Ever since 9/11, the top priority for the United States, and much of the world, has been putting an end to terrorism - an idea. Ignoring the obvious fact that you can never eradicate terrorism - an idea - completely, a worldwide war has been launched against it. This war has costed the United States alone over 700 billion dollars between Iraq and Afganistan, and has claimed the lives of 4,124 American soldiers at this point in time. Further, our estimated wounded is between 20,000 and 100,000, with the official number being 30, 435.

In the historical view, that isn't a terrying number of casualties. However, 1,245,000 estimated iraqi deaths is, and that's just the number we know of. I doubt we have made a huge effort to go and count them all, personally. This number is higher than that in the Rwandan genocide and doesn't even include the numbers from the Afganistan war.

The perceived threat of terrorism has been the underlying justification for both the Afganistan and Iraq wars, and was a crucial factor for rallying support for George W. Bush's '04 campaign. But just how overplayed was this threat?

In WWII, Hitler's regime and allies were considered a direct threat to the stability of the entire globe. Millions died from the outset, and even then the United States was reluctant to commit itself militarily. In the Cold War, the Soviets and the United States both held the power to destroy eachother, and much of the world, with the push of a few buttons. In comparison, a few bearded guys in a backwards land don't seem as much of a threat.

While a terrorist attack in America might kill a few people, it wouldn't directly damage the country as a whole in any significant way. Infact, the number of people worldwide who die yearly due to terrorism is only a few hundred. Lightning strikes, accidents caused by deer, allergic reactions to peanuts, and the number of U.S. citizens that drown each year in bathtubs claim more lives than global terrorism does. Or how about the pollution in California, which kills an estimated (and ever increasing) 24,000 a year.

Then there's the worry over a chemical or biological attack. However, to this point deaths from terrorist biological attacks have been almost nonexistant. The well funded chemical attack in Tokyo in 1995 only managed to kill 12 people. And if it is so easy to pull off one of these attacks, how come the more-vulnerable Israel has never been the target of one?

No, the real damage from terrorism comes from the measures taken to prevent it. New airline security measures cost the economy billions every year. Law enforcement agencies spend large sums on learning new techniques for dealing with unlikely situations and on buying surveillance equipment. The war itself, launched as a preventative measure, has already costed the country a pre-stated amount rising all the time. And yet by drawing all of this attention to the problem, it isn't certain whether we have had any affect. Infact, some fear that we have aided the recruiting of groups such as Al Quaeda by angering and displacing so many people, making them stronger than ever as a movement. But the largest costs may be unquantifiable: The invasion of personal rights by the U.S. government in the name of homeland security (PATRIOT Act, for example), the overplayed fear instilled in Americans mostly by their own government and media, and even racism towards those of arab descent.

The point is, the chances of a terrorist attack occuring are extremely small. However, they are there, and there is very little you can do to change them. How much are you willing to give up in terms of quality of life, money, and American and coalition lives for actions that may be reassuring initially but in reality do almost nothing?

Or possibly an even more important question, how many lives could have been saved by spending this money on services like a stronger public health system or on fighting malaria, which claims between 1.5 and 2.7 million deaths per year?

The current period, a sequence of developments has as a result the increase of the alert regarding attacks by Islamists or other radical elements in the Balkan region. To a great extent the above are influenced directly by the declaration of independence of Kosovo that unleashes a circle of events that may lead to new regional conflicts or even a chain of terrorist attacks.

Albanian developments
In early May 2008 a new political party was formed in Kosovo, named “National Party for Greater Albania", that has as a main purpose the unification of the Albanian communities in one state centered on Kosovo.  According to estimations the finance of this party will come from American-Albanians in New York and New Jersey, whilst they are also willingly supported by radical elements in Tetovo and Albania. They are also planning to enact a series of referendums in the aforementioned regions in order to complete the creation of a “Grand Albanian” state and from what it seems their ultimate goal is to make Pristina the capital of this state.

Moreover troubles in FYROM during the 1st June elections took place and one Albanian from DUI party official shot dead in the Albanian populated Skopje municipality while tens of violent incidents with injured people were documented elsewhere. Moreover for the first time in recent history, an Albanian crowd gathered in the Slavic majority sector of Skopje chanting the acronyms "UCK-UCK" on the 30th of May.

Since late 2007, the Albanian press has reveled that the secret service of the country, named SHISH and its commander Bahri Shaqiri, have drafted plans for the recruitment of more HUMINT sources amongst the Albanian communities in the Balkans along with the upgrade of the capabilities of the service. In parallel the Albanian finance Ministry in late 2007 banned the presence of tens of Islamic radical groups and charities from operating in the country. There are also approximately 150 ex-SHISH agents that were fired by the Berisha government in the previous period and some of those have found employment in other countries such as Bulgaria working as security officers for legal and not-so-legal enterprises.

It would not be improbable as to assume that the terrible explosions in early March 2008 in the outskirts of Tirana are connected to the above. More specifically due to the explosions an unspecified amount of weaponry has been “Lost” and in parallel in case of a terrorist attack somewhere in the Balkans the disgruntled Islamists which were stripped of their protection; could be tempted to strike, provided they get a hold of this weaponry. In this hypothetical scenario a course of events similar to that of 1997 (Riots in Albania) to 1998 (Unrest in Kosovo) could be unraveled.

FYROM developments

In the former Yugoslavic Republic of Macedonia, the Albanian Imam Bekir Halimi, was arrested recently by the authorities in Skopje due to his involvement in illegal funding by pro-terrorist organization. The Albanian descent Halimi received 2,115 euros payments from the Kuwaiti Organization "Revival Islamic Heritage Society" – RIHS-.

The Revival Islamic Heritage Society has been blacklisted by the United Nations because of their close ties to terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda", said Interior Ministry's spokesperson, Ivo Kotevski. The money transfer through a swift account was done via Kuwaiti and two German banks eventually ending up on Halimi’s account.

