Ohio GOP candidate defends Nazi re-enactments

COLUMBUS, Ohio – A Republican congressional candidate from Ohio, countering criticism from a House GOP leader, said Monday that he did nothing wrong by wearing a Nazi uniform while participating in World War II re-enactments.
Rich Iott told The Associated Press in an interview that he took part in the historical re-enactments to educate the public, and does not agree with the Nazis' views or their actions against Jews.
Asked whether it was wrong to wear a Nazi uniform, Iott said: "I don't see anything wrong about educating the public about events that happened. And that's the whole purpose of historical re-enacting."
Iott faces Democratic incumbent Rep. Marcy Kaptur in northwest Ohio in the November election.
The Atlantic magazine first reported Friday that Iott had participated in the re-enactments wearing a Waffen-SS uniform.
Iott said Monday he was in a re-enactment group called Wiking for three or four years — though he believed his name remained on the group's roster for longer. He said he and his then-teenage son had joined as a part of a shared interest in history.
The House Republicans' No. 2 leader, Eric Cantor of Virginia, on Sunday said he repudiates Iott's actions and would not support someone who would dress in Nazi attire. His remarks on "Fox News Sunday" came after Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, of Florida, cited Iott as an example of GOP candidates with extreme views.
"You know good and well that I don't support anything like that," said Cantor, who is Jewish.
Iott said Cantor had no information or background about his re-enacting.
"What Cantor did is exactly the illustration of why people are disgusted with politicians," Iott said. "He made comments and took a position that was good for him at the time, regardless of whether it was good for anyone else or good for the voters."
Iott said he has been involved in re-enactments on and off for roughly 35 years. He said he has dressed as an American soldier for World War I and World War II re-enactments, as well as a soldier from each side of the Civil War. Iott said he could not recall when he and his son joined the Wiking group but that he was no longer involved.
"Never, in any of my re-enacting of military history, have I meant any disrespect to anyone who served in our military or anyone who has been affected by the tragedy of war, especially the Jewish Community," Iott said in a statement Saturday.
Elan Steinberg, vice president of the American Gathering of Holocaust Survivors and their Descendants, called Iott's actions "a profoundly disgraceful expression of anti-American values."
"His failure to apologize is particularly shameful and desecrates the memory of all victims of the Nazis, Jew and non-Jew," Steinberg said in a written statement.
During the peak of his involvement in the early 2000s, Iott said he dressed up about a half dozen times a year at the most. He said he wore the Nazi uniform in battle re-enactments, presentations at schools and public events.
Asked what he said while wearing the Nazi uniform in the schools, he said, "We talked about the atrocities that were committed and it was a horrible, horrible part of history. But we can't forget about it or, you know, sweep it under the rug. Because those who forget about history are destined to repeat it."

SOURCE:  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101011/ap_on_el_ho/us_republican_candidate_nazi_costume/print

Hey idiots he's just a re-enactor.  He's there to EDUCATE people about what happened during the wars he re-enacts.  Just because someone wears a Confederate or Nazi uniform doesn't mean that they are Nazis or slavers.  Back off him and find something better to be mad at him about.  This just makes you critics look stupid.

Ahmadinejad calls for US leaders to be 'buried'

TEHRAN, Iran – Iran's president Sunday called for U.S. leaders to be "buried" in response to what he says are American threats of military attack against Tehran's nuclear program.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is known for brash rhetoric in addressing the West, but in a speech Sunday he went a step further using a deeply offensive insult in response to U.S. statements that the military option against Iran is still on the table.
"May the undertaker bury you, your table and your body, which has soiled the world," he said using language in Iran reserved for hated enemies.
Several top U.S. officials including Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff have said in recent months that the military option remains on the table and there is a plan to attack Iran, although a military strike has been described as a bad idea.
The crowd of military men and clerics in the town of Hashtgerd just west of the capital chuckled at the president's insult and applauded.
The speech was broadcast by both state television and the official English-language Press TV, but the latter glossed over the insult in the simultaneous translation.
Ahmadinejad's remarks come in sharp contrast to ones he made to Al-Jazeera Arabic news channel in August in which he offered the U.S. Iran's friendship.
In Sunday's speech, Ahmadinejad also questioned once more who was behind the Sept. 11 attacks in the U.S. and said they gave Washington a pretext for seeking to dominate the region and plunder its oil wealth.
During his speech in front of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, he said a majority of people in the U.S. and around the world believe the American government staged the attacks, drawing a strong rebuke from President Barack Obama.
Ahmadinejad often resorts to provocative statements to lash out enemies. He has already compared the power of Iran's enemies to a "mosquito," saying Iran deals with the West over its nuclear activities from a position of power and he has likened the United States to a "farm animal trapped in a quagmire" in Afghanistan.
Iran also condemned the latest U.S. sanctions slapped on eight Iranian officials Wednesday, saying they show American interference in Tehran's domestic affairs.
Washington this week imposed travel and financial sanctions on the eight Iranians, accusing them of taking part in human rights abuses during the turmoil following Iran's June 2009 presidential election.

SOURCE:  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101003/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_us

We want to bury Ahmadinejad and the ayotolla too.  So I guess we're even, right?

Stupid Double Standards---The Afghan Kind

Right now I am complaining about double standards.  Sure, it's OK for the Afghans and other Arabs to drag bodies of dead Americans, civilian or not, through the streets and video tape it, but it's NOT OK for Americans to pose next to enemy corpses?

Granted it's all disgusting, but what is also disgusting is that the Arabs are acting like WE are the bad guys when they do even worse stuff.  This is all disgusting.

