Collective Security Treaty Organization (equivalent of the former 'Warsaw Pact')
18363 items (18363 unread) in 36 feeds
news_mainstream_english
(3441 unread)
news_alternative_english
(4400 unread)
news_alternative_hebrew
(267 unread)
blogs_israel_english
(2061 unread)
blogs_lebanon_english
(236 unread)
blogs_palestin_english
(160 unread)
blogs_usa
(2749 unread)
blogs_others
(3659 unread)
blogs_iran_english
(1390 unread)
(80 unread)
Collective Security Treaty Organization (equivalent of the former 'Warsaw Pact')
Coming up at 10 pm Pacific on The History Channel, the next episode in their very well-done series on the science of evolution: Evolve - Sex.
In the history of life on earth, sex may be the ultimate survival skill, because the bottom line is: reproduce or die. This episode looks at sex in its many forms, from sharks—among the first vertebrates to have intercourse—to dinosaurs that had to figure out how to join their giant bodies together to mate; from the stick insect (that mates nonstop for 10 straight weeks) to macaques monkeys (about once an hour)... and finally to humans. This driving force of life comes in many forms. How will sex evolve in the future? Are we evolving beyond sex? In fact, is a time coming when we will be able to seize control of our own evolution... not via sex at all, but through genetic engineering?
Imagine the mental anguish suffered by Sasquatch devotees worldwide, as the latest Bigfoot carcass turns out to be a cheap rubber gorilla suit.
(AP) Turns out Bigfoot was just a rubber suit.
Two researchers on a quest to prove the existence of Bigfoot say that the carcass encased in a block of ice - handed over to them for an undisclosed sum by two men who claimed to have found it - was slowly thawed out, and discovered to be a rubber gorilla outfit.
The revelation comes just days after a much ballyhooed news conference was held in California to proclaim that the remains of the creature found in the North Georgia mountains was the legendary man-ape.
Steve Kulls, executive director of squatchdetective.com and host of Squatchdetective Radio, says in a posting on a Web site run by Bigfoot researcher Tom Biscardi that as the “evidence” was thawed, the claim began to unravel as a giant hoax.
First, the hair sample was burned and “melted into a ball uncharacteristic of hair,” Kulls said in the posting. The thawing process was sped up and the exposed head was found to be “unusually hollow in one small section.” An hour of thawing later and the feet were exposed - and they were found to be made of rubber.
A dead giveaway.
March 28, 2007
From the Saudi Gazette:
Two illegal Yemeni immigrants, disguised as women, were arrested at a checkpoint near Asir. Lt. Col. Abdullah Bin Ayidh Al-Qarni, spokesperson for the Asir Region Police said the vehicle was stopped at an Al-Majaridah checkpoint with the two ‘women’ as well their driver. The third unidentified man said the two women in his car were his wife and sister. Police discovered that the ‘women’ were in fact men and arrested the three.
Poll commissioned by Geneva Initiative finds most Israelis don't believe
Israel faces demographic threat
Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA 19 August 2008:
Poll question:
There are those who claim that in a situation with no significant progress,
Israel could turn into a binational state, meaning that the Palestinians
would relinquish their demand for a state and instead demand to live in
Israel as citizens. In such a situation, two nations would live within the
borders of Israel. In your opinion, could a situation like this come about
or not?
Could come about 26%
Could not come about 71%
Undecided 3%
Oops!
Only 26% of Israelis polled think that if there is no "significant progress"
(aka no more Israeli withdrawals) that Israel will turn into a binational
state - aka the "demographic threat".
The demographic threat is the argument of last resort being used to justify
withdrawals since the argument that withdrawals lead to peace is a very hard
sell after the Oslo farce.
Now what do you do with the results? After all, the foreign governments and
other foreign entities bankrolling the Geneva Initiative aren't going to be
pleased with that.
So here is how the story is presented on their website:
Israeli Poll shows dramatic increase in public support for International
involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process
Date: 13.08.08
http://www.geneva-accord.org/General.aspx?docID=3104&FolderID=45&lang=en
Poll, held in late July, shows a dramatic rise in the Israeli public's
support for international involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,
with 73% supporting increased U.S. involvement and 58% supporting increased
European involvement. The poll also shows 75% of Israelis believe the
current situation with no political progress is bad for Israel, half support
the principles of the Geneva Accord, and one third still believe Olmert has
the legitimacy to advance the political process.
