Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (29883)	11/21/2008 11:32:33 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 71588

Peter... regarding your hallucinatory claim of certain 'facts': Re: "Fact one: Obama wants to invade Pakistan." That is NOT a 'fact' , it is FALSE. He has said no such thing about "invading" Pakistan. What he has said is that "if our military has bin Laden or high al Qaeda leadership 'in out sights', and Pakistan is either unable or unwilling to go after them... then the United States will act to take them out." That is a FAR CRY from pledging to 'invade' a country and, *we should also note that that is also* exactly the same policy that George Bush has been following since he signed orders to that effect this past summer. And the US has attacked al Qaeda and Taliban targets ACROSS THE BORDER into Pakistan since then more than a DOZEN TIMES already. Re: "Fact two Pakistan is an ally in the WOT." (A bit of a DUBIOUS 'ally' wouldn't you say? Some days they help, while other days they work to help the enemy.... Especially since they are the ones who both created and preserved the Taliban as an instrument of Pakistani national policy for several decades now** --- and are widely reputed (by American Intelligence sources and experts at the Pentagon) to have tipped off terrorist targets about impending attacks by the US... while at other times actually had their military shell our troops.) Hell... the Pakistani Army General who headed their 'CIA' (the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, the I.S.I.) wired a payment of $100,000 to Mohammed Atta just one week before al Qaeda flew the planes into the World Trade Centers. Some 'ally', huh? By that same measure you might as well call Russia 'our ally'... because in some situations and in some regards Russia has acted in support of the US at least as much as that. :-( Re: "Conclusion: Obama wants to invade allies in the WOT." HaHaHaHaHaHaHa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GASP! (Peter, next you'll be saying he 'wants to INVADE Great Britain'! :-) Re: "Fact one: Obama wants to close Gitmo." That fact is TRUE. (So, so far you score one right....) Re: "Fact two: Obama stated he as always been against liberating Iraq even when he was an Illinois Senator." You are twisting words to make a polemical case. What he has said consistently was that he thought it would NOT BE IN AMERICA'S NATIONAL INTEREST to invade and then occupy Iraq. (And, frankly, at the cost of around 1 Trillion, and climbing... not to mention the loss of American influence around the world, the hollowing-out of our economy, the increase in our national debt, the depletion of our strategic options and deferment of force structure improvements, and the forgone opportunity costs... I'd say that a pretty convincing case can be argued that his judgment was correct. At least: insofar as the engagement [not to mention the larger 'WOT', also lagging] and occupation of Iraq was bungled as it was. Although I'll freely admit that a leader with superior strategic vision might have been able to not screw things up as much as Bush did.... But Obama has never spoken out against freedom for Iraqis (or for anyone else, for that matter). As far as the polemical term "liberation", I don't believe he believes that it is either within the realm of possibility, or would be beneficial to the US, for us to try to go around the world and attack any nation that we feel like, any time that we want to, and attempt to justify it all by claiming that we were 'liberating' that nation, or the world. No doubt any such action would rebound on us, and to our very great detriment. Still, I suppose you should get some PARTIAL credit for this particular asserted 'liberation' claim. Re: "Fact three: Obama has said he wants an immediate unconditional withdrawal from Iraq." That is ALSO not a 'fact'. He has said no such thing, nor is that his official policy. (Incidentally: Bush just agreed to a 'full withdrawal of American forces by no later than 2011'... which is only a year or so later then Obama would 'hope' to be able to have 'most' of our folks out. So there is not even very much daylight between the two positions any longer. Where have you been?) SCORE --- One claimed 'fact' (out of three), and a partial, is correct. While one claim (and the larger portion of that 'partial credit' one) are clearly false. Also, the one claimed 'conclusion' (based upon a phony 'fact') comes up as incorrect as well.

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (29883)	11/23/2008 2:00:06 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

