbar.

Per CNN: Terror suspect Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was detained in 2004, but released by Iraqi security who did not know his identity, Iraqi official says.

Tuesday, December 13, 2005

Democracy. Good stuff.

Monday, December 12, 2005

Is it really surprising that countries in Europe are bitching about the US Government holding terrorists in other countries for questioning when their own goverments want to establish relations with terrorist organizations?

Focus again centers on Syria as Gebran Tueni, the editor and manager of Al Nahar newspaper, is slain in Beirut.

U.S. official: `Just a matter of time` before Security Council probes Iran nukes (AP)

An honest obituary on the tragically comedic life of Richard Pryor.

70% of Iraqis say their own lives are going well, and nearly two-thirds expect things to improve in the year ahead.

Sunday, December 11, 2005

Is this a joke? They don't think so.

Saturday, December 10, 2005

Big ups to Dhimmi Watch and his posting of this Pew Global Attitudes poll. We in the States always hear about how much the "Arab Street" hates Americans (I mean our government, not the people, whatever their excuse de joir is) and the West or about how America is responsible for anything and everything that happens to any Arab or Muslim from here to Pakistan, or we are told by liberal news outlets of polls that surveyed the Muslim World, only to find that they believe bin Laden a hero, and George Bush the real terrorist.

Well to that I say, DITTO!

Public attitudes toward Muslims and concerns over Islamic extremism are remarkably consistent in Western Europe, the U.S., and other countries with sizeable Muslim minorities. Majorities in all Western European countries as well as Canada, India and Russia agree that Muslims coming to their countries want to be distinct from the larger country instead of adopting its customs and way of life.

The rise of Islamic extremism in their own countries is seen as worrisome by large majorities throughout Western Europe as well as the U.S., Canada, India and Russia. Most concerned are the publics in Russia and India, where 52% and 48%, respectively, say they are very concerned. In Canada, concern is somewhat less intense with 56% being at least somewhat concerned about extremism there, while in Poland just 37% are somewhat or very concerned about this.

Worry about the rise of Islamic extremism around the world is even more intense with substantial majorities in each of these non-Muslim countries expressing some measure of concern. Nine-in-ten in the Netherlands, and nearly as many elsewhere in Western Europe, are somewhat or very concerned about the global rise of Islamic extremism. A narrow majority in Russia (51%) and pluralities elsewhere in Europe are very concerned about this.

And the classic quote:

"I'm not surprised at all that so many people are worried about rising extremism. We all saw what happened in London... What if Paris is next? Now when I take the metro I am actually a bit worried. I'm afraid, but I'm also annoyed because some of the Muslims in France are becoming very feisty. Like when they whistled and booed during the Marseillaise during a football match between France and Algeria last year. They're in our country because they don't want to be in their own, but they criticize France and more and more of the young ones are now parading their Muslim identity."- A 23-year-old newspaper vendor in Paris (this poll was in July of 2005, a good 4 months before the Muslim rioting in France)

IDF foils Suicide Bomber in Jerusalem...the 20year old arrested at a checkpoint south of the city said that he had planned on carrying out a terror attack in Jerusalem, claiming that he wanted to do so because of his "hatred of Jews."

I submit for your approval...House Resolution 4655 (H.R.4655) Title: To establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq.

"SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ.

It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

10/5/1998 7:33pm:
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 360 - 38 (Roll No. 482).

10/7/1998:
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.

Murtha didn't vote on the 1998 bill...fine, he did not nor does not believe that America's national security depends on the successful transition of Iraq to a democratic regime. I'll give him a pass.

But Biden, Kerry, Lugar, Hagel, Levin, Boxer, etc. al. those pathetic, defeatist, fear-mongers in the Senate have no gall, no intesitinal fortitute, to stand by what they voted in 1998 and actually finish the job in Iraq. Instead at the first sign of diificulty we should cut and run, leaving Iraq to Zarqawi and his terrorist thugs.

Don't forget my friends, war is only acceptable so long as it's a Democrat who is leading it. Well these Senators aren't leaders at all, they're politicians. And there playing politics with the national security of the US and playing politics with the lives of American soldiers in Iraq. If they want to actually win, and stop being defeatist for once in their patheic careers, perhaps they should put their presidential ambitions aside for half a second, join the team, and actually root for America, instead of against her.

