skip to main |
skip to sidebar
One: Who is Assad to dictate to the U.N. about a Peace Keeping Force on the Lebanon/Syria border? It is not like the U.N. is a hostile army waiting in the wings to invade Syria.
Two: Not only has Israel requested the U.N. to help monitor the border, but Lebanon has requested U.N. aid to help monitor the border.
So is the U.N. sending Peace Keeping Forces to protect Lebanonese National Sovereignty or to enhance the Hezbollah agenda and Syria National Interests? If the U.N. does nothing to prevent the arming of Hezbollah from foreign agents outside of Lebanon, why even go to Lebanon? A U.N. failure to prevent the arming of Hezbollah is a failure in the U.N. mandate to insure global peace on an unbiased basis. Failure to prevent the re-arming of Hezbollah is the validation of Mohammedan goals of terrorists and Mohammedan Middle Eastern nations to terminate Israel's existence.
Would not that failure render the existence of the U.N. as irrelevant?***************************************************22 Aug 2006 18:32:56 GMT
Source: Reuters
AlertNet.org
DAMASCUS, Aug 22 (Reuters) - Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on Tuesday rejected Israeli demands for the deployment of international troops on the Lebanese-Syrian border to stop what Israel says is the smuggling of arms to Hizbollah.
"This would be a withdrawal of Lebanese sovereignty and a hostile position," Assad said, according to advance excerpts of an interview to be aired by Dubai Television on Wednesday.
The United Nations is trying to assemble a force of 15,000 to monitor a truce in southern Lebanon after a 34-day war between Israeli and the Shi'ite Muslim guerrilla group Hizbollah, which ended eight days ago with an uneasy truce.
Israel wants U.N. troops to police border crossings between Lebanon and Syria to prevent weapons smuggling.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said stationing some of the international force at border crossings and Beirut airport would enable Israel to lift its air and sea blockade of Lebanon.
U.N. envoy Terje Roed-Larsen said on Tuesday that there were indications from senior Lebanese officials that they would request help in monitoring the crossings and that the international community would heed any such requests.
He said about 2,000 Lebanese forces had deployed along the border with Syria, but the United Nations was having difficulty attracting contributions for the international force.
Many countries have demanded a clearer mandate for the expanded U.N. force, authorised by U.N. Security Council resolution 1701 establishing the ceasefire.
That resolution also demands that Lebanon's borders be demarcated, particularly to solve a dispute over the Shebaa Farms, an Israeli-occupied strip near the border between Lebanon, Israel and Syria's Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.
BORDER DEMARCATION
Assad said, however, that his country would not draw the border until Israel withdrew from the area.
"There will be no drawing of the border in the Shebaa Farms before the Israeli forces leave it," Assad said.
"Hizbollah's victory was enough to teach Israel a lesson, that the isolation of Syria has failed and that anyone who tries to isolate Syria isolates himself from basic issues."
The Shebaa Farms is a small patch of land claimed by Lebanon, but occupied by Israel since it captured the Golan Heights from Syria in 1967. The United Nations deems the territory Syrian until such time as Syria cedes it to Lebanon.
Israeli forces withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000, ending a 22-year occupation, but remain in Shebaa Farms.
After 29 years, Syria pulled out of Lebanon last year under intense world and Lebanese pressure following the killing of a former prime minister which many blamed on Damascus.
Assad said there was still a chance that peace could be achieved in the Middle East but that the window of opportunity could close within weeks or months.
Olmert this week rejected suggestions from within his cabinet that Israel should talk to Syria, saying peace negotiations could only be held if it stopped backing groups like Hizbollah.
I have not posted anything in a while relating to Latin America. America is all caught up on the war in Iraq and strife between Israel and Hezbollah and nuclear Iran (and its sycophant Syria) and North Korea and on and on. Yet is just seems the only thing the MSM reports relating to Latin America is illegal aliens dancing across the Mexican border.
It is a smart thing to watch Latin America. For one thing the nations of Latin America are America's closest neighbors. It has a bit disconcerting that Communism and Marxist style Socialism is making a come back in Latin America. This blog essay paints a picture that Latinos want democracy; however they are fed up with corruption that has not ended in aspiring democracies. Latinos are so fed up in fact some are considering the support of authoritarian regimes in hope of displacing the corruption.
America needs to pay attention to that!
Howard Dratch has written an essay on the wants and needs of Latin America – READ IT.
