One part of me thinks that there's a real opportunity for peace in the middle east if the international community would only do one thing: Nothing.

The reason I've been hearing the phrase "Mid-East Peace Process" all my life is mainly because there has been a Mid-East Peace Process. If the world would just let both sides go at it, winner take all, I think we might see an end to this decades long circle-jerk.

After victory comes peace. So I want to advise Israel: don't bow to international pressure. No cease fires. No negotiations. No more bullshit. Roll up Hezbollah like Stonewall at Chancellorsville. Crush Hamas like Sherman on his way to the sea.

But another part of me senses danger.

The two Palestinian terrorist organizations want to see Israel destroyed. There's no chance in hell that they could accomplish that militarily, so they're trying to provoke this confrontation into a full on Arab Israeli war. Iran wants to see this happen too. They want Israel to attack Syria, so that Iran can jump in. Then, they hope Israel strikes Iran's nuclear research plants, which would be real bad.

For the last few months I've been casually researching whether Israel could successfully attack Iran's nuclear sites. I am now convinced that they have the technical capability to pull it off. They have the right planes, and Iran's air defenses would be no match for the Israeli Air Force. They also have an aerial refueling capability and they recently acquired the BLU-113, which is the most bad-ass of all the bunker buster warheads.

On the downside, Israel really has no good route to Iran. Any way they go would cause political problems that I don't like. The route that makes the most sense would be straight through Iraq, but that would completely fuck up what we're trying to accomplish there by inflaming the Shia. If the Israelis went south through Saudi Arabia, there would be refueling issues, and they could not avoid pissing off the Saudis. Going north might piss off the Turks. I don't like any of those choices, which is why I've always believed that we should be the ones to knock out the Iranian facilities, if it has to be done.

And if we get involved in this thing, well... I don't like to think about it. You all remember where the plains of Armageddon are, don't you? I'm serious, this is scary.

Today Hezbollah's leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah went Scarface on the Israelis: "You want a wahh, you got a wahh." One might wonder how he intends to actually win it. Without an army or air force, he's either an idiot, or he knows something I don't. Maybe he's rolling the dice, or maybe he knows big brother Ahmadi-Nejad is his ace in the hole.

With Korea and India and now the Middle East burning up, I think this is the most dangerous global situation to exist in my lifetime. And of course I picked this time to go travelling. And to Denmark no less!

Posted by: annika at 08:46 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 515 words, total size 3 kb.

It's so frustrating watching this slow dance between Iran and the G-6. You just want to sceam at them: "cut to the chase!" However, as I said before, the delaying game benefits us as well as Iran - but only if we use the time well. And to date I have seen no sign that we are doing anything other than playing patsy to a tin-pot third world dictatorship. Damn it, Bush and Condi. Wake the fuck up!

From AP:

World powers agreed Wednesday to send Iran back to the United Nations Security Council for possible punishment, saying the clerical regime has given no sign it means to negotiate seriously over its disputed nuclear program.

The United States and other permanent members of the powerful U.N. body said Iran has had long enough to say whether it will meet the world's terms to open bargaining that would give Tehran economic and energy incentives in exchange for giving up suspicious activities.

"The Iranians have given no indication at all that they are ready to engage seriously on the substance of our proposals," French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said.

. . .

Any real punishment or coercion at the Security Council is a long way off, but the group said it will seek an initial resolution requiring Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment. Debate could begin as soon as next week.

If Iran does not comply, the group said it would then seek harsher action. The group's short statement did not give any specifics, but it cited a section of the world body's charter that could open the door to economic or other sanctions.

. . .

The group said it could stop the Security Council actions at any time should Iran cooperate.

There's always the possibility that the administration is following my advice about supporting Iranian dissidents, and that we just don't hear about it because things are happening behind the scenes. However, by this time in Reagan's second term, the Solidarnosc movement in Poland was in full swing and everybody knew it. I see nothing similar happening in Iran, although I keep hearing that the country is ripe for it.

Posted by: annika at 02:16 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 375 words, total size 2 kb.

