Iraq terrorist calls scientists to jihad

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Imran

Are you sure? The US and colaition partners circa 1991 agreed to ceasefire only if UN resolution were met. The binding of US and other coalition parties was only effective as long as those resolutions were met. I don't beleive any of the coalition forces ceded their rights to end ceasefire and commit to a lasting state of peace until such time as resolutions were met and since not one was.........

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Did the U.N. make an attempt to dissuade this? No, because they knew full well the cease fire was broken.
It's not just U.S. and Brit forces in on this. It's U.N. members. Well, not France.

Since the cease fire was with the U.N., only THEY get to decide when it is broken by Iraq. Sorry, Slow, the US can't interpret UN resolutions, especially when it doesn't follow them with respect to how we treat our prisoners.

[Elok]

Originally posted by PLATO


If you know much about AQ, then you know they generally don't give a crap about their fellow muslim. Who do you think is killing the majority of the muslim civilians in Iraq right now? Yep...it would be good ole AQ.

I said by OUR bombing Muslims. OUR. In a conflict between The Great Satan and just about any predominantly Muslim nation, it would look very bad for them to side with TGS. See "Public Relations."

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Since the cease fire was with the U.N., only THEY get to decide when it is broken by Iraq. Sorry, Slow, the US can't interpret UN resolutions, especially when it doesn't follow them with respect to how we treat our prisoners.

The point being the ceasefire was not with the UN as it was not the UN initiating hositilities in Desert Storm. How could the UN agree to a ceasefire if they were not one of the combatants. The UN was the agency that brokered a ceasefire settlement that was never honored.

[Arrian]

Christ, now we're caught up in the casus belli argument again. Put that aside and get back to the thing that matters:

Was it a good idea? Was it well-excuted? Did it aid in the WoT, hamper our efforts, or neither of those?

I think my answers are clear.

-Arrian

[SlowwHand]

Here. Have some more damned if we do, damned if we don't.

NATO agrees fast takeover for Afghan peacekeeping

By Mark John and Kristin Roberts
1 hour, 8 minutes ago

PORTOROZ, Slovenia (Reuters) -
NATO agreed on Thursday to take command of peacekeeping across all of insurgency-hit
Afghanistan next month after the United States pledged to transfer an extra 12,000 troops to its force.

Pentagon officials said the transfer of troops currently in Afghanistan's eastern region would entail the biggest deployment of U.S. troops under foreign command since World War Two.

The accord came as European nations failed to plug all troop shortfalls identified by commanders battling a fierce Taliban insurgency, and will mean the United States providing 14,000 of some 32,000 NATO troops that will be under British command.

"I am grateful that the United States has decided to bring its forces under ISAF," Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer told reporters after a NATO meeting in Slovenia, referring to NATO's International Security Assistance Force.

"It should not be used as an argument that we can now rest on our laurels," he added, urging other allies to come forward with extra troops for the more dangerous south.

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said it was "perfectly understandable" if other NATO allies restricted where their troops could operate, but added it undermined NATO's flexibility on the ground.

"The aggregation of that is the situation that's really not acceptable," he told a news conference. "I believe a little more progress was made today and we'll just have to keep working on it."

CREDIBILITY AT STAKE

The U.S. troop transfer had been expected later in the year, but alliance officials said battles with resurgent guerrillas in the south showed the urgent need to pool British, Dutch and Canadian troops under NATO with separate U.S. forces.

Afghanistan is experiencing the most serious violence since hardline Taliban Islamists were removed in 2001, and NATO knows its credibility as a genuine fighting force is at stake in the toughest combat in its 57-year history.

Nearly 140 foreign troops, most of them American, British and Canadian, have been killed in fighting or accidents during operations since January, and NATO has acknowledged it underestimated the scale of Taliban resistance.

ISAF currently has just over 20,000 troops from 37 countries operating in the capital Kabul and the north, west and south. The bulk of them are European.

The U.S.-led Operation Enduring Freedom coalition has a similar number. Some U.S. forces will remain outside ISAF command to mount search-and-destroy missions against major Taliban and al Qaeda targets.

De Hoop Scheffer said the alliance made some progress at the talks in the coastal resort of Portoroz in raising 2,500 extra troops requested by commanders to reinforce operations in the south, but acknowledged there were still shortages.

Germany, whose parliament on Thursday agreed to extend for another year the mandate of its 3,000-strong mission in the relatively calm north of Afghanistan, once again declined at the talks to send any troops to the south.

Other large western European nations including France, Italy and Spain have all refused to send troops to the region, saying their armed forces are at full stretch elsewhere.

Poland has offered 1,000 troops to be deployed by next February, and Romania is expected to offer a similar number. Bulgarian Defense Minister Veselin Bliznakov told Reuters it could take a decision to send more troops in October.