August 2008
MarketWatch Israeli Public Opinion Poll:
The Sample:
The survey was held among a representative sample of 600 respondents across
Israel, ages 18 and up (including new immigrant and Arab sectors,
proportionally to their percentage in the population).
MarketWatch Research conducted the survey by phone, using a computerized
polling system.
The survey was held on July 25th-25th, 2008.
The margin of error for a sample of 600 is 4.0%+/-
Findings
Are you for or against Israel conducting final status negotiations with the
Palestinians? / conducting negotiations with Mahmoud Abbas?
For 60%
Against 35%
Undecided 5%
Are you for or against Israel conducting negotiations with Hamas?
For 43%
Against 55%
Undecided 3%
In your opinion, is Mahmoud Abbas a partner who should not be missed, or
would it be better to wait for the next leader?
Should not be missed 47%
Wait for the next leader 35%
Undecided 17%
In your opinion, does Ehud Olmert have the legitimacy to advance
negotiations now, or would it be better to wait for the next leader?
Has the legitimacy 34%
Wait for the next leader 59%
Undecided 7%
Do you or do you not believe a permanent status agreement can be reached
with the Palestinians to end the conflict?
Believe 34%
Don't believe 62%
Undecided 4%
[Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA: "A demilitarized Palestinian state and the
establishment of comprehensive security arrangements to protect Israel"
- if the folks are the Geneva Initiative wanted to honestly follow through
on this (at the risk of annoying some of the foreign governmetns who have
helped to bankroll the project) they would ask if it is reasonable to expect
that, in practice, it is possible to create a "demilitarized Palestinian
state" and truly "comprehensive security arrangements to protect Israel".
But hey - grow up - the real name of the game is coming up with some
framework for withdrawals - all this verbiage is just window dressing.]
Would you support or oppose an agreement with the following articles (the
Geneva Accord):
An almost complete withdrawal to the' 67 borders, excluding some settlement
blocks, in return for which uninhabited areas will be handed over
Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem will be under Israeli sovereignty and
Arab neighborhoods under Palestinian Sovereignty
The Jewish Quarter and the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem will be under Israeli
sovereignty, the Temple Mount and Arab quarters in the Old City under
Palestinian sovereignty
A demilitarized Palestinian state and the establishment of comprehensive
security arrangements to protect Israel
The return of refugees to the Palestinian state and the limited admission of
refugees into Israel based on Israel's exclusive judgment
A mutual announcement by Israel and the Palestinians on the end of conflict
and end of all claims
Support 49%
Oppose 37%
Undecided 13%
Should the current situation continue with no political progress opposite
the Palestinians, would it be good or bad for Israel in your opinion?
Good for Israel 19%
Bad for Israel 74%
Undecided 7%
Should Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas form a Palestinian unity government, would
this increase, decrease, or have no effect on the chances of arriving at an
agreement with the Palestinian?
Increase 27%
Decrease 30%
Have no effect 35%
Undecided 8%
If the current situation were to continue with no significant political
progress, what do you think would happen?
Terrorism and acts of violence would increase
56%
There would be no change in the levels of terrorism and violence 31%
Terrorism and acts of violence would decrease
7%
Undecided
7%
If the current situation were to continue with no significant political
progress, what do you think would happen in the balance of power between
Hamas and Fatah?
Hamas would take over the West Bank
37%
There would be no change - Hamas would rule in Gaza and Fatah in the W. Bank
33%
Fatah and Abbas would regain control of Gaza
10%
Undecided
20%
There are those who claim that in a situation with no significant progress,
Israel could turn into a binational state, meaning that the Palestinians
would relinquish their demand for a state and instead demand to live in
Israel as citizens. In such a situation, two nations would live within the
borders of Israel. In your opinion, could a situation like this come about
or not?
Could come about 26%
Could not come about 71%
Undecided 3%
Which situation do you view as preferable?
The establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, meaning two
states for two peoples 74%
The establishment of a binational state, meaning one state for two peoples
14%
Neither 9%
Undecided 3%
Do you support or oppose increasing U.S. involvement in the
Israeli-Palestinian process?