Friday, December 09, 2005

My Weekend,
Saturday:


Sunday:



Quotes of the Year:

"The idea that we are going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong."
— Howard Dean

"And there is no reason… that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the — of — the historical customs, religious customs."
— John Kerry

"The U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home."
— John Murtha

But the Democrats support the troops.

Per the Opinion-Journal:

Yesterday we noted that a Reuters dispatch, titled "Iran's President Questions Holocaust," included this sentence: "Historians say six million Jews were killed in the Nazi Holocaust." A later version of the dispatch, however, deleted the words "Historians say" and presented the Holocaust as fact: "The Nazis killed some 6 million Jews during their 1933-1945 rule."
But today, Reuters has a new formulation:


Historians say six million Jews were killed in the Nazi Holocaust. Regarding this widely-accepted view, Ahmadinejad was quoted by the official Iranian news agency IRNA . . .

Reuters, of course, famously forbade its "reporters" from referring to the Sept. 11 attacks as an act of terrorism. "We're trying to treat everyone on a level playing field," said Stephen Jukes, the "global news editor," in September 2001. Apparently Reuters thinks Holocaust deniers are entitled to a "level playing field," even if that means downgrading a historical fact to a "widely accepted view."

What did Clinton know and when did he know it? Oh, I'm sorry, guess that one only applies to Bush.

Got the Clustr Map back in action. I don't like it as much as the previous one, but it works.

Thursday, December 08, 2005

Haaretz/Dialog poll: 60 percent of Shinui, Likud voters plan to back Kadima (Haaretz)

No Christmas for Bethlehem....Bethlehem Mayor Victor Batarseh on Thursday accused the Palestinian Authority of failing to provide financial assistance to his city as it prepares to celebrate Christmas.

Don't matter, Jesus was born in Nazareth, big surprise I know.


Well that picture pretty much says it all, doesn't it?

Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah (L) prays with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at Kaabah in Mecca on Thursday.

Boy do I love Jonah Goldberg...

Liberals have been suffering from conservative envy for several years now. Oh, they don't envy us our evil ways, our penchant for extreme cruelty or the fact that we smell like cabbage. They envy us our toys and success.

The liberal Center for American Progress was founded explicitly to be the Left's answer to the conservative Heritage Foundation. The lefty radio network, "Air America," was launched to copy the success of Rush Limbaugh & Co. Today, deep-pocketed liberals are scrambling to copy conservative foundations, even though liberal foundations have always had more money.

Most conservatives I know snicker at all this. It's not that talk radio, think tanks, and foundations haven't been essential to the rise of American conservatism in the last five decades. They have been (see my colleague John Miller's excellent new book, A Gift of Freedom: How the John M. Olin Foundation Changed America, for a window into that effort). But liberals are emphasizing hardware because they don't want to question the validity of their very outdated software.

Look, conservatives would love to switch places with liberals. We'd get the universities, Hollywood, the Rockefeller, Ford, Carnegie and Pew Foundations, the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, the New York Times, National Public Radio, Time, Newsweek, The New Yorker, CBS, including 60 Minutes and Dan Rather's thousand-fingers massage chair, and so forth. Liberals, meanwhile, would get the Washington Times and Fox News, along with a few conservative foundations. I guess National Review and The New Republic would switch offices, which is fine by me. It'd make my commute easier.

And that sort of makes the point: Not only does the Left have better stuff, but even if that weren't the case, the Left's problem isn't a lack of mechanisms to "get their message out." Megaphones matter, but not as much as what you say into them.

If liberals really want to emulate conservative successes, I have some advice for them: Get into some big, honking arguments — not with conservatives, but with each other. The history of the conservative movement's successes has been the history of intellectual donnybrooks, between libertarians and traditionalists, hawks and isolationists, so-called neocons and so-called paleocons, less-filling versus tastes great. Liberals would be smart to copy that and stop worrying how to mimic our direct mail strategies.

Liberals have a tendency to mistake political tactics for political principles, and vice versa. Exhibit A is the Left's fascination with "unity." Unity is often useful in politics, but it's often a handicap if you haven't figured out what to be unified about. Just as the Socratic method leads to wisdom, big fights not only illuminate big ideas, but they force people to become invested in them. Unfortunately, liberals define diversity by skin color and sex, not by ideas, which makes it difficult to have really good arguments.