RIHS has been accused of financing Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, as well as extremist groups in Pakistan, under the pretext of humanitarian care and since the 11th of January 2002 it was classified in the UN’s black list of international organizations.

The organization operated over the previous years in Kosovo, Bosnia and Albania, whilst it seems that it aimed at penetrating FYROM through Bekir Halimi’s actions. According to reliable information himself was under supervision by the local security forces and he was also about to complete his work by importing into the country, radical Islamic figures from the Middle East.

It seems that he was a part of a larger plan of destabilization in the Southern Balkans and it would not be improbable as to assume that the revelations are related to the violent climate of the 1st June elections and the previous culminations in Albania.

Bosnia developments

According to information relayed in the international media, the Bosnian intelligence service is about to upgrade considerably it’s (Anti) espionage capabilities abroad with a special focus in the Balkans, due to “Islamic terrorism”.

Already in March 2008 a group of 5 radical Wahhabbis were arrested near Sarajevo who had a large amount of armaments and were connected with extremist groups. In May 2008 another group of 10 people were arrested because of their connection with illegal arms contraband from Bosnia to Croatia and to Central Europe. Most of them were war veterans that fought with the Muslim federation in the mid-90’s and were also related with the Mujahedeens who ventured from the Middle East and North Africa. For the latter already 350 of those have been stripped of their Bosnian citizenship, although for most, their whereabouts are unknown, thus making them suitable for covert and subversive action.

Lastly, according to reliable information, certain extremist circles in Bosnia are trying to regroup the “Patriotic League”, which was a Muslim paramilitary force during the Bosnian war and was also responsible for the transportation of Jihad fighters from the M. East.

Other parameters

The Balkans were deemed as a safe territory for the Islamists for the past 15 years, and Albania was often named as “The safe hotel”, a place with lax control for the movements of these groups. The current developments bring to surface a wider campaign against the Islamic networks, although they have actually upgraded their capabilities since their former allies have reached positions of power, such as the case of Kosovo relates to. More importantly it has to be noted that terrorism and organized crime are closely interrelated in the Balkans therefore any sudden change in the balance of powers signals a round of conflict between the oppositional crime rings.

Moreover sources which are related with the Homeland Security in the USA, have already reported that the 2007 catastrophic wildfires in Greece were probably a form of “Pyro-terrorism” by Jihadists, whilst Greek press often reports that up to 2,000 Muslims are being monitored 24/7 for extremist behavior and connections , mostly in the Athens region. Bulgaria last year unraveled its own Jihadi network, which was composed by proselytes and Serbia has managed to break up a radical group in the Sanjak eparchy.

In addition to the above, the coming USA elections provide by definition an opportunity to Jihadists to strike against Western interests in order to create the psychological framework on which they seek to manipulate political events. The Russian-American antagonism in the Balkans is another factor that hinders international cooperation on security affairs and the increasing involvement of the Turkish intelligence; especially in FYROM is another x-factor in the wider picture.

In overall, it is important to stress the emergence of a deteriorating scene concerning Balkan security affairs and a fair estimation is that the 2008 summer period will have a high alert status and in particular in Kosovo, Albania and FYROM.

Author :
Ioannis Michaletos

Antiwar Activists Split Over Obama’s Troop Plans

WASHINGTON - Barack Obama’s plan to build up U.S. forces in Afghanistan while keeping perhaps 50,000 troops in Iraq has triggered a deep rift among antiwar activists, a reminder of the difficult tasking facing the presumptive Democratic nominee as he tries to broaden his appeal.

The Illinois senator wrapped up three days of tours and talks in the war-ravaged nations Tuesday, stressing in a news conference that the “situation in Afghanistan is perilous and urgent” and that “we should not wait any longer” to provide additional troops.

In Iraq, Obama won a tacit Iraqi endorsement of a plan to withdraw U.S. combat troops in 2010, but he also said that he backs leaving a residual force in Iraq to help train military personnel, provide security for U.S. interests and thwart terrorist threats. The residual force might total up to 50,000 troops, his campaign advisers have told reporters.

Some hailed Obama’s trip as an important breakthrough.

“So far the trip has been out of the park. It’s an enormous moment,” declared Eli Pariser, executive director of MoveOn.org, which supports Obama. He hedged about Obama’s troop commitments, however: He said he wasn’t fully aware of Obama’s call for a residual force in Iraq and was trying to get a sense from MoveOn members on their views about Afghanistan.

Sister Simone Campbell, executive director of NETWORK, the national Catholic social justice lobbying group, was less enthusiastic.

“It was a significant step forward,” she said, “but it was only a step.”

Others were simply annoyed.

Barbra Bearden, spokeswoman for Peace Action, called Obama’s comments about Afghanistan “a bit disheartening.”

Ian Thompson, lead organizer in Los Angeles for Act Now to Stop War & End Racism, an antiwar group, found Obama’s Afghanistan position similar to that of President Bush and presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain.

“What this shows is that Barack Obama does not really represent any policy shift,” he said.

Republicans thought that Obama supplied them with new political ammunition. Obama supports withdrawing U.S. combat forces within 16 months after becoming president, while McCain has called such fixed timetables artificial and unrealistic. He says troops should come home when conditions on the ground warrant it, and not before.

Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., a McCain backer, charged Tuesday in a conference call with reporters organized by McCain’s campaign that Obama has shown he’s “frighteningly inexperienced. The difference is Senator Obama’s (view) is based on the calendar, while Senator McCain believes the decision should be based on conditions on the ground.”

The trip’s chief political goal has been to bolster Obama’s stature among voters. The 46-year-old first-term U.S. senator is running against an opponent with a lengthy national security resume, and a Pew Research Center poll taken June 18-29 found 55 percent of voters thought McCain could better defend the U.S. against terrorism, while only 31 percent preferred Obama.