Dozens of NATO oil tankers attacked in Pakistan

SHIKARPUR, Pakistan – Suspected militants in southern Pakistan set ablaze more than two dozen tankers carrying fuel for foreign troops in Afghanistan on Friday, highlighting the vulnerability of the U.S.-led mission a day after Pakistan closed a major border crossing.
The Pakistani government shut the Torkham border in the northwest in apparent protest at a NATO helicopter incursion that killed three of its soldiers on the border. The events raised tensions between Pakistan and the United States, which have a close but often troubled alliance in the fight against militants. Pakistan also lodged a formal protest with NATO on Friday.
The convoy of tankers attacked Friday was likely headed to a second crossing in southwest Pakistan that was not closed. It was not clear if the vehicles had been rerouted because of the closure at Torkham.
Around 80 percent of the fuel, spare parts, clothing and other non-lethal supplies for foreign forces in landlocked Afghanistan travels through Pakistan after arriving in the southern Arabian sea port of Karachi. The alliance has other supply routes to Afghanistan, but the Pakistani ones are the cheapest and most convenient.
Islamist militants occasionally attack NATO supply tankers in Pakistan, mostly in the northwest where their influence is stronger. Thursday's strike was in Sindh province, far from the border, and might be taken as a sign that the insurgents are expanding their reach.
Around 10 gunmen attacked the vehicles when they were parked at an ordinary truck stop on the edge of Shikarpur town shortly after midnight. They forced the drivers and other people there to flee before setting the fires, said police officer Abdul Hamid Khoso. No one was wounded or killed.
The trucks were alight several hours after the attack, according to an Associated Press photographer at the scene.
Another officer, Nisar Ahmed, said the tankers had arrived in Shikarpur from the southern port city of Karachi and were heading to Quetta, a major city in the southwest. From there, the road leads to the Chaman border crossing.
Attacks on NATO and U.S. supply convoys in Pakistan give militants a propaganda victory, but coalition officials say they do not result in shortages in Afghanistan. Some of the attacks are believed to be the work of criminals. Some officials allege truck owners may be behind some of them, perhaps to fraudulently claim insurance.
The vast majority travel, however, through the country unharmed and the frequency of attacks reported in the media does not appear to have risen much, if at all, over the last two years.
In recent years, the alliance has sought to shift more of the supplies through Central Asian countries north of Afghanistan and Russia, aware of the problems of relying too much on Pakistan, which some argue does not share America's strategic goals in the region.
There is a risk, albeit small, that militant attacks could one day seriously squeeze supplies. But the overriding concern is that hosting the supply routes gives Islamabad immense leverage in its relationship with Washington. The United States cannot force Pakistan to, say, crack down on militants in the northwest behind attacks in Afghanistan because Islamabad holds a trump card: it can cut off most of the supplies to the war whenever it wants.
Pakistani security forces provide guards for the trucks and tankers in the northwest, but generally do not do so in south and central Pakistan, where attacks are rare. Pakistani security officials had warned after two alleged NATO helicopter incursions last weekend that they would stop providing protection to NATO convoys if it happened again.
In Brussels on Friday, Pakistani Ambassador Jalil Abbas Jilani met with NATO leaders and lodged a formal protest over the border incursions. In Pakistan, government officials said they had to take a stand.
"If the NATO forces keep on entering into Pakistan and carrying out attacks, then (the) only option we have — we should stop the movement of the containers," Defense Minister Chaudhry Ahmed Mukhtar said.
Opinion polls show many Pakistanis regard the United States as an enemy, and conspiracy theories abound of U.S. troops wanting to attack Pakistan and take over its nuclear weapons. The Pakistani government has to balance its support for the U.S. war in Afghanistan — and its need for billions of dollars in American aid — with maintaining support from its own population.
Friday's attack and the decision to close to the border have underscored the uneasy relations.
Pakistan said two NATO choppers fired on one of its border posts in the northwest's Kurram tribal region, killing three Pakistani soldiers Thursday. NATO said its helicopters entered Pakistani airspace and hit a target only after receiving ground fire. The alliance expressed condolences to the families of the soldiers and said it would investigate the incident.
It was the third alleged incursion by NATO helicopters into the northwest in the last week.
A lengthy closure of Torkham would place intense strain on the U.S.-Pakistani relationship and hurt the Afghan war effort. But that is seen as unlikely, as neither Islamabad nor Washington can afford a meltdown in ties at a crucial time in the 9-year-old war.
At Torkham, some 150 containers were waiting Friday for the border to reopen. The truck drivers were getting impatient and worried about the prospect of militant attacks.
"I might have not come here with NATO material if I knew that I will have to face this problem," said Shalif Khan. "We are forced to spend the day and the night in the open. We do not have any security here."

SOURCE:  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101001/ap_on_re_as/as_pakistan

I have no doubt that this is a result of Pakistan closing NATO's main supply route into Afghanistan.  I bet the Pakistani government is behind this. The Pakistani's are no help to us at all.

It also doesn't help that the US is depending on unarmed contractors.  If this were the US Quartermaster Corp., they would be armed with .50 cal machine guns and may even have armor support to fight off these insurgents.