August 05 July 08
Support 47% 73%
Oppose 45% 23%
Undecided 8% 4%
Support for increased U.S. involvement according to intended vote:
Meretz
Support 85%
Oppose 15%
Undecided 0%
Labor
Support 96%
Oppose 3%
Undecided 1%
Kadima
Support 91%
Oppose 9%
Undecided 0%
Likud
Support 75%
Oppose 18%
Undecided 6%
National Religious Party
Support 61%
Oppose 27%
Undecided 12%
Shas
Support 47%
Oppose 54%
Undecided 0%
Do you support or oppose increasing European involvement in the
Israeli-Palestinian process?
January 07 July 08
Support 40% 58%
Oppose 53% 37%
Undecided 7% 5%
Support for increased European involvement according to intended vote:
Meretz
Support 73%
Oppose 11%
Undecided 16%
Labor
Support 97%
Oppose 10%
Undecided 3%
Kadima
Support 87%
Oppose 12%
Undecided 1%
Likud
Support 53%
Oppose 43%
Undecided 4%
National Religious Party
Support 25%
Oppose 70%
Undecided 5%
Shas
Support 54%
Oppose 40%
Undecided 6%
The 31st FRR consisted of five S-75M sites. The 41st FRBr consisted of six S-75M sites, four S-125M1A sites, and one S-200VE site. The 51st FRBr consisted of five S-75M sites and one S-200VE site. The 41st FRBr and 51st FRBr also controlled four reserve S-75 Dvina sites each. These sites, containing older, shorter-ranged S-75 systems, would be used to increase the capabilities of each regiment during wartime.
The 41st FRBr covered the capital area surrounding Berlin, as seen in the following image. The four reserve S-75 sites were located along the southwestern portion of the 41st FRBr's area of responsibility.
The 51st FRBr covered the DDR's southwestern flank, as seen in the following image. The four reserve S-75 sites were located in the eastern portion of the 51st FRBr's area of responsibility, along a north-south diagonal stretching from Halle to Chemnitz.
3RD LVD
The 13th FRR consisted of four S-75M sites. The 23rd FRR consisted of five S-75M sites. The 43rd FRBr consisted of six S-75M sites, five S-125M1A sites, one S-200VE site, and one S-300PMU site. The S-300PMU's 64N6 radar facility was also subordinate to the 43rd FRBr.
The 23rd FRR covered the northeastern portion of the DDR near the Polish border, as seen in the image below:
The 43rd FRBr covered the northern area of the DDR between the 13th FRR and 23rd FRR areas of responsibility, as seen in the image below:
SOVIET CONTRIBUTION
Various Soviet tactical SAM units were also present in the DDR. These systems included the Krug, Osa, 9K37 Buk (SA-11 GADFLY) and S-300V (SA-12 GLADIATOR/GIANT). As tactical SAM units would have been tasked to provide mobile air defense for Soviet Army units pushing into NATO, they are not covered here.
OVERALL COVERAGE
The overall coverage provided by the entire air defense network can be seen in the image below:
The deployment strategies employed by the DDR and Soviet units indicate a desire to defend both key border areas as well as major residential and industrial areas. During a postulated Soviet conflict with NATO, Soviet and Warsaw Pact units advancing into Western Europe would likely have contained organic tactical air defense units. The volume of strategic air defense units present in the DDR would suggest that the Soviets placed a great deal of importance on defending the major logistical support areas and lines of communication in the DDR. This meshes well with the Soviet concept of rapid advance of armored units into enemy territory. In order for these advances to be successful, the logistics support train must be well defended.
Eliminating the 14th FRR's northern three S-75 sites and a solitary Soviet S-125 site provides the beginning of an undefended corridor of airspace for striking at targets in the region, as illustrated below:
There is a tactical SAM garrison in the area opened by the postulated strike, but this was an Osa garrison. Operation DESERT STORM proved that the Osa was ineffective at dealing with fast jets backed by EW, SEAD and DEAD assets, recording no successes against Coalition aircraft. Ergo, the strike package would likely not be threatened by the Osa TELARs in the area, being able to proceed deeper into the DDR. A turn to the south reveals another narrow corridor leading to the 1st LVD's area of responsibility being vulnerable were a second Soviet S-125 battery to be destroyed. Clearly, newer air defense systems were necessary to deal with the increased threat posed by NATO strike aircraft and their support assets.