MUMBAI (AJN) - A coordinated series of seven exposions ripped through several commuter trains in Mumbai, India yesterday, killing at least 160 people and injuring more than 400. And now the repercussions of this latest apparent terror attack have begun to affect the once revered Mainstream Media.

One day after the attacks, which appear to bear the signature of Islamic terrorists, many observers are asking why the Mainstream Media did not act to prevent these deaths beforehand.

"It is horrible," said one man who asked not to be identified. "I ask myself why? Why did not the New York Times do something about this? Why did they not stop these bad men? Do they not care about the lives of innocent Indians?"

News analyst and terror expert Annika, of the blog Annika's Journal, told AJN that questions are being raised about the Mainstream Media's failure to detect and prevent the Mumbai terror plot.

"A lot of people are scratching their heads today," said Annika. "They wonder how the MSM could have fucked this one up so badly. They have more than adequate resources to detect a plot like this [the Mumbai bombings]. They're always patting themselves on the back about their investigative reporting, yet they couldn't stop these terrorists. And now hundreds of people are dead."

The Mainstream Media has recently come under attack from far right conservative groups for releasing information about secretive American anti-terrorism programs, which some say are designed to uncover information about future terrorist plans.

"When the New York Times spends all it's time investigating the programs that are meant to stop terrorists from killing, you got to ask why they can't spare just a little effort trying to investigate the terrorists," said Annika. "It couldn't hurt, and it might just save lives."

Media representatives responded to Annika's criticisms, on condition of anonymity. "It's not our job to be law enforcement," said one television news executive. "That's the government's job, to stop terrorists. We're just there to report news, not make it."

Yet Annika and other media watchers argue that the Mainstream Press has unique capabilities that the government does not possess, which could be used to unearth terror plots before they occur.

"For instance, covert government investigations can always be revealed by members of the press, often destroying months of hard work," said Annika. "But if the same investigation were conducted by reporters, who's going to rat on them? We all know reporters would rather rot in jail than give up one inch of their precious First Amendment rights."

A former New York Times reporter recently served 85 days in jail rather than reveal the identity of one of her journalistic sources.

"The New York Times, The Washington Post... These guys are so proud of how they brought down Nixon, and he didn't even kill anybody," Annika continued. "The L.A. Times didn't have any problem finding every chick Arnold groped back in the seventies. How come they can't find Osama? Bill Keller seems to think he's got better judgment on national security issues than the freakin' Department of Homeland Security. Let him put that superior judgment to use... fighting terrorists instead of helping them."

Bill Keller is the executive editor of the New York Times, which has come under fire by far right wing extremist groups such as the Republican Party for allegedly revealing details of secret U.S. government anti-terror programs. He could not immediately be reached for comment.

"And CNN? Don't get me started," Annika concluded. "It's unconscionable for CNN to wash their hands of these continued terrorist attacks. They consider themselves 'citizens of the world.' What a fucking joke. They're such hypocrites. The people in Madrid and Bali and London and Baghdad and now Mumbai are all citizens of the world too. The MSM is a disgrace."

AJN's Annika Becker contributed to this report.

Posted by: annika at 08:29 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 653 words, total size 4 kb.

American Princess, and apparently Jonah Goldberg have heard rumors. Nothing on Drudge yet. E.M. says she heard it from a Wall Street friend, as does Jonah. I checked the stock market and it did rally around 12:00.

Update: Still nothing from any reputable news source. Or from Drudge for that matter.

If it turns out to be true, I for one will question the timing. Is Castro's death simply the Bush administration's attempt to deflect attention away from their failure to unh...

Oh I got it. It's the Bush administration's attempt to deflect attention away from the impending indictment of Barry Bonds, who I hear, is a Republican.

Culture of corruption! Culture of corruption! Halliburton! Halliburton! Sis-boom-ba!

Posted by: annika at 12:25 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 123 words, total size 1 kb.

From the Houston Chronicle:

[A] man with a Middle Eastern name and a ticket for a Delta Airlines flight to Atlanta shook his head when screeners asked if he had a laptop computer in his baggage, but an X-ray machine operator detected a laptop.