And they thought, by a 47 to 41 percent margin, that McCain could make better judgments about Iraq.

Experts were cautious Tuesday in measuring the trip’s political impact.

Obama took on some risk by “looking like he’s being tutored,” said Harold Cox, professor emeritus of history at Wilkes College in Pennsylvania.

“Things seem to be going as planned, and he could be helping himself,” said Kareem Crayton, associate professor of law and political science at the University of Southern California. “But we have to wait and see; we don’t know the public reaction yet.”

After Obama met Monday with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said that while Iraq did not endorse a date certain for withdrawal, he hoped it could occur sometime in 2010.

Some thought Obama helped himself politically.

“The prime minister clearly supports Obama’s plan for exiting Iraq,” Pariser said. “This couldn’t really be better.”

The visit “appears to have given the Iraqis the courage to express some of what they’re thinking, without fear of the Bush administration reprisals,” said Campbell of NETWORK.

But Obama’s views troubled many peace activists.

Bearden of Peace Action said that “we’ve seen the results of these military actions. We create a power vacuum and try to create a government. We did that in Iraq, and now we’re talking about using the same failed strategy again in Afghanistan.”

Judith LeBlanc, organizing coordinator for United for Peace & Justice, said that “dealing with the threat of terrorism cannot be done on a military basis.” She and other activists wanted to hear more from Obama about a strategy for dealing with terrorism around the globe, including more use of diplomacy and economic aid.

The activists agreed on this much: They’re not going to vote for McCain.

But whether Obama generated new enthusiasm, let alone attracted fence-sitting independent voters as McCain continued to blast him as naive, remains an open question.

“I think it’s fair to say,” said Crayton, “that he hasn’t hurt himself.”

© McClatchy Newspapers 2008

Za pomocą Google Earth Thomas przebadał wraz z zespołem pas szerokości 17 km i długości 75 km na pograniczu afgańskich prowincji Helmand i Kandahar.

Archeolodzy zidentyfikowali 450 miejsc, które uznali za ważne. Są to pozostałości po obozowiskach, osadach, zagrodach dla zwierząt, zbiornikach, tamach, kanałach i budowlach militarnych.

Powszechnie dostępne zdjęcia satelitarne pozwoliły też ustalić, że miasto Bust, które było zimową stolicą imperium Ghaznawidów, zajmowało większy obszar niż dotychczas sądziliśmy.

Thomas pisze doktorat o Ghurydach, którzy obalili Ghaznawidów i stworzyli w XII w. imperium obejmujące ziemie od wschodniego Iranu po Bengal.

Na podstawie ABC Science. Polecam mój wpis z 2006 r.: Zdjęcia satelitarne w archeologii.

...mai vista.

E poi questo "succulento" sito di fotografi di guerra indipendenti. Indipendenti perché come sapete (o non sapete) le amministrazioni anglofone hanno vincolato la stampa a non riprodurre immagini dei loro soldati feriti o deceduti, sia a non far trapelare molto di ciò che accade in Iraq e Afganistan dall'invasione irachena del 2003. Vivamente sconsigliato ai minori.

Da: Battlespace©, All Rights Reserved

Mazinga

Keberadaan penjara ini diungkap oleh seorang pengacara AS yang aktif dalam pembelaan hak asasi manusia, Barbara J. Olshansky. Ia menuding militer AS telah membangun "lubang-lubang hitam dalam masalah hukum" dengan memenjarakan sejumlah wartawan dan mencegah mereka melakukan liputan tentang apa sebenarnya yang terjadi di Irak dan Afghanistan.

"Banyak orang di Afghanistan dan Irak yang dijebloskan ke penjara ini adalah para wartawan lokal yang meliput konflik di negara mereka, " kata Olshansky.

Ia mengkhawatirkan penjara yang dibangun AS di pangkalan angkatan udaranya di Bagram, Afghanistan kondisinya tidak jauh berbeda dengan kamp penjara Guantanamo yang penuh penyiksaan dan pelecehan terhadap para tahanannya. Karena AS menahan para reporter, fotografer dan juru kamera dalam jangka waktu cukup lama tanpa tuduhan apapun, tanpa bukti dan tanpa proses hukum.

"Kami tahu bahwa tujuan AS adalah untuk membungkam mereka dan tidak menginginkan munculnya pendapat yang independen tentang situasi di Afghanistan, " tukas Olshansky.

Salah seorang tahanan AS di Penjara Bagram adalah Jawad Ahmad yang bekerja untuk Canadian Television (CTV). Menurut Direktur Eksekutif International Justice Network Tina Monshippour Foster, Ahmad ditahan tanpo tuduhan apapun, baik berdasarkan hukum AS, hukum Afghanistan dan hukum internasional. Bagi Olshansky, penahanan Ahmad jelas untuk mencegah masyarakat dunia khususnya Kanada dan AS tidak mengetahui apa sebenarnya yang terjadi di Afghanistan.

Penjara Bagram dibangun AS untuk menampung lebih dari 1.100 tahanan dan memiliki reputasi sama buruknya dengan kamp penjara Guantanamo karena para petugas penjaranya kerap menyiksa dan melecehkan 625 tahanan yang ada di penjara itu.

Tahun 2002, dua tahanan tewas di penjara Bagram. Bulan Juni kemarin, Afghan Human Rights Organization (AHRO) mengungkap adanya 10 tahanan anak-anak usia 9-13 tahun di penjara tersebut. Sejumlah tahanan dari penjara ini, banyak yang dipindahkan ke kamp penjara Guantanamo sejak invasi AS ke Afghanistan tahun 2001.