Of course there are arguments on the Left and there are individual liberals with deep-seated convictions and principles. But most of the arguments are about how to "build a movement" or how to win elections, not about what liberalism is. Even the "Get out of Iraq now!" demands from the base of the Democratic party aren't grounded in anything like a coherent foreign policy. Ten years ago liberals championed nation-building. Now they call it imperialism because George W. Bush is doing it.

A good illustration of the fundamental difference between Left and Right can be found in two books edited by Peter Berkowitz for the Hoover Institution, Varieties of Conservatism in America and Varieties of Progressivism in America. Each contains thoughtful essays by leading conservatives and liberals. But while the conservatives defend different ideological philosophical schools — neoconservatism, traditionalism, etc. — the liberals argue almost exclusively about which tactics Democrats should embrace to win the White House.

Bill Clinton was the only Democratic president elected to two terms since Franklin Roosevelt. One of the reasons for his success was that he was willing to pick fights with his own party. One can argue about the sincerity of some of those fights. But we remember the Sista Souljah moment for a reason.

Right now Washington is marveling at how the Democratic party has simultaneously made the Iraq war the central and defining political issue of the decade while at the same time having no clue what it is they want to do about it. Worse, it's looking increasingly like the Democrats' position on the war is based largely on the polls, not principles.

One of the most important events in the rise of conservatism was the 1978 Firing Line debate over U.S. control of the Panama Canal. William F. Buckley favored giving it up. The governor of California, Ronald Reagan, favored keeping it. Reagan's side lost the argument, in Congress at least, but conservatives once again demonstrated our willingness to duke it out on such issues. And Reagan's career hardly suffered. If liberals were smart, they'd do something similar. Have Joe Lieberman debate Nancy Pelosi, or John Murtha. Make liberals get past their passion and explore what they think. My guess is it would be good for liberalism in the long run — and even better for America.

After thinking about what the Iranian President said today, it occured to me that perhaps it's not such a bad idea that Israel be moved to Europe.


The UN already thinks this should happen: This is the prominent UN public display which was used to mark the commemoration of "International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People" on November 29, 2005. The Palestinian flag is on one side. The UN flag is on the other side. A map without the UN member state of Israel stands between them.

On second thought, I think Jews tried to live in Europe once, that didn't work out so well. Well, maybe between Israel and the United States we have enough nuclear weapons to move IRAN to Europe and make Persia a parking lot. I guess I'm kind of glad Iran makes these statements every now and then. Only makes it easier to support a lil regime change.

Profile of a Killer


I found this article re: Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi on Foreign Policy.com. It's a pretty good piece but I don't agree with everything. Namely, that US presence in Iraq is responsible for terrorism there. This is the mindless and baseless argument similar to the "cycle of violence" argument in the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict argument and it has little basis other than political objectives for people who are against Bush's war in Iraq.

Secondly, the author makes it seem like Colin Powell made Zarqawi the main reason for the US invading Iraq in the first place. Obviously everyone knows this is not true, WMDs and Saddam's failure to abide by UN demands were the reason (as any Democrat will tell you). BUT, this was the first instance where the name Zarqawi was brought into the public sphere as he is identified as the leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq and thus establishes a link between Saddam Hussein and Usama bin Laden, which would also further justify war against Iraq. That said, UBL hated Saddam Hussein, and his secular Baathist ideology. That being said we know now that Hussein knew before the Iraq War began, that Zarqawi was operating in Iraq and had pretty much condoned his actions there. They both have the same targets in mind, so why make trouble against someone who can command Muslim extremist youth?

As Napoleoni argues in the piece, Zarqawi didn't pledge allegiance to UBL in 200 when they first met in Afghanistan (this may or may not be true, we'll probably never know for sure). However, she does incorporate nicely the similarities in the two men's vision of the global Jihad against the US and the West, and the local Jihad meant to be carried out against Arab governments in collusion with the United States (Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan, Saudi Arabia).


Napoleoni is way focused on Zarqawi's humble Bedouin roots as compared to Bin Laden's rich family upbringing. But as she writes, Zarqawi was greatly respected within the Jordanian prison system as "Prince Among Prisoners". He was suave and persuasive long before he met UBL, so why would he suddenly need UBL's approval of his operations in 2004? It doesn't make much sense. Suddenly their class as youths comes into play? UBL has been living in caves in Afghanistan and Sudan since the 1980s but he's somehow an elitist compared to Zarqawi's "humble roots"? We aren't talking about the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, we're talking about global Jihad, which every good Muslim is responsible to carry out.