Pakistan cuts NATO supply line after border firing

PARACHINAR, Pakistan – Pakistan blocked a vital supply route for U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan on Thursday in apparent retaliation for an alleged cross-border helicopter strike by the coalition that killed three Pakistani frontier troops.
The blockade appeared to be a major escalation in tensions between Pakistan and the United States.
A permanent stoppage of supply trucks would place massive strains on the relationship between the two countries and hurt the Afghan war effort. Even a short halt is a reminder of the leverage Pakistan has over the United States at a crucial time in the 9-year-old war.
By midmorning, a line of around 100 NATO vehicles was waiting to cross the border into Afghanistan, officials said.
"We will have to see whether we are allies or enemies," Pakistani Interior Minister Rehman Malik said of the border incident, without mentioning the blockade.
NATO said it was investigating Pakistani reports that coalition aircraft had mistakenly attacked its forces. The coalition has on at least one other occasion acknowledged mistakenly killing Pakistani security forces stationed close to the border.
Over the weekend, NATO helicopters fired on targets in Pakistan at least two times, killing several suspected insurgents they had pursued over the border from Afghanistan. Pakistan's government protested the attacks, which came in a month during which there have been an unprecedented number of U.S. drone missile strikes in the northwest, inflaming already pervasive anti-American sentiment among Pakistanis.
Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani told visiting CIA director Leon Panetta in Islamabad that Pakistan was "profoundly concerned" about the missile strikes and helicopter incursions.
"Pakistan being a front-line ally in the war against terror expects its partners to respect its territorial sovereignty," he said, according to a statement from his office.
The surge in attacks and apparent increased willingness by NATO to attack targets on the border, or just inside Pakistan, could be a sign the coalition is losing patience with Pakistan, which has long been accused of harboring militants in its lawless tribal regions.
Pakistani security officials said Thursday's deadly airstrike took place on a checkpoint in the Upper Kurram region.
The dead men were from a paramilitary force tasked with safeguarding the border, the security officials said. Their bodies were taken to Parachinar, the region's largest town, one official said. Three troops also were wounded.
Several hours later, officials reported another rocket strike by NATO helicopters about nine miles (15 kilometers) from the first one. There were no injuries.
The security officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the situation and because in some cases they were not authorized to release the information to the media.
The border between Pakistan and Afghanistan is unmarked. Border troops wear uniforms that resemble the traditional Pakistani dress of a long shirt and baggy trousers, which could make it hard to distinguish them from ordinary citizens or insurgents.
U.S. officials have complained in the past that Pakistani security forces do little to stop the movement of militants seeking to cross over into Afghanistan and attack foreign troops there.
Lt. Col. John Dorrian, a spokesman for intelligence and special operations at NATO headquarters in Kabul, said coalition forces observed early Thursday what they believed were insurgents firing mortars at a coalition base in Dand Wa Patan district of Paktia, which is next to Upper Kurram.
"A coalition air weapons team called for fire support and engaged the insurgents," he said. "The air weapons team reported that it did not cross into Pakistani air space and believed the insurgents were located on the Afghan side of the border."
Dorrian said Pakistani military officials had informed the NATO military coalition that members of their border forces had been struck by coalition aircraft. He said the coalition was reviewing the reports to see if the operation in Paktia was related to those reports.
Hours after the incident, Pakistani authorities were ordered to stop NATO supply trucks from crossing into Afghanistan at the Torkham border post, a major entryway for NATO materials at the edge of the Khyber tribal region, two government officials said.
No reason was given, but earlier this week Pakistan threatened to stop providing protection to NATO convoys if the alliance's helicopters attacked targets inside Pakistan again.
The other main route into Afghanistan in southeastern Pakistan had received no orders to stop NATO trucks from crossing, which they were doing as normal, said Syed Mohammed Agha, a spokesman for the Pashin Scouts border guards.
Some 80 percent of non-lethal supplies for foreign forces fighting in landlocked Afghanistan are transported over Pakistani soil after being unloaded at docks in Karachi, a port city in the south. While NATO and the United States have alternative supply routes, the Pakistani ones are the cheapest and most convenient.
In June 2008, a U.S. airstrike killed 11 Pakistani troops and frayed ties between the two nations. Pakistan said the soldiers died when U.S. aircraft bombed their border post in the Mohmand tribal region. U.S. officials said coalition aircraft dropped bombs during a clash with militants. They expressed regret over the deaths, but said the attack was justified.
Pakistan and the U.S. have a complicated, but vital, relationship, with distrust on both sides.
Polls show many Pakistanis regard the United States as an enemy, and conspiracy theories abound of U.S. troops wanting to attack Pakistan and take over its nuclear weapons. The Pakistani government has to balance its support for the U.S. war in Afghanistan — and its need for billions of dollars in American aid — with maintaining support from its own population.

SOURCE:  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100930/ap_on_re_as/as_pakistan_afghan_border

Thanks a lot you stupid Pakistanis.  After we help you out with your floods, this is what you guys do.  Why should the US help your country any more, you're nothing more than Arab terrorist turncoats.  You are either with us or against us at this point.  Your government seems to indicate now that it does want the terrorists to win. 

What should we do now?  How are we going to normalize relations with a country that clearly hates us?

In the mean time, they may not let our trucks through, but I'm pretty sure that our trucks are bigger than theirs, and we can just run through the border with no problem.  Plus we have bigger guns than them.  Pakistan you are messing with the wrong country.