"Kami yakin, kami tidak bisa lagi memonitor lagi kondisi para tahanan yang ada di penjara ini. Hampir 95 persen tahanan yang bebas dari kamp penjara Bagram mengalami persoalan kejiwaan. Beberapa di antaranya kehilangan anggota tubuhnya, " papar Ketua AHRO Lal Gul pada Institute for War and Peace Reporting (IWPR)

"Kami mengecam bukan hanya penjara ini, tapi semua kamp penjara di seluruh Afghanistan dan di tempat-tempat lainnya yang dibangun Amerika, " tegas Gul.

Kecaman serupa dilontarkan Olshansky. "AS mengklaim menebarkan benih demokrasi... dan pada saat yang sama, melakukan tindakan memenjarakan para wartawan, " tandasnya. (ln/iol/presstv)

A JPost.com exclusive blog

Their points of overlap demonstrate that both are patriots, both are "anti-terror," both seek an American victory in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The fact that the previous sentence needs to be written, of course, illustrates the absurd extremes to which so many partisan critics take the polarizing discourse about the candidates.

Appropriately, Israel was not a central thrust of either speech. But the fundamental equation remains operative - what is good for America in this election will be good for Israel. And if the winning candidate sticks to the vision articulated in either of the two speeches, America, and Israel, will be all right.

Characteristically - and in fairness, due to the setting - Obama's speech at the Ronald Reagan International Trade Building in Washington was more sweeping, more visionary, more programmatic. McCain's response at a town hall meeting was more focused, more hands-on, more strategic.

Obama built his speech by remembering America's Cold War containment policy, embracing George Marshall's faith in "judgment," mixing what we now call "hard" and "soft" power.

Before finishing with an inspirational return to his history lesson, Obama demonstrated his commitment to righting the wrongs of the Bush years with a deft combination of self-sacrifice, selflessness, muscle-flexing and nation-building - in the United States and abroad. He sees foreign policy - like domestic policy - as a vehicle for national renewal, for encouraging Americans to work together and build a national sense of mission and community, while defending their nation and improving the world.

Less loftily, Obama proclaimed "five goals essential to making America safer: ending the war in Iraq responsibly; finishing the fight against al-Qaida and the Taliban; securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states; achieving true energy security; and rebuilding our alliances to meet the challenges of the 21st century."

Obviously, the rhetoric of a campaign speech does not necessarily anticipate a president's track record in the Oval Office. But the bulk of Obama's speech would be thoroughly acceptable to most Ronald Reagan Republicans. In particular, both Obama and McCain agreed about the need to beef up the American troop presence in Afghanistan.

In response, John McCain focused part of his stump speech in New Mexico on Obama, Afghanistan, and Iraq, rather than delivering a more formal foreign policy address.

Highlighting the contrast between the young, eloquent, intellectual visionary and the wizened warrior, McCain came out swinging, "I know how to win wars. I know how to win wars," McCain told his Albuquerque audience. "And if I'm elected President, I will turn around the war in Afghanistan, just as we have turned around the war in Iraq, with a comprehensive strategy for victory, I know how to do that."

Sharpening his elbows, McCain said: "In wartime, judgment and experience matter. In a time of war, the commander in chief doesn't get a learning curve."

And more directly, he mocked his opponent, reading two Obama quotations, one back in January 2007 doubting the surge would work, and a second one a year later, acknowledging that more troops in Iraq led to more stability. "My friends, flip-floppers all over the world are enraged," McCain chuckled.

In fact, both candidates are converging, not only about Afghanistan. Both understand that in the wake of the Bush presidency, America needs to experience an economic, diplomatic, and ideological renewal. Obama is more explicit about that - but McCain rides heavily on the fact that he was calling for what became the "surge" while George W. Bush was still blindly defending "Rummy" - Donald Rumsfeld - and pooh-poohing reports of chaos in Baghdad.

And even on Iraq, Obama is cautiously, cleverly, and responsibly, narrowing the gap between his policies and McCain's. Obama still talks about giving the military "a new mission on my first day in office: ending this war" - an interesting choice of words considering that the traditional goal of most militaries is to win the war not just end it.

Still, analysts noted that Obama's sixteen month timetable, now is set to begin on Inauguration Day - six months from now, and he spoke about a "residual" force remaining. Clearly, as the possibility that he just might become Commander-in-Chief grows, Obama is realizing that his rhetoric and his postures may have serious life-and-death implications.

This convergence in a campaign is good. It is not just the gravitational pull to the center we often see after primaries. It is not just the "oh, boy, I might be president" flight from irresponsibility. It is also precisely what the American people want. A Washington Post poll this week found that 78 percent of those surveyed, "said it is more important for a candidate to adjust positions to changing circumstances than to stick to his original stands (18 percent prioritize consistency)."

By this poll, more than three-quarters of the American people are more mature than most reporters and bloggers, partisans and pols. The challenge is for the candidates to show they can campaign vigorously, disagree passionately on some issues, while still reassuring the American people they understand that they both share many common values, common dreams, and common-sense policies.

Support for Israel remains a part of this consensus. Judging by this week's exchange, as well as the more Israel-focused AIPAC speeches, the hysterical claims that Obama is going to abandon the Jewish State, or that McCain is going to so blindly support Israel there will be no constraints are both overstated.

y además de las fotos un texto del clever Moisés Naím.

Pięciu policjantów zostało poważnie rannych.

Jak wynika z informacji źródeł afgańskich, policjanci omyłkowo wzięli połączone siły armii afgańskiej i ISAF za oddziały talibów i otworzyły do nich ogień. ISAF wezwało na pomoc lotnictwo, które zbombardowało posterunek policji. Do incydentu doszło późnym wieczorem w sobotę w okręgu Anar Derah w Farah, niedaleko granicy z Iranem. Walki trwały do świtu w niedzielę, kiedy to do akcji wkroczyło lotnictwo.

Stevenson makes the argument that al Qaeda has no county to protect and pose no threat warranting nuclear payback. Yet America is risking thousands of American lives and spending billions of dollars trying to fight a conventional war. On the other side, al Qaeda improvises with old techniques like crude roadside bombs and using hijacked planes as cruise missiles. And they are using this strategy effectively.