Besides, technically speaking, Zarqawi, as the son of the Bedouin who can link his ancestry to the Bani Hassan tribe loyal to the Jordan's Hashemite royal family, Zarqawi would already be considered religiously significant enough to lead the Jihad. Probably even more so than UBL because the Hashemites link their ancestry back to the Prophet. UBL's family was much poorer than Zarqawi before his father got into the construction business. So I don't really find her class argument behind the UBL-Zarqawi Alliance as very credible.

That being said, she does lay out a pretty good picture of the global Jihad and Zarqawi's evolution and involvement therein. I highly recommend it.

Another gem today from Ahmadinejad...Iranian President says the Holocaust never happened and that the State of Israel should be moved to Europe. And this is a country that could have nuclear weapons in months, and who suppports terrorism worldwide against the United States and Israel.


"Some European countries insist on saying that Hitler killed millions of innocent Jews in furnaces and they insist on it to the extent that if anyone proves something contrary to that they condemn that person and throw them in jail,"

"Although we don't accept this claim, if we suppose it is true, our question for the Europeans is: is the killing of innocent Jewish people by Hitler the reason for their support to the occupiers of Jerusalem?"

"If the Europeans are honest they should give some of their provinces in Europe -- like in Germany, Austria or other countries -- to the Zionists and the Zionists can establish their state in Europe. You offer part of Europe and we will support it."

"The question is, where do those who rule in Palestine as occupiers come from? Where were they born? Where did their fathers live? They have no roots in Palestine but they have taken the fate of Palestine in their hands. "

"Isn't the right to national self-determination one of the principles of the United Nations charter? Why do they deprive Palestinians of this right?"

Monday, December 05, 2005

PM aide: PA's inaction against militants caused Netanya bombing


Widespread Condemnations of attack across the world.

The Israeli government responded predictably by imposing a closure on the northern West Bank’s villages, including the killer’s village of Ilar north east of Tulkarm, and shut down the Gaza Strip’s exits to Israel, barring the Karni goods crossing. A comprehensive offensive to hunt down the Jihad Islami’s operatives and leaders was promised, a repeat of the pledge given after the Oct. 26 suicide attack on the open-air market of Hadera, just south of the coastal town of Netanya, which killed six Israelis.

Gideon Ezra, minister of internal security, up to his ears preparing prime minister Ariel Sharon’s campaign for reelection in March at the head of the new Kadima party, was caught in an unfortunate slip of the tongue. He said: “We know that the terrorists are concentrated in northern Samaria.”


The same question is being asked insistently about the Gaza Strip - especially by the missile-battered Israelis who live within range of Palestinian launch-crews in the Western Negev. Day by day, they see Israeli airplanes and artillery bombing empty sand dunes and buildings while the missiles keeping coming. It has also not escaped the notice of Israel’s intelligence chiefs that al Qaeda has moved from Sinai into the gaping security

vacuum of Gaza.

Defense minister Shaul Mofaz, himself fighting in a leadership primary to fill Sharon’s evacuated shoes as head of Likud, has meanwhile declared that targeted assassinations would be resumed in the Gaza Strip against terrorist leaders and Qassam missile crews.


For the umpteenth time, Abu Mazen was put on notice to crack down on Palestinian terrorists - notwithstanding his automatic refusal to do any such thing. This time, the chorus was joined by a new voice: election hopeful, Labor’s new broom Amir Peretz, collected all the party’s retired generals and defense chiefs for their first photo op as a “shadow’ administration. All posed eagerly on the mark.


In this atmosphere, it was not surprising to find the security forces responding sluggishly to the unexpected emergency of a deadly explosion in Netanya. The Magen David emergency service was as fast and efficient as ever. But an inquiry has been launched to find out whether the local police were justified in refraining from shooting the bomber when he was in their sights.


When a police patrol was alerted by a bystander to a shifty-looking character heading for the Sharon mall with his hand in a big bag, a policewoman jumped out of the vehicle and gave chase. She saw that the bomber had been grabbed by the mall’s security guard, Haim Amram, 26, from Netanya, to keep him away from the entrance. She shouted to Amram to pull the Palestinian’s hand out of the bag and screamed to the crowd to stand back. She was too late. The killer detonated his bomb. Amram took the full force of the blast and, with four bystanders, died on the spot.


The policewoman’s gun was out and so were the weapons of two more policemen at the scene, but none were fired.

The University of Notre Dame is considering opening up its on-campus cemetery to graduates of the school...How many millions do you think I'd have to donate for that to happen?