U.S. Kills Al-Qaeda Suspect: Strike in Pakistan Claims Fugitive Tied to '06 Airline Bomb Plot By Candace Rondeaux Washington Post Foreign Service Sunday, November 23, 2008; A14 washingtonpost.com KABUL, Afghanistan, Nov. 22 -- A suspected al-Qaeda operative linked to a 2006 plot to blow up British airliners was killed Saturday in a suspected U.S. missile strike in northwestern Pakistan, according to two Pakistani intelligence officials. At least four other extremist fighters were also killed. The officials said the al-Qaeda suspect was Rashid Rauf, a man who held dual Pakistani and British citizenship. The attack came from an unmanned U.S. Predator aircraft, which fired at least two Hellfire missiles at a suspected Taliban compound in the village of Ali Khel in the restive tribal area of North Waziristan, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to speak publicly about missile strikes. The dead also included at least three foreign fighters, the officials said. Rauf, a former resident of the British city of Birmingham, was suspected to be the ringleader in an alleged al-Qaeda plot to blow up commercial jetliners flying from Britain to the United States. He was arrested by Pakistani authorities in Bahawalpur in August 2006 after British officials learned of the alleged terrorist operation, which authorities said included a plan to smuggle liquid explosives and camera flash detonators on board at least 10 airplanes. The plot led to widespread restrictions on items travelers could carry onto planes. In London, a Foreign Office spokesman said British officials were investigating reports that Rauf had been killed but could not confirm his death. Before his arrest, Rauf's alleged ties to the Pakistani terrorist group Jaish-i-Muhammad stirred strong suspicions among intelligence experts that he also might have had connections with rogue elements in Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, also known as the ISI. Jaish-i-Muhammad, banned in Pakistan, has played a leading role in an ISI-supported proxy war with India over the disputed northern territory of Kashmir. The group is widely suspected to be behind the abduction and killing of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in 2002. Rauf's association with the group is thought to have begun around the time he married a close relative of the group's founder, Maulana Masood Azhar. A Pakistani court dropped terrorism charges against Rauf in late 2006. Pakistani authorities, nonetheless, offered to extradite him to Britain in connection with the airliner plot. But suspicions about his connections to Pakistani intelligence agencies deepened after he escaped from custody last December. Pakistani security officials said Rauf slipped out of his handcuffs after police allowed him to stop at a mosque in the capital, Islamabad. Rauf's attorney at the time, Hashmat Habib, said Rauf was subsequently taken into ISI custody. Until Saturday's strike in North Waziristan, Rauf's whereabouts were not publicly known. Habib, reached at his offices in Pakistan, said he was aware of the reports but could not confirm whether Rauf had been killed. The U.S. military has stepped up a campaign this year targeting al-Qaeda and Taliban havens along Pakistan's mountainous border with Afghanistan. Military officials say the surge in activity has had a debilitating effect on militant operations in the region. But the attacks have drawn criticism from Pakistan's top military officer, Gen. Ashfaq Kiyani. Kiyani, who formerly led the ISI, and other top Pakistani officials have said collateral damage and civilian deaths from the missile strikes could increase anti-American sentiment in Pakistan, a key ally in the U.S.-led war against Islamist insurgents in Afghanistan. Special correspondent Shaiq Hussain in Islamabad, Pakistan, contributed to this report.

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (29883)	11/6/2009 9:08:13 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 71588

The War Against the War on Terrorism Italy convicts U.S. spooks for carrying out Italian policy. NOVEMBER 6, 2009. Armando Spataro cut his teeth as a prosecutor hunting down Red Brigade terrorists in Italy. But Wednesday in Milan he secured the conviction of 23 Americans charged with kidnapping and spiriting out of the country Osama Mustafa Hassan Nasr in 2003. Their conviction and sentencing—in absentia—is one more dubious milestone in the legal war against the war on terror. In 2005, Mr. Spataro secured an arrest warrant for Mr. Nasr, charging him with running a terrorist-recruitment network in Europe. Mr. Nasr had been under surveillance by the Italian authorities since 9/11. We recount this history to underscore that Mr. Spataro is no naif when it comes to terrorism cases, nor does he harbor any illusions about Mr. Nasr. He also knows, from his involvement in the Madrid case, that Americans are not the only targets of Islamist terror. And yet Mr. Spataro now insists that Mr. Nasr's rendition—to Germany and later to Egypt, where Mr. Nasr claims he was tortured—was a crime against Italian sovereignty. No matter that the Americans convicted this week were, by Mr. Spataro's own account, working in active and close cooperation with Italian intelligence officers. Mr. Spataro had originally charged five Italians in the case as well, but they were either acquitted or had the charges dropped. The Italian Supreme Court ruled that the bulk of the evidence against them were state secrets and so inadmissable in court. The prosecution argued, in fact, that the decision to spirit Mr. Nasr out of the country was made at the highest levels of the Italian government, and at one point threatened to call Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi as a witness. The Italian government's cooperation in the CIA operation is important because it is a long-standing principle of international law that officials of foreign governments operating in a country with the consent of its government should be immune from prosecution. But more broadly, Mr. Spataro's extraordinary pursuit of terrorist hunters shows how far we have come since 9/11. The U.S. 9/11 Commission called for far greater cross-border cooperation in the pursuit of terrorists. Instead, we now have prosecutors and judges convicting American agents for "kidnapping" a man whom even Mr. Spataro wants to see in jail. It's unclear why Mr. Nasr was rendered to Egypt rather than arrested by the Italians, or what danger intelligence officers saw in continuing to leave him at liberty. But regardless of the particulars, it would be a mistake for Europe's high-minded crusaders to rejoice at these convictions. If American intelligence officers can't cooperate with European counterparts without fear of arrest, then both Europe and America are less safe. The 9/11 hijackers formulated their plot against the U.S. in Germany, but Spain, Great Britain and Germany have also been targets. According to some reports, Mr. Nasr was planning an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Rome, which could have killed Italians and Americans. Officials on both sides of the Atlantic have long said that, no matter the political differences, intelligence and law-enforcement cooperation remained strong. These cases are undermining that vital link, and innocent people may eventually pay for Mr. Spataro's "victory." online.wsj.com