I know I am a bit late with this, however I just found the best video exposing in understandable language and picture the fraud perpetrated Reuters.Reuters is a huge and influential media outlet. Unfortunately Reuters has an agenda (which of course they deny) that is largely pro-Islamofascist and extremely anti-Israel.The Reuters fraud is so pervasive that has been going on for some time. This very short video exposes the complicity of Reuters tarnishing the Israeli military reputation while simultaneously falsely painting a picture of Hezbollah and Mohammedan pain.Go to the VIDEO HERE and witness for yourself.
Whew! Daniel Pipes provides a lot of links to corroborate his position about Mohammedan profiling on airlines.
There is more and more come around to this kind of thinking. I am one of those that think that Mohammedan profiling should be common place as long as the death-cult is entrenched Islamofascist interpretation of the Quran, Hadiths and Sharia Law.
Here are a few posts on this website that have dealt with profiling: The Necessity of Profiling and Anyone for Terrorist Profiling?
*********************************
Time to Profile Airline Passengers?
AmericanCongressForTruth.com
by Daniel Pipes
New York Sun
August 22, 2006
[NY Sun title: Calls for Racial Profiling Increase After London Plot]
The debate over profiling airline passengers revived after the thwarted Islamist plot to bomb 10 airplanes in London on Aug. 10. The sad fact is, through inertia, denial, cowardice, and political correctness, Western airport security services — with the notable exception of Israel's — search primarily for the implements of terrorism, while largely ignoring passengers.
Although there has been some progress since the attacks of September 11, 2001, most involves the scrutiny of all travelers' actions. For example, in 2003, the Transportation Security Administration, charged with protecting American airplanes, launched a passenger profiling system known as Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques, or SPOT, now operating in twelve U.S. airports [*Subscription Required].
Adopting techniques used by the U.S. Customs Service and by Israeli airport security, SPOT is the antidote to racial profiling, TSA spokeswoman Ann Davis, said. It discerns, she said, extremely high levels of stress, fear and deception through behavioral pattern recognition. SPOT agents observe passengers moving about the airport, with TSA agents looking for such physical symptoms as sweating, rigid posture, and clenched fists. A screener then engages selectees in conversation and asks unexpected questions [*Subscription Required], looking at body language for signs of unnatural responses. Most selectees are immediately released, but about one-fifth are interviewed by the police.
After the London plot, the British authorities instituted a crash-course in SPOT, learning directly from their American counterparts.
Building on this approach, an Israeli machine, called Cogito [*Subscription Required], uses algorithms, artificial-intelligence software, and polygraph principles to discern passengers with hostile intent. In trial runs with control groups, the machine incorrectly fingered 8% of innocent travelers as potential threats and let 15% of the role-acting terrorists slip through.
While methods that target the whole population have general value — SPOT did discover passengers with forged visas, fake IDs, stolen airline tickets, and various forms of contraband — its utility for counterterrorism is dubious. Terrorists trained to answer questions convincingly, avoid sweating, and control stress should easily be able to evade the system.
The airport disruptions following the thwarted London plot prompted much discussion about the need to focus on the source of Islamist terrorism and to profile Muslims. In the words of a Wall Street Journal editorial, a return to any kind of normalcy in travel is going to require that airport security do a better job of separating high-risk passengers from unlikely threats.
This argument is gaining momentum. A recent poll found that 55% of Britons support passenger profiling that takes into account background or appearance, with only 29% against. Lord Stevens, the former chief of Scotland Yard, has endorsed focusing on young Muslim men. The Guardian reports that some EU countries, particularly France and the Netherlands, want to … introduce explicit checks on Muslim travelers.
One politician in Wisconsin and two in New York State came out in favor of similar profiling. A Fox News anchor, Bill O'Reilly, has suggested that Muslim passengers ages 16 to 45 all should be spoken with. Mike Gallagher, one of the most popular American radio talk-show hosts, has said he wants a Muslim-only [passenger] line at airports. In a column for the Evening Bulletin, Robert Sandler proposed putting Muslims on one plane and put the rest of us on a different one.
The British Department for Transport reportedly is seeking to introduce passenger profiling that includes taking religious background into account. News from British airports indicates that this has already begun – sometimes even by fellow passengers.
Three conclusions emerge from this discussion. First, because Islamist terrorists are all Muslims, there does need to be a focus on Muslims. Second, such notions as Muslim-only lines at airports are infeasible; rather, intelligence must drive efforts to root out Muslims with an Islamist agenda.
Third, the chances of Muslim-focused profiling being widely implemented remain negligible. As the same Wall Street Journal editorial notes, the fact that we may have come within a whisker of losing 3,000 lives over the Atlantic still isn't preventing political correctness from getting in the way of smarter security.