The exact location of the DDR's S-300PMU site has not been determined with complete certainty, but it is known that the system supplemented, if not replaced outright, the Retschow S-75 battery in the 43rd FRBr. Given this location and the fact that the Retschow S-75 site remains unmodified, the following site stands out as a potential location for the S-300PMU battery:
It is known that Soviet engineers did travel to the DDR to construct S-300P series SAM sites, suggesting that they were responsible for constructing the Retschow site. This would suggest that the above location is a distinct possibility as it has clearly undergone significant deconstruction, potentially erasing evidence of built up revetments and radar platforms. The Soviet engineers may also have constructed Soviet S-300P series sites as well, and the following image presents an example from the 51FRBr where such a site may have been constructed adjacent to a DDR S-75 site:
CONCLUSION
"Green Light" Poll: 23.3% Young Israelis prefer spending time at bars and
pubs over alternatives
Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA 19 August 2008
Yisrael Hayom reports in today's edition that a poll of 300 Israelis age
17-24 at the start of August commissioned by the road safety group "Or
Yarok" (green light) and carried out by TNS-Teleseker asked where they most
preferred to spend the summer:
www.oryarok.org.il/?p=1142
23.3% Pub/Bar
15.6% Restaurant/cafe
13.6% Clubs/parties
13.0% Home with friends
05.6% Beach
04.7% Mall
00.7% Cinema
On the other hand, the survey found that most only go out Thursday night
through Saturday night (only some 13% go out daily or almost daily) and
60.1% return home between midnight and 4 AM.
73% go out in a car and 13% use public transportation.
MEMRI Special Dispatch | No. 2029 | August 19, 2008
Iran/U.S. and the Middle East
Iran Threatens to Close Strait of Hormuz If Attacked
Following recent threats by Iranian government elites,(1) in the past
several days senior Iranian officials have emphasized that if it is
attacked, Iran intends to close the Strait of Hormuz, thereby impeding the
export of oil from the Gulf to the rest of the world.
The following are statements on this matter by several senior Islamic
Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) officials:
IRGC Political Bureau Chief Javani: Closing the Strait of Hormuz is Part of
Iran's Defense Policy
In an editorial titled "When Will the Hormuz Strait Be Closed?" in the
Iranian weekly Sobh-e Sadeq, which is the mouthpiece of Iranian Supreme
Leader 'Ali Khamenei circulated among the IRGC, IRGC political bureau chief
Yadollah Javani wrote:
"The Strait of Hormuz is one of 14 locations in the world with unique
strategic importance. Over 60 percent of the world's energy reserves are
located in the Persian Gulf, and 17 million barrels of oil are transported
daily from the strait by oil tankers. In today's global economy, oil plays
the same role as blood in the human body, and under present circumstances,
it is impossible to conceive of an active and dynamic economy without oil.
Industry is completely dependent on [Persian] Gulf oil for survival.
"Oil production and the transportation of oil via the Strait of Hormuz
require regional stability and security. If the Gulf region becomes
unstable, this would entail fundamental and grave problems for the export of
Persian Gulf oil.
"Iran is the largest and strongest independent country in the Middle East.
It commands the entire northern Gulf coast, the Persian Gulf, and part of
the Gulf of Oman, as well as the strategically important islands such as
Greater Tunb, Lesser Tunb, and Abu Moussa. In practical terms, from the
geopolitical standpoint Iran is the dominant country in the Persian Gulf.
Iran's policy in the region, particularly in the Persian Gulf - this being a
strategic marine route - is to establish stability and security, and [to
ensure that there is a capability] for withstanding any force that may be
conducive to instability and [may present] a threat...
"Iran's response to any kind of military action that [jeopardizes] its
interests will be swift, resolute, and crushing... Iran has declared several
times that it will use all possible means to deal with military threats.
Iran's Supreme Leader and the supreme commander of the armed forces [Ali
Khamenei] has openly declared several times in his addresses... that if
[Iran's] enemies [i.e. the U.S. and Israel] should commit folly and attack
Iran, its reaction would be crushing; Iran would damage the attacker's
interests worldwide, wherever it could. Khamenei's message is clear
enough... Based on it, the Revolutionary Guards will mobilize all their
capabilities and use all possible means to deal with the enemy.