Top US commander: Burning Quran endangers troops

KABUL, Afghanistan – The top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan warned Tuesday an American church's threat to burn copies of the Muslim holy book could endanger U.S. troops in the country and Americans worldwide.
Meanwhile, NATO reported the death of an American service member in an insurgent attack in southern Afghanistan on Tuesday.
The comments from Gen. David Petraeus followed a protest Monday by hundreds of Afghans over the plans by Gainesville, Florida-based Dove World Outreach Center — a small, evangelical Christian church that espouses anti-Islam philosophy — to burn copies of the Quran on church grounds to mark the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States that provoked the Afghan war.
"Images of the burning of a Quran would undoubtedly be used by extremists in Afghanistan — and around the world — to inflame public opinion and incite violence," Petraeus said in an e-mail to The Associated Press.
Muslims consider the Quran to be the word of God and insist it be treated with the utmost respect, along with any printed material containing its verses or the name of Allah or the Prophet Muhammad. Any intentional damage or show of disrespect to the Quran is deeply offensive.
In 2005, 15 people died and scores were wounded in riots in Afghanistan sparked by a story in Newsweek magazine alleging interrogators at the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay placed copies of the Quran in washrooms and flushed one down the toilet to get inmates to talk. Newsweek later retracted the story.
At Monday's protest, several hundred Afghans rallied outside a Kabul mosque, burning American flags and an effigy of Dove World's pastor and chanting "death to America." Members of the crowd briefly pelted a passing U.S. military convoy with stones, but were ordered to stop by rally organizers.
Two days earlier, thousands of Indonesian Muslims rallied outside the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta and in five other cities to protest the church's plans.
Petraeus warned images of burning Qurans could be used to incite anti-American sentiment similar to the pictures of prisoner abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.
"I am very concerned by the potential repercussions of the possible (Quran) burning. Even the rumor that it might take place has sparked demonstrations such as the one that took place in Kabul yesterday," Petraeus said in his message. "Were the actual burning to take place, the safety of our soldiers and civilians would be put in jeopardy and accomplishment of the mission would be made more difficult."
The U.S. Embassy in Kabul also issued a statement condemning the church's plans, saying Washington was "deeply concerned about deliberate attempts to offend members of religious or ethnic groups."
Dove World Outreach Center, which made headlines last year after distributing T-shirts that said "Islam is of the Devil," has been denied a permit to set a bonfire but has vowed to proceed with the burning. The congregation's website estimates it has about 50 members, but the church has leveraged the Internet with a Facebook page and blog devoted to its Quran-burning plans.
The American's death brings to at least six the number of U.S. forces killed in Afghanistan this month, along with at least four other non-American members of the international coalition.
Engagements with insurgents are rising along with the addition of another 30,000 U.S. troops, bringing the total number of international forces in the country to more than 140,000.
At least 322 U.S. troops have died in Afghanistan so far this year, exceeding the previous annual record of 304 for all of 2009, according to an AP count.
Petraeus is asking for 2,000 more soldiers for the international force, NATO officials said Monday. It was unclear how many would be Americans.
Coalition officials said nearly half will be trainers for the rapidly expanding Afghan security forces and will include troops trained to neutralize roadside bombs that have been responsible for about 60 percent of the 2,000 allied deaths in the nearly nine-year war.
The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not supposed to talk about the issue with media, said the NATO-led command had been asking for the troops even before Petraeus assumed command here in July.
Petraeus recently renewed that request with the NATO command in Brussels. The alliance has had trouble raising more troops for the war effort, with at least 450 training slots still unfilled after more than a year.
With casualties rising, the war has become deeply unpopular in many of NATO's 28 member countries, suggesting the additional forces will have to come from the United States.
Also Tuesday, authorities confirmed the ambush killing of a district chief by suspected insurgents in the northern province of Baghlan on Monday afternoon. Nahrin district chief Rahmad Sror Joshan Pool was on his way home after a memorial service for slain anti-Soviet guerrilla leader Ahmad Shah Massoud when rocket-propelled grenades hit his vehicle, setting it on fire, said provincial spokesman Mahmood Haqmal.
Pool's bodyguard was also killed in the attack, and one militant died and two were wounded in the ensuing fire fight with police, Haqmal said.
Five children were killed and five wounded in Yaya Khil district in the southern province of Paktika when an insurgent rocket fired at an Afghan army base hit a home Monday evening, provincial government spokesman Mokhlais Afghan said.
Kidnappers also seized two electoral workers and their two drivers in the western province of Ghor, according to deputy provincial police chief Ahmad Khan Bashir.
Insurgents have waged a campaign of violence and intimidation to prevent Afghans from voting, especially in rural areas, while some pre-election violence has also been blamed on rivalries among the candidates.

SOURCE:  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100907/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan


I understand what General Petraeus is saying.  This can be detrimental to our progress in Afghanistan.  But this just goes to show that lots of Muslims over there are too sensitive over their religion and are unwilling to shrug it off.  They don't have the "Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me" mentality at all.  If anyone here in the US burned a flag or a bible, no one would really give a crap.  But over there if you burn a Koran, you can catch so much hell that they might as well just stone you to death.  Afghan Muslims are pretty ridiculous.

A word about comments here on The Politech Seeker

I have had quite a few visitors here since the start of my blog, but I have only seen one comment by a visitor.  I encourage ALL visitors who visit this blog to post what they think about the articles I find and about my thoughts as well.

Also, please spread the word about my blog.  I want to facilitate intelligent discussion about modern-day happenings regarding politics and technology and how they can affect our way of life now and in the long run.

