SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : WAR on Terror. Will it engulf the Entire Middle East? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Peter Dierks who wrote (10076)10/7/2005 10:05:25 AM
From: paret  Respond to of 32591
 
Rice soft on Hamas and disarming Palestinian terrorists
IMRA ^ | 10-7-05

Weekly Commentary: Aaron Lerner Date: 6 October 2005

Last week Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice responded to a question at Princeton University about America being soft on Hamas with a carefully crafted statement that was not only soft on Hamas but soft on Palestinian terror in general.

Instead of calling on the Palestinian Authority to immediately disarm the terrorists, Rice showed understanding for this taking an open-ended period of time. "There are periods of time of transition in which one has to give some space to the participants, in this case the Palestinians, to begin to come to a new national compact. Eventually", the Secretary of State explained, they have to be disarmed.

Instead of calling to bar Hamas from running in the PLC unless it first disarms, Rice said that "you cannot have armed groups ultimately participating in politics with no expectation that they're going to disarm" - a requirement that could just as easily be met by Hamas saying that they "expect" to "ultimately" disarm.

And to drive home the point that the Hamas "politicians" can "run first - disarm sometime later", the Secretary of State cited the example of the Good Friday Agreement in which "it was understood that when Sinn Fein came into politics .eventually the IRA would disarm" - adding that "perhaps, hopefully, that process is now underway."



To: Peter Dierks who wrote (10076)10/7/2005 11:51:58 AM
From: paret  Respond to of 32591
 
The Islamofascist challenge
TODAY'S EDITORIAL
October 7, 2005
washtimes.com

In one of the most significant speeches of his presidency, President Bush yesterday specifically named the threat the United States faces today: Islamofascism. It is necessary to explain to the American people the nature of the broader enemy, and that is precisely what the president did. Mr. Bush also warned state sponsors of terror such as Iran and Syria that Washington "makes no distinction between those who commit acts of terror and those who support and harbor them, because they're equally as guilty of murder."
In the face of public-opinion polls suggesting that there is growing support for withdrawing American troops from Iraq, Mr. Bush noted in a speech to the National Endowment for Democracy that doing this would be catastrophic. "This is a dangerous illusion, refuted with a simple question: Would the United States and other free nations be more or less safe, with Zarqawi and bin Laden in control of Iraq, its people and its resources?" Mr. Bush asked. As the president noted, abandoning Iraq would embolden the enemy and heighten the long-term threat to the United States, something he will not permit to occur.
Mr. Bush alluded to the fact that when it becomes apparent that a protracted war is inevitable, democracies tend to look for the easy way out -- to hope that somehow a way can be found to reach an understanding with their enemies that would enable a way to resolve things peacefully. But that is a dangerous illusion in the current conflict with radical Islamists. "There's always a temptation, in the middle of a long struggle, to seek the quiet life, to escape the duties and problems of the world, and to hope the enemy grows weary of fanaticism and tired of murder. This would be a pleasant world, but it's not the world we live in. The enemy is never tired, never sated, never content with yesterday's brutality. This enemy considers every retreat of the civilized world as an invitation to greater violence."
As the president observed, today's Islamist terror networks operate in many forms: Some are part of al Qaeda's transnational terrorist organization; others in locations like the Philippines and Kashmir are part of groups that are loosely affiliated with al Qaeda. But they are united by a desire to end American and Western influence in the Middle East. "Their tactic to meet this goal has been consistent for a quarter-century: They hit us, and expect us to run," the president stated. In places such as Iraq, "They want us to repeat the sad history of Beirut in 1983 and Mogadishu in 1993 -- only this time on a larger scale, with greater consequences."
While September 11 was uniquely horrifying to Americans, Mr. Bush noted, it was but one in a long series of terrorist attacks carried out by Islamofascists around the world, in the past four years, in countries as diverse as Spain, Israel, Russia, Indonesia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Morocco. Innocent men, women and children have died "simply because they boarded the wrong train, or worked in the wrong building, or checked into the wrong hotel." These attacks may appear to be indiscriminate actions carried out by madmen. But they are integral components of a violent ideology that focuses on killing Christians, Jews, Hindus and other jihadist Muslims who deem them to be heretics.
The danger from these jihadists is magnified by "helpers and enablers" including "allies of convenience like Syria and Iran, that share the goal of hurting America and moderate Muslim governments, and use terrorist propaganda to blame their own failures on the West and America, and on the Jews," Mr. Bush noted. They are aided and abetted by "elements of the Arab news media that incite hatred and anti-Semitism, that feed conspiracy theories and speak of a so-called American 'war on Islam' -- with seldom a word about American action to protect Muslims in Afghanistan, and Bosnia, Somalia, Kosovo and Iraq," he said.
The president also pointed to a number of hopeful developments that have occurred since September 11, ranging from the heightened willingness of Muslim scholars in the Arab world to condemn terrorism to the fact that many thousands of Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan are fighting jihadists in their own countries: "These brave citizens know the stakes -- the survival of their own liberty, the future of their own region, the justice and humanity of their own tradition -- and that the United States of America is proud to stand beside them."