"The point emphasized by Iran and insisted upon by the IRGC - which is the
strongest armed military force in the Persian Gulf - is that in the event of
military action against Iran by the enemies [i.e. the U.S. and Israel], the
geostrategic role of the Persian Gulf, and especially of the Strait of
Hormuz, will come into play as part of Iran's defense [plan, as well of its
policy] of harming the interests of both the attackers and their supporters.
The policy of closing the Strait of Hormuz was drawn up [expressly for this
purpose]; it is made possible both by the Strait's geographic location and
by the IRGC naval forces' capabilities in the Persian Gulf ...
"In the event of [military] action by an enemy, no one should expect Iran to
refrain from using every [available] means of self-defense, including
closing the Strait of Hormuz with a view to damaging the invaders'
interests. Closing the Strait of Hormuz is part of Iran's defense policy in
face of the U.S. military threat..."(2)
IRGC Ground Forces Commander Assadi: We'll Obstruct U.S. Troop Retreat,
Escalate Oil Prices
In an interview with the Iranian news agency Fars, IRGC ground forces
commander Mohammad Ja'far Assadi called Iraq "a large prison for captive
[U.S.] soldiers," adding: "The captors know that in the event of an attack
on Iran, they will be unable to withdraw all their forces from Iraq and
Afghanistan overnight and flee... [since] the Pasbandar region up to the
delta of the Arwand River [i.e. Shatt Al-'Arab], which is considered one of
the flanks of the Persian Gulf, as well as part of the Gulf of Oman, is
controlled by Iran - meaning that Iran maintains a hold on the enemy's vital
arteries."
Assadi emphasized that "60% of [all] oil consumed worldwide passes through
the Persian Gulf," and added: "These days, [although] no incident has as yet
occurred, oil prices have risen from $12 to $120 a barrel. Now try to
calculate how high [the price] of this essential commodity will rise if the
enemy acts in a foolhardy manner, compelling Iran to defend itself."(3)
Iranian Presidential Advisor: U.S. Warships Will Be Sunk at Leader
[Khamenei's] Slightest Signal
In an interview with the Iranian news agency ILNA, Iranian presidential
advisor Mohammad 'Ali Ramin stated: "If instead of going on foot to Karbala
[in Iraq] as a pilgrimage, pilgrims travel to Iraq to fight the Americans,
[they will be doing] something for the sake of humanity. If instead of
watching the U.S. fleet in the [Persian] Gulf, you prepare yourselves for
the day when, at [Supreme] Leader [Khamenei's] slightest signal you will set
forth to sink these ships, you will have done something for the sake of
humanity."(4)
Endnotes:
(1) See MEMRI Inquiry and Analysis No. 455, "Iranian Threats in Anticipation
of Western Attack," July 15, 2008,
http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=countries&Area=iran&ID=IA45508.
(2) Sobh-e Sadeq (Iran), August 11, 2008.
(3) Fars (Iran), August 9, 2008.
(4) ILNA (Iran), August 9, 2008.
For assistance, please contact MEMRI at memri@memri.org.
The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) is an independent,
non-profit organization that translates and analyzes the media of the Middle
East. Copies of articles and documents cited, as well as background
information, are available on request.
MEMRI holds copyrights on all translations. Materials may only be used with
proper attribution.
MEMRI
P.O. Box 27837, Washington, DC 20038-7837
Phone: (202) 955-9070
Fax: (202) 955-9077
www.memri.org
[Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA:
"If Lebanon turns in to a Hizbullah state, we will no longer place any
limitations on ourselves," Olmert said during a visit to the Home Front
Command headquarters in Ramle.
Bu today the Gaza Strip is already a Hamas state and....]
'We exercised restraint in Lebanon war'
JPost.com Staff , THE JERUSALEM POST Aug. 19, 2008
www.jpost.com
/servlet/Satellite?cid=1218710407335&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Israel avoided using heavy weaponry in the Second Lebanon War because it
fought against a terror group and not a country, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert
said Tuesday, stressing however, that if Lebanon turns into a Hizbullah
state Israel will remove those limitations.
"In the Second Lebanon War we had much greater means and capabilities which
we avoided using since we fought against a terror organization and not a
country.
If Lebanon turns in to a Hizbullah state, we will no longer place any
limitations on ourselves," Olmert said during a visit to the Home Front
Command headquarters in Ramle.