Peace this time? Israel, Palestinians to talk

WASHINGTON – Plunging into the Mideast peacemaker's role that has defeated so many U.S. leaders, President Barack Obama on Friday invited Israel and the Palestinians to try anew in face-to-face talks for a historic agreement to establish an independent Palestinian state and secure peace for Israel.
Negotiations shelved two years ago will resume Sept. 2 in Washington, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said. Obama will host Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas for dinner the night before.
The goal: a deal in a year's time on the toughest issues that have sunk previous negotiations, including the borders of a new Palestinian state and the fate of disputed Jerusalem, claimed as a holy capital by both peoples.
"There have been difficulties in the past, there will be difficulties ahead," Clinton said. "Without a doubt, we will hit more obstacles."
Indeed, soon after Clinton's announcement the militant Hamas movement that controls the Gaza Strip, which along with the West Bank is supposed to be part of an eventual Palestinian state, rejected the talks, saying they were based on empty promises.
Winning agreement to at least restart the direct talks makes good on an Obama campaign promise to confront the festering conflict early in his presidency, instead of deferring the peace broker's role as former President George W. Bush did.
Bringing the two sides to Washington for a symbolic handshake also will saddle Obama with one of the world's most intractable problems just when many other things, from a jobless recovery to probable midterm election losses, are not going well.
"This is the Pottery Barn rule for Obama. He owns this now," said Aaron David Miller, a scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center who advised presidents during two decades of attempts at a Mideast settlement.
The breakthrough after a nearly two-year hiatus in face-to-face negotiations brings the two sides back to where they were when the last direct talks began in November 2007, near the end of the Bush administration. Those talks broke down after Israel's 2008 military operation in Gaza, followed by Netanyahu's election last year on a much tougher platform than his predecessor.
Friday's announcement came after months of shuttle diplomacy by the Obama administration's Mideast envoy, former Sen. George Mitchell. It also followed a period of chilly U.S. relations with Netanyahu, primarily over expansion of Jewish housing on disputed land.
Under the agreement, Obama will hold separate discussions with Netanyahu and Abbas on Sept. 1 and then host the dinner, which will also be attended by Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak and Jordan's King Abdullah II.
Egypt and Jordan already have peace deals with Israel and will play a crucial support role in the new talks. Also invited is former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the special representative of the "Quartet" of Mideast peacemakers — the U.S., the U.N., the European Union and Russia.
On Sept. 2, Clinton will bring Abbas and Netanyahu together for the first formal round of direct talks since December 2008. At that point the parties will decide where and when to hold later rounds as well as lay out what is to be discussed. U.S. officials have said following rounds are likely to be held in Egypt.
In a choreographed sequence of events, Clinton's announcement came as the Quartet simultaneously issued a statement backing direct talks and Netanyahu's office quickly accepted the proposal.
"Reaching an agreement is a difficult challenge but is possible," it said. "We are coming to the talks with a genuine desire to reach a peace agreement between the two peoples that will protect Israel's national security interests, foremost of which is security."
Abbas enters the talks politically weaker than when he negotiated with Netanyahu's predecessor, Ehud Olmert, in 2007 and 2008.
A formal statement from Abbas' office accepting the invitation was expected late Friday. Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said he hoped the Quartet and others would work diligently to ensure the one-year timeframe was achieved and would press Israel to end "provocative acts"
"We hope that the Israeli government would refrain from settlement activities, incursions, siege, closures and provocative acts like demolishing of homes, deporting people from Jerusalem in order to give this peace process the chance it deserves," he said.
But in Gaza, Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri rejected the invitation.
"We ... consider this invitation and the promises included in it empty, and it's a new attempt to deceive the Palestinian people and international public opinion," he said.
Abbas' Palestinians had been balking at direct talks, saying not until Israel froze the construction of Jewish settlements.
Israel had rejected that, saying it amounted to placing conditions on the negotiations, and had been demanding a separate invitation from the U.S. A temporary freeze on Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank is to expire on Sept. 26.
Mitchell said the United States would step in when talks hit rough patches, offering proposals to bridge gaps "as necessary and appropriate."
"We will be active participants," he said.
It is not clear whether the United States would eventually draft its own peace plan or remain primarily a referee. Also unclear is whether Obama would convene his own high-stakes peace summit, in the mold of Camp David meetings that succeeded, under Jimmy Carter, and failed, under Bill Clinton.

 SOURCE:  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100820/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_us_mideast




I'm not too optimistic about these talks.  This disputed territory in the Middle East is more than just political trouble; It's religious trouble as well.  The Israelis feel that they can have the territory over a UN directive after WWII, but it is the home land of the Palestinians.  The first mistake was made after WWII, taking the Palestinian land to start with to put Jewish communities there.  Even back then the Arabs were against it, and rightfully so.  I wouldn't want anyone just to take a part of MY land without my approval (though the UN took a vote and approved the partitioning of Palestine, the Arab League rejected it and lost).  Ever since then they have been fighting over Israel.  The UN obviously did not do enough to foresee this situation back then.  What will have to probably happen is a unification of Palestinian lands, which can result in a harsh coexistence between the Israelis and the Palestinians, which is rooted deep in Islam itself.  Perhaps if people can let go of their religious differences long enough to realize that both parties are full of goodness in some way, a peaceful coexistence is possible.