To: Peter Dierks who wrote (10076)10/10/2005 1:19:29 PM
From: paret  Respond to of 32591
 
Muslim countries denying Christians religious freedom
Middle East Times ^ | October 10, 2005

VATICAN CITY -- A Roman Catholic bishop taking part in the Vatican synod criticized Muslim countries on Saturday for not allowing Christians to practice their faith.

Archbishop Berhaneyesus Souraphiel of Addis Ababa in Ethiopia cited the example of Ethiopian and Eritrean guest workers in Arab countries who he claimed were unable to practice their Christian faith.

He named Saudi Arabia, Yemen and the Gulf States in a speech to more than 240 bishops gathered at the Vatican to discuss the problems facing the Catholic Church worldwide.

"Before going to these Muslim countries, they are forced to change their Christian name to a Muslim one, and in particular, the women have to dress in Muslim clothing.

"Once they have reached their destination, they have their passports taken away and are subjected to every kind of abuse and oppression. In this situation many are forced to become Muslims," according to a text of the prelate's speech released to Italian journalists.

"They are forced to go to these Muslim countries because of poverty in their own countries and because other Christian countries are barred to them. "The right to profess their own religion is denied them," he said, including being able to go to mass and communion. "It's modern day religious persecution."



To: Peter Dierks who wrote (10076)10/10/2005 1:27:10 PM
From: paret  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 32591
 
Saudis say Sandy Burglar Lies:

Saudis: Bill Clinton Tearful Over Lewinsky, Not Khobar
News Max ^ | Oct. 10, 2005 | Carl Limbacher

According to two sources close to former Saudi ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan, ex-president Bill Clinton was on the verge of tears over legal woes brought on by the Monica Lewinsky scandal during a Sept. 1998 meeting with Crown Prince Adbullah - and spent almost no time discussing the Khobar Towers bombing case.

The Saudi account backs claims by former FBI Director Louis Freeh, who told CBS's "60 Minutes" last night that Clinton failed to press Abdullah during the meeting for cooperation in the Khobar case.

Interviewed by the New Yorker in May 2001, two Saudi officials noted that Prince Bandar was present during the meeting. And Bandar's version, according to those same Saudi sources, contradicts the claim by former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger that his old boss vigorously pursued Khobar during the meeting.

"Clinton, by many accounts, was almost crying," the New Yorker said, based on interviews with the Saudis.

Bandar "remembered the Crown Prince consoling Clinton about his legal troubles. At one point, the Crown Prince, who was wearing a black robe, said to Clinton, 'All those who attack you and are making such a big issue out of this' - the Lewinsky affair - 'should be like the lint on my robes. One should just throw them off.'" Addullah promised Clinton that he would "talk to people on the Hill and tell them they should respect the Presidency and not wipe the floor with it" over the Lewinsky case.

The Saudi sources said that while Clinton did eventually mention Khobar, "It was along the line of 'Would you be kind enough to continue cooperation?' "

Abdullah was stunned that Clinton had demonstrated so little interest about a bombing that had killed 19 U.S. airmen.

According to the New Yorker:

Bandar had warned him to expect some "very important questions" about Khobar, but Clinton had not raised them. "What's going on?" the bewildered Saudi leader asked his U.S. ambassador.

The effect of this meeting, Bandar's associates told the New Yorker, "was to persuade the Crown Prince that the [Khobar] case was no longer of great importance to the United States."