The author suggests a better way to fight al Qaeda is using the internet. "...harness the Net's unique ability and privacy to shape the debate within Islam about the best mechanisms for political change."

In my opinion, the United States is not making friends in the Muslim world by invading countries and creating a situation where hundreds of thousands of innocent people die. In Iraq, the American military is seen now as an occupying force, not liberators. We have overstayed our welcome.

Back to the Wired article. Israeli expert Reuven Paz calls the internet an "open university for Jihad studies" covering everything from indoctrination to DIY car bombs. The author Stevenson says the U.S. government should quietly promote more websites to radical Muslims admitting the Bush Administration has made some mistakes and offer nonviolent solutions. The article sites current polls showing only 10 percent of Muslims in Saudi Arabia view al Qaeda favorably. In Indonesia, Lebanon and Pakistan, support for suicide bombs has dropped dramatically.

America has an opportunity to influence moderate and even radical Muslims peacefully. Violence begets violence. After World War II, America turned Germany and Japan into close allies not by leaving a large occupying force in each of those countries, but with significant rebuilding and aid. Maybe its time to fight a different kind of war.

Just shows how McCain has the same ethics as his sweetheart. The man is not fit to be President or Commander-in-Chief. If Obama had done this to him, he'd by crying bloody murder. And for good reason.

This was reported yesterday from Reuters. And as we know, Obama did indeed travel to the Middle East this weekend:

Reuters reports that McCain shared details of Obama's trip to Iraq at a fundraiser:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain said on Friday that his Democratic opponent, Barack Obama, is likely to be in Iraq over the weekend.
The Obama campaign has tried to cloak the Illinois senator's trip in some measure of secrecy for security reasons. The White House, State Department and Pentagon do not announce senior officials' visits to Iraq in advance.

"I believe that either today or tomorrow -- and I'm not privy to his schedule -- Sen. Obama will be landing in Iraq with some other senators" who make up a congressional delegation, McCain told a campaign fund-raising luncheon.

Josh Marshall points out that there's something very wrong with this:

The Reuters piece hints at it. But if Obama is going to be in Iraq this weekend, this is a major breach on McCain's part. As a knowledgeable insider notes ...
"If it is true that Obama is going to Iraq this weekend, it is a very serious mistake for McCain to have disclosed it publicly. Even for run-of-the-mill CODELs the military gives guidance like, "Please strongly discourage Congressional offices from issuing press releases prior to their trips which mention their intent to travel to the AOR and/or the dates of that travel or their scheduled meetings. Such releases are a serious compromise to OPSEC." If Obama is going to Iraq this weekend, I can not begin to imagine how much this is complicating the security planning for the trip."

It's known that Obama is leaving on his foreign trip this weekend and the Journal OpEd page this morning said that Obama could arrive in Iraq "as early as this weekend." And with a slew of reporters in tow, it's not exactly highly classified information. But there is a reason definite information about these sorts of trips aren't released in advance.

Hypothetically, maybe McCain was just guessing. But even so it would still be a serious lapse of judgment on his part.

In fact, McCain was furious when the press reported on his son serving in Iraq -- he feared the coverage would make him a target.

Here's another post I found which shows McCain's lack of ethics regarding Social Security. ]]> http://archeowiesci.wordpress.com/?p=877 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 19:54:34 +0000 Wojciech Pastuszka http://archeowiesci.wordpress.com/?p=877 W styczniu tego roku pisałem o odkryciu w Bamjan w Afganistanie śladów olejnych farb z VII w. n.e. To sensacyjne odkrycie, gdyż dotychczas uznawaliśmy olejne farby za genialny wynalazek europejskich malarzy rozpowszechniony w XV w. Na BBC ukazał się właśnie film, na którym możecie obejrzeć te najstarsze olejne malowidła świata.

Drugi filmik, który polecę zaserwował nam National Geographic. Pokazuje on rozwijanie mumii będącej dziełem mało znanej peruwiańskiej kultury Chancay. Mumia ma około 1000 lat.

Naukowcy rozwijali mumię kilka tygodni. Między zwojami tkaniny znaleźli liczne kolby i ziarna kukurydzy oraz kępki naturalnej bawełny, których znaczenie pozostaje dla nas tajemnicą. Zmarły, którym był trzydziestoparoletni mężczyzna, miał przy sobie pustą torbę, a w prawej ręce ściskał kłębek przędzy. Naukowcy znaleźli jeszcze przy nim proce oraz 30-centymetrową drewnianą figurkę ubraną tak samo jak zmarły, który miał na sobie dwie tuniki i przepaskę biodrową. Na prawym kolanie mężczyzny naukowcy dojrzeli czarny tatuaż.

Również twarz mumii była ukryta pod kilkoma warstwami tkaniny. W każdej były niewielkie ofiary, np. kawałek srebra. Twarz mumii była pomalowana na czerwono. Na jego oczach leżały blaszki z miedzi i srebra. Kolejna była między zębami.

Indiańscy spece od balsamowania usunęli organy wewnętrzne mężczyzny podobnie jak czynili to Egipcjanie.

In his book, Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam After Iraq, Michael Scheuer, a gentleman who worked both at the CIA and the Counterterrorism Center, points out that we are harming our military when we demand impossible actions. Our leaders in Washington, Democrats and Republicans alike, politicize an organization that should not be politicized. In a fantastic article, The Nation points out the results of this political tight wire the military must perform in the Middle East, and how even those in the know are being used as sound bytes rather than counsel. Granted, the military should not ever act independently- no government entity should. But the military knows its job and understands war like no other. We demand that all wars be like the Gulf War in the 90s. We want phenomenal force, expedited action and virtually no civilian casualties. This is not what is happening in Iraq or Afghanistan in most people's eyes. Reuters reports today that a battle in Afghanistan led to the killing of possibly an entire family of eight. A tragic waste of life, to say the very least.