Medvedev talks with Afghan, Pakistani leaders

MOSCOW – Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on Wednesday offered Pakistan support in dealing with catastrophic floods as he hosted the leaders of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Tajikistan for talks on efforts to stabilize the region.
Medvedev began his meeting with Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari in Russia's Black Sea resort of Sochi by expressing condolences over the floods that have killed about 1,500 and affected some 20 million people — or one Pakistani in nine.
"We are mourning together with you and we are ready to provide all the necessary assistance," Medvedev said.
A Russian Emergency Situations Ministry plane delivered relief supplies to Pakistan on Tuesday, and another such flight will be conducted Thursday.
The four presidents are expected to issue a statement after their talks urging stronger international support for the flood victims.
The four-way talks at Medvedev's seaside residence will also focus on fighting terrorism and drugs spreading from Afghanistan. The Russian president has previously held similar talks, seeking to strengthen Russia's clout in the volatile region.
Before the joint meeting, he held separate bilateral talks with Zardari, Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Tajik leader Emomali Rakhmon.
"Russia fully supports Afghan efforts to restore civil peace in the country," Medvedev said in televised remarks at the start of the meeting. "We support the Afghan government's fight against terror and are ready to provide support for that."
NATO has urged Russia to provide helicopters and training for the Afghan air force and to train more local police. Moscow has responded that it is willing to help — fearing that a return to power by Taliban extremists would destabilize ex-Soviet Central Asia and threaten Russia's security — but not for free and suggested that NATO pay the costs.
Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told reporters Wednesday that Russia is currently negotiating the sale of about 20 helicopters to Afghanistan and expects NATO to foot the bill. He didn't say how much the deal would cost.
Lavrov also said that Moscow would soon provide a free shipment of firearms for the Afghan Interior Ministry and step up training of its personnel.
Russian officials previously said that they planned to train about 200 Afghan policemen this year.
"We are ready to cooperate," Lavrov said, accordinng to the ITAR-Tass news agency. "The more efficient Afghan law enforcement agencies are in fighting drug traffickers, the better the situation in the region will be."
The Russian support for NATO- and U.S.-led operations so far has been limited to offering transit for railway shipments of non-lethal supplies and air corridors for weapons supplies, as supply routes through Pakistan have come under increased Taliban attack.
Russian officials also have strongly urged NATO and U.S. forces to do more to stem a flow of drugs from Afghanistan to Russia.
Medvedev told Karzai Wednesday that tackling Afghan drugs requires strong international cooperation. "It's our common problem, a problem for all countries of the region, and we must take consistent and coordinated actions," he said.
Afghanistan provides more than 90 percent of the heroin consumed in the world, and the bulk of it flows through ex-Soviet Central Asia and Russia.
The problem of drug abuse is of vital concern for Russia — where cheap, abundant Afghan heroin has helped fuel a surge in addiction rates, and injection drug use has been a key factor in the spread of the virus that causes AIDS.

SOURCE:  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100818/ap_on_re_eu/eu_russia_afghanistan_pakistan


I'm glad Russia wants to help the Afghan government's fight against the Taliban.  However, if they are having problems with drug trafficking into their country, NATO should not have to solve that problem, not without Russia's help anyway.  I don't think Russia believes that it is in their interest at this point to conduct helicopter training with Afghan soldiers, and NATO shouldn't have to pay Russia to do it either. 

WikiLeaks says it won't be threatened by Pentagon

STOCKHOLM – WikiLeaks will soon publish its remaining 15,000 Afghan war documents, despite warnings from the U.S. government, the organization's founder said Saturday.
The Pentagon has said that secret information will be even more damaging to security and risk more lives than WikiLeaks' initial release of some 76,000 war documents.
"This organization will not be threatened by the Pentagon or any other group," WikiLeaks founder and spokesman Julian Assange told reporters in Stockholm. "We proceed cautiously and safely with this material."
He said WikiLeaks was about halfway though a "line-by-line review" of the 15,000 documents and expected to publish them within weeks. Assange said "innocent parties who are under reasonable threat" would be redacted from the material.
The first documents released in WikiLeaks' "Afghan War Diary" laid bare classified military documents covering the war in Afghanistan from 2004 to 2010. The release angered U.S. officials, energized critics of the NATO-led campaign, and drew the attention of the Taliban, which has promised to use the material to track down people it considers traitors.
That has aroused the concern of several human rights group operating in Afghanistan and the Paris-based media watchdog Reporters Without Borders, which has accused WikiLeaks of recklessness. Jean-Francois Julliard, the group's secretary-general, said Thursday that WikiLeaks showed "incredible irresponsibility" when posting the documents online.
WikiLeaks describes itself as a public service organization for whistleblowers, journalists and activists.
In addition to speaking at a seminar, Assange was in Sweden to investigate claims that the website was not covered by laws protecting anonymous sources in the Scandinavian country.
He confirmed to Swedish broadcaster SVT that WikiLeaks passes information through Belgium and Sweden "to take advantage of laws there." But some experts say the site doesn't have the publishing certificate needed for full protection in Sweden.

SOURCE:  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100814/ap_on_hi_te/afghanistan_wikileaks

I think this hooligan ought to be found and locked up.  This careless jerk can potentially cost the lives of our troops in Afghanistan and jeopardize our mission in Afghanistan.  Loose lips sink ships, and Mr. Ass's lips ought to be zipped. 