On August 12, the Lebanese parliament overwhelmingly approved a national
unity cabinet after a five-day debate on a controversial government policy
that upholds Hizbullah's right to keep its weapons.
The vote was part of a deal reached in May by rival Lebanese factions in
Qatar that ended an 18-month political stalemate - Lebanon's worst crisis
since the end of the 1975-90 civil war.
The policy asserts "the right of Lebanon, its people, its army and the
resistance (Hizbullah) to liberate its land" occupied by Israel.
The deal also gave Hizbullah and its opposition allies veto power on major
decisions in the unity government.
Olmert added that in any future war with another country, Israel had a duty
to bring about a swift end to the battle at a minimum price and to make the
most out of its advantages.
The prime minister emphasized that the army did not seek to conquer
territory in order to hold on to it and that the Israel would focus on
preventing border breaches as well as quick and clear decision-making.
Olmert went on to say that if another war breaks out, the Home Front Command
would likely play a central role.
"Future wars, if, God forbid, they break out, will be different from past
wars, even the Second Lebanon War," he said. "There will no longer be a
situation in which the war is waged in distant battlefields while in big
cities, life continues as normal. The war will also reach cites and the
homes of Israeli citizens, and the aim of our enemies will be to hit the
home front."
"You in the Home Front command, have a vital part to play in the future
battlefield due to your role in taking care of the population," he
continued, adding that the more they were prepared and assisted local
authorities in their preparations, the easier it would be to do their jobs
in an emergency situation.
During the visit, Olmert was presented with an assessment of threats posed
to the home front and the available responses.
He also attended a Home Front Command exercise and was briefed on the
different means at its disposal.
At the end of his visit, Olmert thanked IDF Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen.
Gabi Ashkenazi, OC Home Front Command Maj.-Gen. Yair Golan and the Home
Front Command soldiers for their assessments and hailed their willingnes to
implement the recommendations made following the 2006 war.
Intermittent rocket fire persists despite ceasefire between Israel, Gaza
terror groups. No injuries or damage reported in Tuesday attack as Qassam
lands in kibbutz
Shmulik Hadad Ynet Latest Update: 08.19.08, 23:48 / Israel News
www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3584998,00.html
Defense Minister Ehud Barak ordered the commercial crossings between Israel
and the Gaza Strip closed as of Wednesday morning following the launching of
a Qassam rocket towards southern Israel earlier on Tuesday.
The crossings are to remain closed over the next two days. On Thursday Barak
will conduct a revaluation of the situation
Palestinian gunmen launched a Qassam rocket from northern Gaza towards
Israel on Tuesday evening. The rocket landed in an open area in a kibbutz
belonging to the Sha'ar Hanegev Regional Council.
No injuries were reported and no damage was caused. In recent weeks
construction has begun in parts of the kibbutz to fortify buildings against
rocket attacks.
Iranian Rocket can Carry Low-Orbit Satellites
19 August 2008
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8705291133
TEHRAN (FNA)- Iran on Tuesday said that a home-built rocket sent into space
will be able to take a satellite into low orbit around the earth.
Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar also vowed that Iran will soon put
its own satellite into orbit, after a dummy was sent into space in Monday's
rocket launch.
Iran declared the test a success for its plan over the next two years to
launch four satellites for research, especially for improvement of
telecommunications and monitoring of natural disasters.
The Safir-e Omid (Ambassador of Hope) rocket, which is about 22 meters long,
with a diameter of 1.25 meters, weighs more than 26 tons and is capable of
putting a light satellite into low earth orbit between 250 and 500
kilometers above the earth.
Safir-e Omid rocket, which is Iran's first domestically-produced satellite
carrier, was successfully launched on Sunday in the presence of President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who read out the launch countdown.
The rocket, built by Iranian experts, was launched on the auspicious
occasion of birthday anniversary of Imam Mahdi, the 12th Imam of Prophet
Mohammad (PBUH) Infallible Household.
Brigadier General Najjar also hailed the launch of the Safir 1 satellite
carrier as a triumph in domestic scientific and technological progress.
"Iranian scientists are always reaching new peaks in scientific and
technological progress," Najjar said.
Referring to the satellite-carrier rocket as "a precise guided launcher,"
the minister said Safir 1 "can carry different satellites into the space and
put them in pre-planned position."