War is indeed hell. I agree with former President Jimmy Carter when he states that at times war may be necessary but never just. How is this possible? Because a people has the right to protect themselves from harm, and when that happens, there will be casualties. War is war! We have to accept the fact that when we mobilize individuals with guns, tanks, warships and technology to harm and, yes, kill the enemy, killing is what will happen. It is ridiculous to think that people will not be killed. And yes, I thank the heavens that Americans do not have a taste for blood. But we do have a taste for security and we are fighting an enemy that exists to destroy that security. How can we possibly have no harm?

Pundits point to Vietnam as the example of a military exercise gone wrong. Countless civilians were killed. We forget that the same occurred during World War II. Of course, we won WWII. I am fascinated at our hubris. We can ignore, even forgive the killings of WWII, a war where we could claim victory, but not Vietnam, a war we were forced to flee.

This is why we should demand that any military conflict we engage we should be VERY sure of our mission and our goal. Iraq and Afghanistan seem to have little to none of either of these measures. Americans wouldn't be so polarized if we knew the why so that the military could follow through with the how. If people don't like civilians being killed, which they shouldn't, then lets make very sure that our leaders think before they act, gather people around them they trust and our knowledgeable, and most importantly, take counsel from those they disagree with. Putting people in harms way demands we be rational and honest. Our next president ought to be sure of the necessities of war before tying the hands of those who will fight that war.

Events ranging from women's Volleyball, men's volleyball, women's Basketball, men's basketball, youth soccer both girls and boys, and Soccer (Football) took place and the Championship matches took place on July 5^th. Trophies and awards were presented to the champions, followed by a live concert by famous Afghan Singers Mustafa & Temor Jalali. They jammed until midnight on Saturday.

This years cultural/sporting events was the biggest ever hosted by the Afghan Sports Federation. The ASF says several thousand were in attendance. People from all over the United States, Canada and Europe came to watch people compete. International sponsors and local food vendors were also in attnedance. Hundreds of athletes and thousands of their fans and supporters came to watch the games, and enjoyed the festivities.

The Afghan Sports Federation also had games and activities for kids including rides on a hot air balloon. In the word of a fan, "We wait a whole year to come to Washington, and re-live memories of our beloved Afghanistan's Independence day sporting events of the past, watch the games and connect with our friends and families; we thank ASF for organizing such a wonderful healthy sporting event".

The final day program started with Soccer Semi final games at 10am, followed by volleyball championship games for both men & women and immediately followed by an spectacular Basketball championship game and an All star basketball game in the afternoon inside the huge indoor gymnasium packed with leagues of spectators cheering for their favorite teams.

The Soccer Championship game between Brishna Soccer Club of New York and Afghan United of California ended in a 2-2 tie after the regulation and extra time; finally Brishna FC of New York prevailed over Afghan United, CA in penalty Kicks (3-2).

Trophy presenters on behalf of ASF were two female soccer players from the Afghanistan's women National team who were initially trained by ASF coaches, Mr. Ehsan Bayat Afghan industrialist and philanthropist, Hashmat Khan the famous Afghan actor/director, ASF officials Atiq Panjshiri, Sulaiman Lutfi, Zia Panjshiri, Esmael Husseini, Assad Amin, Awista Zazay, Kamran Lutfi and ASF President Ajmal Ghani A. The tournament's soccer MVP was Mr. Jawed Sanie and the basketball MVP was Mr. Rishad Noorzad both from Virginia.

The men's basketball champion was the Afghan Balers of Virginia/New Jersey.The men's volleyball champions were the Afghan Mohajeer of Virginia; the women's champions were team Azaadi of Virginia. Girl's soccer champions were team "Noor" of Virginia. "By far this was the largest gathering of Afghans in United States and the Afghan Sports Federation's personal, volunteers, officials and management performed professionally. Everything went according to plan," said Mr. Ajmal Ghani A. President of the Afghan Sports federation.

If you are interested in finding out more or viewing photos, please feel free to check out their website: www.afghansportsfederation.org or you can contact Ajmal Ghani A. at info@afghansportsfederation.org

]]> http://giltroy.wordpress.com/?p=139 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:28:37 +0000 giltroy http://giltroy.wordpress.com/?p=139 HNN, July 17, 2008

Barack Obama and John McCain clashed over foreign policy this week - or did they? While some headlines emphasized the two candidates' differences -proclaiming "McCain Slams Obama on Iraq Surge," the two also agreed on many important fundamentals - as well as key policies. Their points of overlap demonstrate that both are patriots, both are "anti-terror," both seek an American victory in Iraq and Afghanistan. The fact that the previous sentence needs to be written, of course, illustrates the absurd extremes to which so many partisan critics take the polarizing discourse about the candidates.

Characteristically - and in fairness, due to the setting -- Obama's speech at the Ronald Reagan International Trade Building in Washington was more sweeping, more visionary, more programmatic. McCain's response at a town hall meeting was more focused, more hands-on, more strategic.

Obama built his speech by remembering America's Cold War containment policy, embracing George Marshall's faith in "judgment," mixing what we now call "hard" and "soft" power. Before finishing with an inspirational return to his history lesson, Obama demonstrated his commitment to righting the wrongs of the Bush years with a deft combination of self-sacrifice, selflessness, muscle-flexing and nation-building -- in the United States and abroad. He sees foreign policy - like domestic policy - as a vehicle for national renewal, for encouraging Americans to work together and build a national sense of mission and community, while defending their nation and improving the world. Less loftily, Obama proclaimed "five goals essential to making America safer: ending the war in Iraq responsibly; finishing the fight against al-Qaida and the Taliban; securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states; achieving true energy security; and rebuilding our alliances to meet the challenges of the 21st century."