Obama signs $600M border security bill into law

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama on Friday signed a bill directing $600 million more to securing the U.S.-Mexico border, a modest election-year victory that underscores his failure so far to deliver an overhaul of immigration law.
The new law will pay for the hiring of 1,000 more Border Patrol agents to be deployed at critical areas, as well as more Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. It provides for new communications equipment and greater use of unmanned surveillance drones. The Justice Department gets more money to help catch drug dealers and human traffickers.
But the bill fell short by the standards Obama has set for dealing with the immigration problem. In a speech last month Obama reiterated his commitment to a comprehensive approach that would secure the border but also address the 11 million illegal immigrants already in the country.
"Our borders are just too vast for us to be able to solve the problem only with fences and border patrols," the president said then. "It won't work."
Obama signed the bill Friday in a low-key Oval Office ceremony alongside Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. There were cameras present, but no reporters. The action came a day after the Senate convened in special session during its summer recess to pass the bill.
Napolitano said later: "This bill is clearly another step forward on border security, on top of the significant progress that the administration has already made. It is one of the many tools in the toolbox we have constructed along the border."
That wasn't good enough for some immigration advocates, who've criticized the legislation as election-year politics.
"Efforts to overhaul our broken immigration system have once again taken a back seat to appeasing anti-immigrant xenophobes, as Congress passed another dramatic escalation in border enforcement with very little evidence that past escalations have been effective," said Margaret Moran, president of the League of United Latin American Citizens.
Napolitano on Friday blamed Congress, Republicans in particular, for the failure to move forward on comprehensive legislation.
"Look, only Congress can pass a bill," she said. "The president can advocate. He can get them to the table, as he has in the Roosevelt Room upstairs. He can implore. He can provide ideas. He can agree to a framework, as he already has. He can give a major address that spells out what's needed in a bill, but only Congress can pass a bill."
Napolitano said efforts seeking comprehensive legislation would continue.
Although some moderate Republicans have in the past supported such far-reaching legislation, including a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants now in the country, most in the GOP label that approach amnesty.
"If the president takes amnesty off the table and makes a real commitment to border and interior security, he will find strong bipartisan support," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Friday.
Even past GOP backers of comprehensive immigration bills, such as Arizona Sen. John McCain and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, are no longer willing to lend their support. That's in part because of opposition from conservative primary voters.
Republicans largely backed the border security bill signed Friday even while complaining it didn't go far enough in increasing the number of customs inspectors along the border.
The border security debate has become even more heated since Arizona passed a law directing law enforcement officers to be more aggressive in seeking out illegal immigrants. Although a federal judge has since struck down some of the law's major provisions, it remains a rallying cry for those who say Washington has lost control of the border.

SOURCE:  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100813/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_border_security


While this bill is still not enough, it is better than nothing.  Because of our insecure southern border, the Mexican drug cartels have been spreading their filth into the US.  We need a bigger physical fence, more border cops, and more UAVs to patrol the border with Mexico.  No one should be welcomed here illegally.

Claims of Afghan civilian deaths spark protest

KABUL, Afghanistan – A crowd of about 300 villagers yelled "Death to the United States" and blocked a main road in eastern Afghanistan on Thursday as they swore that U.S. forces had killed three innocent villagers, officials said.
NATO forces rejected the claim, saying they had killed several suspected insurgents and detained a local Taliban commander in the overnight raid.
The gulf between the two accounts is a reminder of how sensitive every NATO operation in Afghanistan has become. In Taliban-heavy areas it is hard to distinguish villagers from insurgents and sometimes public opinion turns against coalition forces even when they say they are certain they targeted the correct people.
And while NATO has drastically reduced the civilian deaths it causes, the military coalition still makes mistakes. During a clash in southern Helmand province Wednesday, coalition forces mistakenly killed an Afghan woman as they fired back at insurgents, NATO said in a statement.
In the first six months of this year, 386 civilians were killed by NATO or Afghan government forces, including 41 during search-and-seizure operations such as night raids, according to the United Nations.
The Taliban issued a statement decrying the U.N. report, which said insurgent groups were responsible for 76 percent of civilian deaths and injuries in the first half of 2010.
The U.N. "plays a major role as a propaganda organization for the American imperialism and keeps covering up the blatant crimes of the Pentagon," the group said in an e-mail to The Associated Press.
Thursday's raid happened before dawn in Wardak province's Sayed Abad district, a Taliban-dominated area where Afghan police can only go with very tight security, according to district police Chief Abdul Karim Abed.
Elders from Zarin Khil village said American troops stormed into a family's house and shot three brothers — all young men — and then took their father into custody, Abed said. Police are investigating the allegations but could not yet confirm or deny them, he said.
NATO called the men "suspected insurgents" and a spokesman, Capt. Ryan Donald, said they drew weapons and pointed them at the coalition troops.
"The assault force engaged the threat, killing the men. After securing the compound, the assault force detained one suspected insurgent," NATO said in a statement.
According to villagers, there was no fighting before the troops entered the house.
"They were sleeping in one room and suddenly the soldiers broke the glass window and they fired on them and killed them," said Mahmoud Khan, a relative who lives in the village.
Early Thursday morning, men from the village started to gather in the main market of Sayed Abad to protest the alleged civilian killings, Abed said. The men blocked the main highway going through the area and burned two trucks belonging to Afghan private security contractors, he said.
Abed said he did not have more detailed information because he was unable to leave the police compound.
"If we go out, maybe fighting will start," he said.
In nearby Paktiya province, meanwhile, NATO and Afghan troops killed more than 20 armed insurgents in an ongoing operation to disrupt insurgents in the area around Dazadran district, the coalition said in a statement.

SOURCE:  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100812/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan

One person's innocent civilians is another person's terrorists.  These tribesmen are so stupid!  I doubt that the soldiers wouldn't have fired without being provoked.  If these stupid villagers are saying that we are killing their friends, and we say we are killing insurgents, we ought to just get rid of all of them.  The enemy is obviously hiding in these villages and I think that these villagers are hiding them from us.  If these stupid villagers would man up and expose the enemy, we wouldn't be having these problems.  But noooooo, we have to whine and complain and shout "death to America" every time they kill someone in our village, whether we liked them or not.

These Afghans are the most spineless people in the world.