Alliance sources said Canada, Denmark, the Czech Republic and Slovakia declared intentions to commit extra forces at some point but did not say how many more troops such offers would add.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Arrain,

I agree that the point is trivial to the whole whether we should have gone there or not on the other hand I want to understand this issue more clearly just for grins and giggles.

Ohh and for the record you godless commie loving bastard stop invoking our lord Christ's name.

Only we people of Christ's nation can talk about Christ. You all talk about people in your nation.

[Arrian]

What do you mean by "damned if you do, damned if you don't" with regard to that article, Sloww?

Afganistan we're not arguing, except to point out that we would have far more resources available for Afganistan had we made the more prudent (a nod to GB the elder) choice and had not invaded Iraq.

-Arrian

[SlowwHand]

And in other events, the EU can fail, all on their own, without USA helping.

EU, Iran fail to reach nuclear deal

By Louis Charbonneau
2 hours, 20 minutes ago

BERLIN (Reuters) -
European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana said on Thursday he had failed to reach a deal with the chief Iranian negotiator on Tehran's nuclear ambitions, but said they would hold another round of talks soon.

Several Western diplomats who were briefed on Solana's talks with Larijani said the Iranians were still refusing to commit to suspending their uranium enrichment program and said Larijani appeared to be trying to drag out talks with Solana.

"We have been progressing," Solana told reporters after discussions with Iranian negotiator Ali Larijani.

"We still have some issues that have not been closed," he added without elaborating. Solana said he hoped to renew contact with the Iranians by the middle of next week.

Solana's comments appeared to indicate that prospects of a swift resolution were fading, a day after the U.S. State Department had said time was running out for a deal.

An EU source acknowledged that the talks were not moving swiftly. "The motion is very slow," the source said.

In June the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China offered Tehran a package of economic and political incentives if it suspended uranium enrichment, which the West believes is part of a nuclear weapons program.

Tehran says its uranium enrichment activities are aimed solely at generating electricity and has refused to halt them.

If
Iran does not suspend enrichment, the United States and the "EU3" have agreed to ask the
U.N. Security Council to impose sanctions on the Islamic Republic. China and Russia oppose sanctions and would prefer to reopen negotiations with Iran.

CRUCIAL ISSUE OF SUSPENSION

Larijani said seven hours of talks over two days had brought "some possible conclusions" and added that talks would continue.

"We hope to be able to embark on the main negotiations as soon as possible," he said, referring to the incentives package.

Neither Solana nor Larijani took questions and it was not clear if there had been any change in Iran's position on the crucial issue of suspending uranium enrichment.

A Western diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said it was not clear what, if any, progress had been made. Regarding the suspension, he said Iran was "still only thinking about considering a possible suspension."

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said he was open to negotiations and would accept "fair conditions." But he criticized the West's demand that Iran freeze its enrichment program, which it hid from U.N. inspectors for 18 years.

"Why are they insisting that we suspend our atomic work? Because they control the advertising network of the world and they want to tell the nations that they were right, and Iran wanted to produce nuclear weapons, and after that they would never let us continue our programs," Ahmadinejad said.

Washington, which has been pushing the EU to back U.N. sanctions against Iran, followed the Berlin meeting closely.

U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said neither the United States nor other major powers want sanctions and it was up to Tehran to halt enrichment. "The ball is in their court," he told a news briefing.

"We continue to hope for a positive answer from the Iranians," he said. "Nobody wants to go down the path of sanctions. That is not our first choice. But we are prepared along with the (other major powers) to go down that path if that's the door the Iranians want to open."

The U.N. Security Council originally set an August 31 deadline for Iran to halt enrichment which Tehran ignored. The six powers then agreed to give Solana until early October to reach a deal.

If no deal is reached, Washington wants U.N. sanctions. "Our credibility is at stake here," a U.S. diplomat said.

(Additional reporting by Markus Krah in Berlin, Sonya Dowsett in Madrid, Paul Taylor in Brussels, the Tehran bureau and Carol Giacomo in Washington)

[Arrian]

Why do I bother? It's like talking to a brick ****ing wall.

I'm out.

-Arrian

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Dude?

[SlowwHand]

I know how you feel, Arrian. Half of you won't even read 1441.

You act like terrorism started with 9/11. Untrue. It was ignored by the USA until 9/11.

[Arrian]

Fair point to Ogie. I won't take the Pink Unicorn's name in vain, godless commie traitor that I am.

As an aside, it's a testimony to how deeply ingrained Christianity is in our culture that I, an agnostic leaning toward atheism, cannot shake the use of "Christ" and "My God!" and "Goddamnit!"

Time to go home and make some dinner, instead of dealing with Sloww's strawmen and baseless assertions. I have never, not once, asserted or "acted like" terrorist began on 9/11/01.

-Arrian

[SlowwHand]

Good. Get out of here.

[Dinner]

Re: Iraq terrorist calls scientists to jihad

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Why, no. There aren't any Iraqi terrorists.
What's this bozo then?

You can't be this dumb, can you?