Big News on Iran:

Mohamed El-Baradei announced that Iran is "only months away from a bomb", but tells the US to stop putting pressure on Iran. Meanwhile Iran announces they will invite bidders to tender for the construction of two 1,000 megawatt nuclear reactors, despite Western pressure on Tehran to scale back its nuclear ambitions, Iran's chief atomic negotiator said on Monday.

And as usual, Russia continues to act like the Soviet Union. The doublespeak just doesn't get any better than this:

--Iran and Russia
sign $1 bln defense deal

--Russia
warns Iran against UN sanctions

This is something Bush is going to have to address with his soulmate Putin. I can't see any strategic logic behind Russia doing this, other than that they might be able to use this new deal as leverage against Iran to stop the uranium enrichment. Putin can't really think that it's in Russia's interest for Iran to have Nukes.

Meanwhile Netanyahu plays politics (as usual), saying
he would attack Iran to prevent their developing WMDs. Geez Bibi your crap just never gets old. Your a has-been, is this your only tactic for beating Sharon in the upcoming elections? You're not going to outflank Sharon on security, but I guess you'll have to learn that the hard way.

Nevertheless, Sharon has said striking Iran would be well within
Israel's capabilities, though American cooperation would be a must. But an American Army report is saying that Israel can't stop Iran nukes.


One more final thing I read today which I found of keen interest, a report from a Kurdish Media source quoting a report in the Israeli Newspaper
Yedioth Ahronoth that Israeli forces are in Northern Iraq, training Kurdish fighters. This would be of little surprise to me, although I don't really care to go into details.

At least five killed in suicide bombing at Netanya mall...Islamic Jihad Claims Responsibility...PA police fire in Jenin at gunmen rallying in support of Netanya bombing (Israel Radio)...IDF preparing for wide-scale operation in northern Gaza (Haaretz)

Sunday, December 04, 2005

MUST READS:

Buried in Amman's Rubble:
Zarqawi's Support

It's a dirty business, but someone's got to do it.

Saturday, December 03, 2005

Another One Bites the Dust...Senior al Qaeda leader killed


It seems Pakistani and American forces have killed Al-Qaeda's No. 3 man (and 4 other terrorists who were making bombs with him at the time), Abu Hamza Rabia, in a home in the North Waziristan tribal area of Pakistan. Rabia was in charge of Al-Qaeda's operations and had replaced Abu Faraj al-Libbi since his capture by Pakistani Forces.


(Abu Faraj al-Libbi )

Al-Libbi replaced Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, who was Al-Qaeda's Director of Operations since about 1999. Muhammad was captured by Pakistan security forces and handed over to US officials. According to Wikipedia, his whereabouts are unknown. More than likely he's being held in one of those CIA prisons in Eastern Europe.


(Khalid Sheikh Muhammad)

A few things about this good news:
1. Further shows that we're winning the War. Totally dismantling Al-Qaeda's organization and ability to carry out more attacks.

2. American intelligence has been most impressive in the last few years. Particularly our cooperation with the Saudis, Israelis, Jordanians and Pakistanis, the proof is in the pudding. Pakistan is a great ally, thank God for
President Musharraf. People will harangue the CIA about torture and secret prisons, but here is the proof that the intel we're getting is saving lives.

3. It was first reported that Abu Hamza Rabia was killed by accident as he and his cohorts were assembling bombs. Not the case. It was later reported that unmanned military drones fired a volley of missiles at the house Rabia was thought to have been located at. He was apparently making weapons at the time, and caused a series of huge explosions as a result of the initial missiles fired from the drone. What does this mean? Either that Pakistani intel knew his whereabouts and told us, which again is a great sign of American-Pakistani cooperation OR, that CIA has penetrated Al-Qaeda in Pakistan and was tipped off as to his whereabouts. Either way, good stuff.

4. This is further proof that the noose around bin Laden and Zawahiri is tightening. 2006 will indeed be a good year. Nothing makes for a better Presidential rebound than catching that big fish that's still out there.

Friday, December 02, 2005

And who doesn't like Israel? The young Jewish secular Democrat male .

Thursday, December 01, 2005

Guess I was right about Israel and the US's meeting about Iran on Tuesday...Israel part of world efforts to stop nuclear Iran

Congratulations, you just won a medal at the 2006 Winter Olympics in Turin Italy...here's a washer for your efforts.