UN: Afghan civilian deaths rise sharply this year

KABUL, Afghanistan – The number of civilians killed in the Afghan war jumped 21 percent in the first half of 2010 compared with the same period last year, with insurgents responsible for the spike, the United Nations said in a report Tuesday.
Shortly after the U.N. released its report in Kabul, two gunmen with explosives strapped to them tried to storm the office of an international security company in the capital. When guards fought back, the men detonated their explosives, killing two Afghan drivers.
The U.N. report showed a reduction in civilian casualties from NATO action, but the overall rise in deaths indicated that the war is getting ever-more violent — undermining the coalition's aim of improving security in the face of a virulent Taliban insurgency.
"The human cost of this conflict is unfortunately rising," said Staffan De Mistura, the top U.N. envoy in Afghanistan. "We are very concerned about the future because the human cost is being paid too heavily by civilians. This report is a wake-up call."
According to the U.N. report, 1,271 Afghans died and 1,997 were injured — mostly from bombings — in the first six months of the year. There were 1,054 civilian deaths in the first six months of 2009.
The U.N. said insurgents were responsible for 72 percent of the deaths — up from 58 percent last year.
In much of the south, people say they are too scared to work with NATO forces or the Afghan government because they will then be targeted by insurgents. And the risk of attack makes travel, running a business or any sort of community organizing or political campaigning dangerous.
The attack on Hart Security in Kabul started with a gunbattle as the assailants tried to shoot their way in to the compound in the largely residential Taimani neighborhood about 3:30 p.m. (1100 GMT, 7 a.m. EDT), said Abdul Ghafar Sayedzada, chief of criminal investigations for the Kabul police.
The Taliban told The Associated Press that they orchestrated the attack.
After the assault, a group of men could be seen carrying a body out of the building toward a waiting police truck. One of the men carrying the body was weeping, according to an AP reporter at the scene.
The attack appeared timed to coincide with the end of the company's workday, Sayedzada said.
Area residents said they heard shooting about the same time as the blast.
"I was about to park my car when I heard gunfire. I turned and saw shooting between the security guards and two other people. They were trying to get in the building," said Mohammad Sharif, who lives nearby. "In the middle of that fighting suddenly there was a big explosion."
One of the security guards was also wounded, Sayedzada said.
The Kabul deaths were not the day's only civilian casualties. Three civilians were killed when their car struck a roadside bomb just outside the eastern city of Ghazni, according to deputy provincial governor Kazim Allayar. And an insurgent-planted bomb killed an Afghan civilian near southern Kandahar city on Monday, according to NATO forces.
De Mistura said militants were using larger and more sophisticated explosive devices throughout the nation.
"If they want to be part of a future Afghanistan, they cannot do so over the bodies of so many civilians," de Mistura said.
De Mistura said that does not dissuade the U.N. from seeking a negotiated peace between the government and the Taliban, but he called on insurgent groups to consider whether they are not hurting their own long-term goals.
"One day, when unavoidably there will be a discussion about the future of the country, will you want to come to that table with thousands of Afghans, civilians, killed along the road?"
Deaths from U.S., NATO and other pro-government forces dropped in the first six months of 2010. The report said that 223, or 18 percent, of the Afghan deaths were due to U.S., NATO and other pro-government forces. That was down from 310 deaths, or 31 percent, during the first six months of last year, primarily because of a decrease in airstrikes, the report said.
Even so, air attacks were the largest single cause of civilian deaths caused by pro-government forces — accounting for 31 percent.
Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the former NATO commander, introduced strict rules on air strikes and called on soldiers to assess the likelihood of civilian casualties before taking any action. His successor, Gen. David Petraeus, has continued the policy.
"Every Afghan death diminishes our cause," Petraeus said in a statement. He also noted that even the increase in insurgent-caused deaths can hurt NATO's effort.
"We know the measure by which our mission will be judged is protecting the population from harm by either side. We will redouble our efforts to prevent insurgents from harming their neighbors," Petraeus said.
Though bombs continued to be the largest killer, there was a large jump in deaths from assassinations, particularly in the last few months.
There were about four assassinations or executions of civilians a week in the first six months of 2009. That jumped to about seven per week in the first six months of this year, spiking in May and June to 18 per week.
"These figures show that the Taliban are resorting to desperate measures, increasingly executing and assassinating civilians, including teachers, doctors, civil servants and tribal elders," said Rachel Reid, Afghanistan researcher for Human Rights Watch. "Targeting civilians violates the laws of war."
The Taliban has called on its fighters to avoid civilian casualties, but the group pointedly excludes anyone allied with the government from this protection. So mayors, community elders taking foreign money for development projects and mullahs seen as supporting the government have all become targets.
Children have also increasingly become casualties. The report says 176 children were killed and 389 others were wounded — up 55 percent over the same six-month period last year.
Elsewhere in Afghanistan, seven Afghan policemen were killed Monday in attacks in southern Helmand province, police officials said.
In Laghman province in the east, seven Afghan soldiers have died and 14 have been wounded in ongoing fighting with insurgents on the outskirts of the provincial capital of Mehtar, said Gen. Mohammad Zahir Azimi, a spokesman for the Defense Ministry. He confirmed reports that up to 20 Afghan soldiers have gone missing in the province and are in the hands of the Taliban.
(This version CORRECTS percentage in first paragraph and headline and number of civilians killed in 2009 in fifth paragraph.)

SOURCE:  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100810/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan

PERSONAL COMMENTARY:

It is sad when innocent people die, but people seem to forget that this is a war.  Expect civilian casualties.  If those civilians were smart enough, they should have left the warzone to avoid getting killed.  Instead of following this basic rule, we have sacrificed our own soliders to try and save the stupid civilian lives through our flawed rules of engagement.  Sure, the RoE means well, but face it:  By putting civilians first, we are risking the lives of our soldiers against an enemy that hides among the civilians and creates an ambush.  We're not supposed to fight a war to make our soldiers die for Afghan civilians, as the Rules of Engagement have it now.  They are supposed to destroy the Taliban to keep the United States and everyone else much safer.  I wish our commanders in Washington would get a clue as to the situation our soldiers are facing and make swift amendments to the rules of engagement, so that our good men and women fighting overseas can have an advantage over these barbarians.

Surely, World War II could not have been won with the current Rules of Engagement.