Noting the limited impact that losing 3,000 lives had in 2001 and building on my education by murder hypothesis — that people wake up to the problem of radical Islam only when blood is flowing in the streets — I predict that effective profiling will only come into effect when many more Western lives, say 100,000, have been lost.
Everyday, American Congress for Truth (ACT) is a 501c3 non profit organization on the front lines fighting for you in meeting with politicians, decision makers, speaking on college campuses and planning events to educate and inform the public about the threat of radical Muslim fundamentalists to world peace.
In the transition from flaming left wing Liberal to Christian Right Conservative, I explored Libertarianism. I was disillusioned with the absurdity of peanut farmer Carter Democratic Party stupidity. Yet I had enough after affects of the Left to not want to vote for Ronald Reagan. I still considered him a nuke button pushing Conservative that would take the world down in nuclear conflageration. In 1980 I therefore voted Libertarian Party.I read everything Libertarian. That is how I discovered Ayn Rand, von Mises, Hoover Institute and the CATO Institute.[*Side Bar: It is interesting that the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) and CATO, though both Libertarian both have different views on battling Islamofascist terrorist war.]I am on the CATO e-mail list and I received this update from them:Incentives for Iran
The New York Times reports that "Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said Monday that his nation would continue to pursue its nuclear program 'forcefully.' The remarks came one day before Iran's self-imposed deadline for responding to an international package of incentives intended to persuade the nation to stop enriching uranium voluntarily."
The article notes "amid the tough talk and missile firing, Tehran did not provide any details on how it would respond to the Western package of incentives. The West has accused Iran of wanting to develop weapons, while Iran has insisted that it is pursuing peaceful nuclear energy. Though Iran had initially spoken favorably about the package, its tone changed last month when it was ordered by the United Nations Security Council to halt enrichment by Aug. 31 or face political and economic sanctions."
In "U.S. Must Offer Iran Diplomatic Deal," Ted Galen Carpenter, Cato's vice president for defense and foreign policy studies, and Justin Logan, a Cato foreign policy analyst, propose a different solution to this stalemate: "The United States should offer Iran full normalization of relations, including a public promise not to attack it, restored diplomatic relations, and normalized economic relations. In return, Iran would need to give up any prospect of building a nuclear arsenal. Iran would be required to immediately open its existing nuclear program to unfettered international inspections."
Carpenter and Logan point out that "with a full-scale deal on the table, the Iranians would have no excuses to back away. If they refused the deal, there would be only one conclusion to draw: Tehran is irreversibly determined to develop nuclear weapons."
This is some of the biggest load of political crap I have ever read.CATO's solution is to offer the full Appeasement package to Iran as if Iran is concerned about international opinion if Iran fails to respond according to Western Expectations. What a laugh! What about a delusional thinking!Iran is simply stalling in order to enrich uranium to weapons grade. When that is accomplished, the nuclear extortion will begin. It will begin that is if Iran is allowed to proceed. Or will the West join Israel and confront Iran? Suck it up for Iran believes the West will not do so.
The Jerusalem Post's opinion writer - HILARY LEILA KRIEGER - tells us that the blogging about Iran launching a chaos activating global war that amounts to nothing more than conspiracy theory speculation. It is a speculation she believes will not happen. She believes one of the world's imminent Middle Eastern scholars fueled the conspiracy theory with an essay he wrote for the Wall Street Journal. That scholar is Bernard Lewis.
Iran has delivered their response to the Security Council and certain Western nations involved in the call for Iran to end its nuclear program.As the next few days emerge I will be fascinated to learn as to what the Iranian response is. Manuchehr Motakki used a word to describe Iran's so-called diplomatic attitude toward negotiations - "Serious." Anonymous sources used this terminology to describe undisclosed points in the Iranian response - "new formula."Frankly friends I doubt there is anything of substance the West or the Security Council can work with. Iran has been saber rattling and declaring there will be no end to their nuclear program. Any "Serious" or "new formula" negotiations are merely a stall tactic to build a nuclear arsenal. Mohammedans call this "Taqiyya" (are some form of that word).It is active deception to what the Mohammedan considers kafir (unbelievers). This is actually a moral precept that wipes away guilt to justify lying that leads to violence.Ahmadinejad's mindset would preclude anything substantive as acceptable in negotiation. There will be only two direct outcomes (that will lead to a variety of possible further outcomes): The West will cave in due to the impotence of Appeasement or the West will engage in actions that will ultimately lead to a military action.
Posts