All parts of the rocket were produced inside the country and by Iranian
experts, Najjar said adding that all pre-planned goals have been achieved by
launching the satellite.
"The successful launch of Safir 1 shows that Iran has access to the
ultra-modern technology required to manufacture, launch and track satellites
as well as transmit and receive information from them," he added.
Tehran has said it would help other Islamic states to launch satellites into
the orbit.
The Head of the Iranian Aerospace Organization Reza Taqipour told press tv
that the Safir launch will pave the way for Iran to send its
domestically-built telecommunications satellite, Omid (Hope), into orbit "in
the near future".
"The main aim of the launch of Safir 1 was to reach a pre-planned orbit and
to improve the country's space industries," Taqipour said.
Taqipour said Iran has plans to put a "series of satellites" into space by
2010 to aid natural disaster management programs and improve
telecommunications.
The Politico headline says it all: McCain weighs a Lieberman surprise.
John McCain is seriously considering choosing a pro-abortion-rights running mate despite vocal resistance from conservatives, with former Democratic vice presidential nominee Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) very much in the mix, close McCain advisers say.
Under strong consideration: former Pennsylvania Republican Gov. Tom Ridge, and Lieberman, who was Al Gore’s running mate in 2000.
Multiple GOP sources say that party officials in Washington and in the states have been contacted by the McCain campaign in the past two weeks and asked about the fallout from such a choice. One person familiar with the calls said the party was being instructed to prepare for different candidate prototypes — including one in the mold of Lieberman, who is an independent but still caucuses with the Democrats.
"But implementation to be decided later"
Amidst a growing world crisis, new developments in Lebanon may signal what lies ahead in the sphere of global jihadist forces in the near future. A memorandum of understanding has been signed by Hezbollah, the main pro-Iranian organization in the region, and a number of Salafist groups outlining efforts to "confront America."
Innocent minds may question how that impacts our lives. However, events that unfold in Beirut have a direct effect on the war on terror, or to be more precise, on the jihadist war on democracies. Here is why:
המקורות הצבאיים והמודיעיניים של תיקדבקה מדווחים, כי אין זה מקרה ששורה של מפקדים רוסיים בכירים, ובראשם סגן הרמטכ''ל הרוסי, גנרל אנטולי נוגוויטסין, Col-General Anatoly Nagovitsyn חשפו ביום ג' 19.8, את היקף המעורבות הצבאית הישראלית בגיאורגיה, זמן קצר לפני הגעתו של נשיא סוריה באשר אסד, ביום ד' 20.8, לביקור בן יומיים.
הרוסים מודעים לזה, כי אסד רוצה לנצל את רוחות המלחמה הגיאורגית המנשבות במוסקבה, והמתיחות הבינגושית, כדי להשיג מערכות נשק חדישות, שעד עתה מוסקבה סירבה לספק לדמשק. מוסקבה חושבת כי היא יכולה לנצל את ביקור זה של הנשיא הסורי, כדי להוכיח כי מדיניותה הצבאית החדשה יכולה לפעול גם במזרח התיכון. פרסום המידע הרוסי על אספקת הנשק הישראלי לגיאורגיה, יעזור לרוסים להדוף מראש כל טענה אמריקנית או ישראלית נגד אספקת נשק רוסי לסוריה.
ביום א' 17.8, דיווח תיקדבקה בלעדית, כי הרוסים מתכננים עדי תגובה גרעיניים, כולל במזרח התיכון: צבא רוסיה יציב טילי קרקע-קרקע מדגם 'איסקנדאר' Iskandar, בסוריה, ובמובלעת קלינינגראד Kaliningrad. אוניות הצי הבלטי הרוסי בים הבלטי, ובמזרח התיכון, יחומשו בראשי חץ גרעיניים. כן דיווחנו, כי לאחר הניצחון בגיאורגיה, נשקלים בצמרת הפוליטית והצבאית הרוסית גם צעדיה הבאים של מוסקבה במזרח התיכון, במטרה להעניש את ישראל על חלקה באימון וציוד צבא גיאורגיה.