Obviously, the rhetoric of a campaign speech does not necessarily anticipate a president's track record in the Oval Office. But the bulk of Obama's speech would be thoroughly acceptable to most Ronald Reagan Republicans. In particular, both Obama and McCain agreed about the need to beef up the American troop presence in Afghanistan.

In response, John McCain focused part of his stump speech in New Mexico on Obama, Afghanistan, and Iraq, rather than delivering a more formal foreign policy address. Highlighting the contrast between the young, eloquent, intellectual visionary and the wizened warrior, McCain came out swinging, "I know how to win wars. I know how to win wars," McCain told his Albuquerque audience. "And if I'm elected President, I will turn around the war in Afghanistan, just as we have turned around the war in Iraq, with a comprehensive strategy for victory, I know how to do that." Sharpening his elbows, McCain said: "In wartime, judgment and experience matter. In a time of war, the commander in chief doesn't get a learning curve." And more directly, he mocked his opponent, reading two Obama quotations, one back in January 2007 doubting the surge would work, and a second one a year later, acknowledging that more troops in Iraq led to more stability. "My friends, flip-floppers all over the world are enraged," McCain chuckled.

In fact, both candidates are converging, not only about Afghanistan. Both understand that in the wake of the Bush presidency, America needs to experience an economic, diplomatic, and ideological renewal. Obama is more explicit about that - but McCain rides heavily on the fact that he was calling for what became the "surge" while George W. Bush was still blindly defending "Rummy" - Donald Rumsfeld - and pooh-poohing reports of chaos in Baghdad. And even on Iraq, Obama is cautiously, cleverly, and responsibly, narrowing the gap between his policies and McCain's. Obama still talks about giving the military "a new mission on my first day in office: ending this war" - an interesting choice of words considering that the traditional goal of most militaries is to win the war not just end it. Still, analysts noted that Obama's sixteen month timetable, now is set to begin on Inauguration Day - six months from now, and he spoke about a "residual" force remaining. Clearly, as the possibility that he just might become Commander-in-Chief grows, Obama is realizing that his rhetoric and his postures may have serious life-and-death implications.

This convergence in a campaign is good. It is not just the gravitational pull to the center we often see after primaries. It is not just the "oh, boy, I might be president" flight from irresponsibility. It is also precisely what the American people want. A Washington Post poll this week found that 78 percent of those surveyed, "said it is more important for a candidate to adjust positions to changing circumstances than to stick to his original stands (18 percent prioritize consistency)." By this poll, more than three-quarters of the American people are more mature than most reporters and bloggers, partisans and pols. The challenge is for the candidates to show they can campaign vigorously, disagree passionately on some issues, while still reassuring the American people they understand that they both share many common values, common dreams, and common-sense policies.

Les Dagsavisens utenriksredaktør Erik Sagflaat glimrende artikkel av 17.07 2008.

Filmopptaket fra avhøret på Guantánamo går nå verden rundt, og fyrer ytterligere opp under avskyen for det rettsløse samfunn president George W. Bush og hans folk har skapt i fangeleiren på Guantánamo. Forut for avhøret skal den da 16-år gamle Omar Khadr ha blitt myket opp ved å bli nektet søvn. Han sier også at han ble torturert ved den amerikanske flybasen Bagram utenfor Kabul. Khadr var 15 år da han ble arrestert. Nå er han 21, og sitter fortsatt på Guantánamo.

Omar Khadr er tiltalt for å ha deltatt i kamp mot de amerikanske invasjonsstyrkene i Afghanistan i 2001. Angivelig skal han også ha kastet en granat som drepte en amerikansk soldat. Men er dette terror? Det stiller vel snarere i klasse med de angrep som norsk motstandsbevegelse i sin tid rettet mot tyske okkupanter.

Samtidig forber edes nå det første militærtribunalet ved Guantánamo. Første tiltalte er Osama bin Ladens angivelige sjåfør, Salmi Ahmed Hamdan. Også han har vært utsatt for de såkalte «forsterkede avhørsmetodene». Blant annet ble han nektet normal søvn gjennom hele 50 døgn. Nå krever hans forsvarer, kommandørløytnant Brian Mizere, at hele saken må avvises fordi tilståelsene har framkommet under tvang. «Dette er omtrent så fjernt fra en rettferdig prosess som du kan komme», sier Michael Berrigan, som er nestleder for den militære forsvarergruppen.

Det står respekt av innsatsen til de militære forsvarerne. Det møtte ikke mye tillit da det ble kjent at forsvarerne ved de planlagte tribunalene på Guantánamo skulle være militære og oppnevnes av Pentagon. Men forsvarerne har tatt sin oppgave meget alvorlig, noe som slett ikke har vært populært hos deres arbeidsgiver. Forsvarerne er fast bestemt på å gi sine klienter det best mulige forsvar. Det gir håp for USA som rettsstat, når bare den gjengen som de siste snart åtte år har satt seg selv over både lov og grunnlov, er ute.

President George W. Bush nedla så sent som i mars i år veto mot en lov som forbyr all bruk av tortur. Bush hevder at en slik lov vil sette amerikanske liv i fare. Det forholder seg stikk motsatt. Ved bruk av tortur får man ikke sannheten, men de svar ofrene tror torturistene vil høre. Det åpner for feiltolkninger og gale beslutninger, som virkelig setter amerikanske liv i fare. Verste eksempel på det, er krigen i Irak, som til nå har kostet mer enn 4.100 amerikanske soldater livet.

Forut for invasjonen i Irak kom det et skred av desinformasjon fra torturofre. Sterkeste eksempel er den angivelige Al-Qaida-lederen Ibn al-Shaykh al Libi, som ble arrestert og fraktet til Egypt for avhør med egyptiske torturister. Han fabrikkerte påstander om biologiske og kjemiske masseødeleggelsesvåpen i Irak. Han hevdet også at det var nær forbindelse mellom Irak og Al-Qaida.