A search of the man's baggage revealed a clock with a 9-volt battery taped to it and a copy of the Quran, the report said. A screener examined the man's shoes and determined that the "entire soles of both shoes were gutted out."

No explosive material was detected, the report states. A police officer was summoned and questioned the man, examined his identification, shoes and the clock, then cleared him for travel, according to the report.

A TSA screener disagreed with the officer, saying "the shoes had been tampered with and there were all the components of (a bomb) except the explosive itself," the report says.

The officer retorted, "I thought y'all were trained in this stuff," TSA officials reported.

The report says the TSA screener notified Delta Airlines and talked again with the officer, who said he had been unable to check the passenger's criminal background because of computer problems.

Now of course, since the plane didn't blow up we can assume one of three things: a) that it was a test run; b) that the plan involved hiding the explosive somewhere else on the plane, or with an accomplice who aborted the mission; or c) that this poor innocent man with the middle eastern name was unfairly hassled while scores of evil grannies were allowed to board the plane unmolested.

I tend to think that it was just a test of our defenses, since a clock and battery do not seem to be necessary components of a shoe bomb. In any case, I hope someone is raising holy hell over this incident.

Posted by: annika at 08:12 AM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 331 words, total size 2 kb.

From the Wall Street Journal, a sensible Danish liberal:

Bjorn Lomborg busted--and that is the only word for it--onto the world scene in 2001 with the publication of his book "The Skeptical Environmentalist." A one-time Greenpeace enthusiast, he'd originally planned to disprove those who said the environment was getting better. He failed. And to his credit, his book said so, supplying a damning critique of today's environmental pessimism. Carefully researched, it offered endless statistics--from official sources such as the U.N.--showing that from biodiversity to global warming, there simply were no apocalypses in the offing. "Our history shows that we solve more problems than we create," he tells me. For his efforts, Mr. Lomborg was labeled a heretic by environmental groups--whose fundraising depends on scaring the jeepers out of the public--and became more hated by these alarmists than even (if possible) President Bush.

via Shelly.

Posted by: annika at 11:57 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 163 words, total size 1 kb.

A victory in the little known case of Annemette Hommel, the Danish officer accused of "torture" at the Danish Contingent's Camp Eden in Southern Iraq.

Apparently Eden was no paradise for the detainees under interrogation by Hommel and four MPs. They had been subjected to the heinous torture of:

• having to sit down for a long time


• getting yelled at


• not getting a second glass of water when they asked for one

She was tried here in Denmark in the full glare of the press and with indignant left-wing politicians screaming for an example to be made. 'War crimes!' they screamed. And it gave a perfect setting for a left-wing outcry against our participation in the 'invasion and occupation' of Iraq.
Though being found technically guilty of abusing prisoners, Annette Hommel was not handed any sentence, merely left to live with the findings of the court and a ruined career. She was not content with that and appealled the courts decision. And in my opinion, quite rightly so.

Annemette Hommel and four other military police have been acquitted of breaking Geneva Conventions by the High Court of Eastern Denmark.

Hommel and the four others had been previously been found guilty by a lower court. Due to mitigating circumstances, however, none of them are facing jail time.

Hommel appealed the decision handed down by a Copenhagen court that convicted her of calling detained Iraqis names and expletives while forcing them to sit in stressful positions during questioning.

Following the first trial in January 2006, Hommel said she was pleased and satisfied with being acquitted on some of the charges but felt that the court has laid down an unnecessarily hard line on the other points.

'I can't live with that,' Hommel said after the first trial, adding that she had been convicted of something that was against her principles.

Hommel has yet to comment on the new, not-guilty verdict by the Eastern High Court.

No hooking their genitals up to car batteries then? No beatings with clubs or heavy duty electrical cable? No tools or other impliments of torture? No pulling of teeth or fingernails? No poking out of eyes? No beheadings?

No, none of that. That is what she went there to put an end to.

Posted by: annika at 11:01 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 416 words, total size 3 kb.