Jeffrey Imm’s recent broadside against myself, my colleague Michael Jacobson, The Washington Institute’s Stein Program on Counterterrorism and Intelligence, West Point’s Counterterrorism Center, and the Quilliam Foundation is a poor reflection of the Counterterrorism Blog in its departure from the Blog’s tradition of civil and scholarly debate. Unfortunately, Imm’s blog is neither.
Contrary to Mr. Imm’s assertion that I criticized him in my July 17 post, that article barely mentioned him at all (and never in a derogatory tone) focusing instead on the substance at hand. In concluded, “While Mr. Imm is right that not every extremist or terrorist renouncing their former way of life is fully deradicalized, to dismiss all of them is not only short sighted, but risks missing valuable opportunities for the US and its allies.” Mr. Imm’s most recent post only underlines that conclusion.
But before I address the substantive issues, let me correct just two of Mr. Imm’s multiple factual errors.
In his post, Mr. Imm criticizes my colleague Michael Jacobson for citing Dr. Fadl as someone who has renounced terrorism in a recent article published in West Point CTC's publication "The Sentinel." Mr. Imm says that this is part of a broader pattern with the Washington Institute, accusing us of having a "consistently uncritical view" regarding those who claim to have left terrorism behind.
Mr. Imm's charges on this issue are badly off the mark. First, Mr. Imm has taken Mr. Jacobson's statements out of context to suggest that he has given Dr. Fadl the seal of approval. In his article, Mr. Jacobson was not citing Dr. Fadl's renunciation to indicate that he was persuaded that it was genuine. In fact, Mr. Jacobson was making a far different point -- that despite the positive attention heaped on Dr. Fadl and others who have publicly recanted, we do not know what the effect of these recantations will be on those currently in terrorist organizations. We need to understand this issue far better to design a successful and effective counterterrorism program. To take this very legitimate point and use it to "demonstrate" that the Institute is uncritical is quite disingenuous.
Mr. Imm's ideologically driven analysis is clear from the fact that he so readily dismisses the possible broader implications of Dr. Fadl's statements. Even if Dr. Fadl hasn't fully renounced all terrorism, it would still be very significant that one of the original founders of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, a man on whom Bin Ladin and al Qaeda have relied to provide the ideological foundation for their takfiri ideology, is now recanting some of his former positions. Many analysts believe that his statements criticizing al Qaeda - along with those of other former clerics and terrorist leaders - are beginning to cause a real schism within the global jihadist community. How the US can take advantage of a possible fissure through its counterterrorism and counter-radicalization efforts is a critical and immediate question that Mr. Imm is far too quick to dismiss. While there is certainly room for skepticism about the ultimate ramifications, it is critical to at least consider the potential implications of these recent developments.
Mr. Imm took the liberty of quoting me out of context as well. Imm contends that I made “the incredible claim” that the way back from Islamism is through political salafists who have credibility when it comes to deradicalizing others. In fact, I noted that officials in the UK, the Netherlands and elsewhere have successfully leveraged even political salafists in their counter-radicalization efforts, even as they see these groups for what they are and recognize they still support some forms of extremism. Without accepting them, these governments are using them to their advantage. I noted this, concluding that “these are issues which bear further exploring”:
Another important question that needs to be asked, and one that has often been given short- shrift (including on this blog) is how to leverage the ideological fissures that develop between and among our adversaries -- even when the more moderate wing is still not as moderate as we would like them to be. In the UK, for example, a distinction is often made between "jihadi salafists" and "political salafists," with the government willing to work with some groups that fall into the latter category but none in the former. (For the record, Quilliam has come out against working with groups that fall into either category). Not only do the political salafists have credibility when it comes to deradicalizing others, but as the Dutch argue it may be better to keep them in the larger tent than drive them further underground. In addition, having recently spent time in the UK (as well as France and Holland), talking to counterterrorism officials and local community leaders, it is striking how concerned they are about the threat of an imminent attack. Against that background, it becomes more understandable why they're trying to find allies wherever they can. The British realize they may have significant differences with "political salafists" who think "resistance" in Palestine or Iraq is legitimate, but are thinking about ways that they can at least leverage them and their positions in an effort to de-radicalize the most severe extremists (taqfiris) randomly targeting civilians today.
Mr. Imm also ignored in his postings inconvenient truths. For example, Mr. Imm challenged Quilliam to reject Islamic supremacism, and when Mr. Nawaz did exactly that it went unacknowledged by Mr. Imm.
On