Opplysningene ble brukt for alt de var verdt i den krigshissende talen Bush holdt i Cincinnati i oktober 2002. De var også et viktig grunnlag for de påståtte «bevisene» daværende utenriksminister Colin Powell la fram i FN i februar 2003, og som siden har kostet ham hans gode navn og rykte. «De holdt på å drepe meg, noe måtte jeg si», sa al-Libi da han senere fortalte om avhørene han var blitt utsatt for.

Sentrale personer i Bush-administrasjonen utformet politikken som åpnet for bruk av tortur. For det er tortur, selv om det kalles «forsterkede avhørsmetoder». Visepresident Dick Cheneys stabssjef David Addington, forsvarsdepartementets Douglas Feith, justisdepartementets Alberto Gonzales og John Yoo var sentrale. Sistnevnte utformet et memorandum der han hevdet at det ikke var tortur såfremt offeret ikke døde eller ble påført varig skade. Alle var enige om at den utøvende makt, i siste instans presidenten, måtte ha helt frie hender som landets øverstkommanderende i krig.

Simulert drukning, ekstrem varme og ekstrem kulde, uutholdelig støy, lenking i smertefulle stillinger og fravær av søvn er blant metodene som kan brukes for å tvinge fram tilståelser. Hvis da ikke ofrene skysses av CIA til enda mer lovløst land for enda mer «forsterkede» avhør.

Tortur har ikke gjort USA tryggere. Tvert om har steder som Guantánamo og Abu Ghraib vært regelrette gavepakker til al-Qaidas og Talibans rekrutteringsoffiserer. Tortur har undergravd respekten for vestlige demokratier og har knust USAs troverdighet når det gjelder å stå opp for menneskerettighetene andre steder i verden. Tortur er rett og slett en umulighet for et land som ønsker å kalle seg sivilisert.

Today’s Electoral Map (from FiveThirtyEight): Obama 303.2 EV ; McCain 234.8 EV

Today was a day of Republican flip-flops

First up, John McCain:

After months of saying additional troops were not needed in Afghanistan, McCain changed position Tuesday and called for an additional three brigades -- or roughly 15,000 troops -- to be sent to the country. It was unclear if those troops would be redeployed from Iraq or come from NATO forces.

[Emphasis Added]

This was, of course, after Barack Obama called for troops to be pulled out of Iraq and additional troops be sent to Afghanistan, where the Taliban is reforming and violence is surging.

Next up is George W. Bush, the Appeaser-in-Chief himself:

One week after military maneuvers raised fears of war and the price of oil, a senior US official will meet with the Iranian nuclear negotiator. A deal may be in the works.

[...]

In a stunning announcement July 16, the White House disclosed that Undersecretary of State William J. Burns will travel to Geneva this weekend to sit face-to-face with Iranian nuclear negotiator Said Jalili.

Once again, the Republicans are adopting a policy that Barack Obama backed first.  In fact, the GOP attacked Obama for wanting to talk to countries like Iran--Bush himself went in front of the Israeli Knesset and called Barack Obama an appeaser for abandoning Bush's policy of ignoring America's enemies and engaging in pointless brinksmanship.

Now, I believe that people--including politicians--have the right to change their minds; I think revising a policy based on changing facts or situations shouldn't automatically be labeled a flip-flop.  But the GOP is living by a double standard, and they deserve the same nonsense they dish out.  It's pure hypocrisy-- they attack Democrats for coming up with smart new policies, then turn around and adopt those same policies wihout apologizing for their smears or withdrawing their underhanded attacks.  And when a Democrat changes their policy, the Right-Wing Noise Machine can't label them a 'flip-flopper' fast enough.

Republicans have shown us that they have almost no ideology, no core beliefs. They'll say anything to get elected; they'll engage in any underhanded attack, they'll employ any smear they can come up with.  It's time for us to ditch our flip-flopper-in-Chief and his protege, John McCain, once and for all.

Competia amagada sota el mocador islàmic, tapada de dalt a baix, en voler ser un exemple de bona musulmana.

Reeixida al competitiu esport d'elit i alhora al competitiu món d'enguany. Un triomfant simbol de l'islam, en sintesi, és el que volia ser. Va declarar, fins i tot, que no aniria a Beijing si haguès de vestir amb pantalons curts i samarreta.

Resulta, tanmateix, que no n'hi ha hagut prou. Ha fugit de l'equip olimpic afganès aprofitant la seva estada a Itàlia en preparar-hi les olimpiades. Vol demanar asil politic a Europa.

El menyspreu i els insults i les amenaces de mort rebudes constantment, agreujades darrerement en apropar-se les olimpiades, han acabat per desfermar el seu pànic:

En rebre visites dels mitjans occidentals a començaments d'any, els seus veïns van trucar la policia denunciant que ella era indubtablement una prostituta treballant per clients foranis. El seu pare, un carpinter, fins i tot va ser empresonat fins aclarir-se la denuncia. [When she received visits from Western media earlier this year, her neighbors called the police telling them she was obviously a prostitute working for foreign clients. Her father, a carpenter, even spent time in jail until the issue was cleared up.]

Pero Mehboba Ahdyar simplement s'afegeix a totes les afganeses que, només per fer esport, arrisquen les seves vides.

La selecció femenina afganesa de futbol va haver d'entrenar-se dins la base militar estatunidenca a Kabul, la capital afganesa, fins que el seu seleccionador alemany va endur-se-la a Alemanya per garantir la seva seguretat.

Sembla inversemblant que a l'Afganistàn d'enguany hi haguessin regnes grecs, hereus dels grecs d'Alexandre el Gran, on la cultura grega va gaudir d'un gran desemvolupament. La seva influència va sentir-s'hi fins l'arribada de l'islam que va anihilar-la. Acabarà igual Europa?