I had thought that with Benazir Bhutto sorrowfully following in the family footsteps of martyrdom, there'd be a vacuum of "democratic" leadership in Pakistan not just because the rest of the parties have no-names or refusniks, but that her children - the logical choice for the nepotistic, er, dynastic political heirs - were teenagers. I was wrong.
This article from Reuters,
Bhutto supporters pin homes on son and heir, have quotes from party faithful already abandoning any struggle for democracy in Pakistan and looking towards the recently renamed 19 year old Bilawal Bhutto Zardari (nee Bilawal Zardari), living and educated in Dubai, now to go to Oxford, as their new hope. He's not eligible to run for anything in Pakistan for another 6 years. Never mind that his father, Asif Ali Zardari, still chairman of the PPP (People's Party of Pakistan, the party Bhutto's father founded), and should be picking up the mantle, but won't, due to blackmail and corruption scandals and, honestly, isn't that well liked by Pakistanis.
I guess with 6 years to go, that should give Musharraf a bit of breathing room. Granted, he's like a weeble wobble reaching his flopping point - I don't know how much more vaccilation between Western appeasement and hometown bluster in the face of unwillingness and inability to crack down on the FATA provinces he can manage - 6 years will be too long for him. One might thing that'd give him enough time to clean house, but he hasn't started yet, what makes anyone (especially the USUK) think that he'll start now? In fact, if he were an American President, the campaign season against the Bhutto dauphin has just officially started - there won't be any time to legislate, not even mentioning execution of military missions, while he's trying to think up negative campaign ads.
On the other side of the tracks, what sort of trophies can the highly motivated "Talibs" achieve in 6 years? If we've looked back on Musharraf's record and seen a dearth of progress and are extrapolating to the future, looking back on the last few years of the Taliban's ascendency in Pakistan post "Operation Infinite Justice" (oops!) recovery, well, it's probably ungentlemanly of me to mock and juxtapose at the same time.
Lastly, what does it mean for us, the US (and ever so slightly for the UK, where, btw Zardari lives)? This, for me, puts Musharraf into even greater relief - he's not on our side and apparently not very much on Pakistan's side either. And, as everyone seems to remind me, he's got nukes. We, as far as our foreign policy towards Pakistan goes, have been wimps or naieve or both - it's not that they can't be trusted, they're just not fully willing to be seen as collaborating in the War on Islam, oh snap there I go again, I mean the War on Terror. Since we're unable to put on the perspecticles of the region and not at all of Pakistan's, we
still don't have a clue as to how to engage Pakistan. I hesitate to suggest Afghanistan as a model, since blowing the crap out of Pakistan (remember: nukes!) isn't really going to help, right? Oh right, yes it will. We (used to) do it all the time with Afghanistan's and Pakistan's tacit approval and made a certain amount of headway in the 2002 - 2005 period. Unfortunately, we've gone soft, allowed Musharraf to vaccilate a lot more, and we've lost the advantage. Now, we're on the defensive in that region, politically - for at least another six years.
Oh, yeah - what's this kid supposed to do again?
The Pakistani government is saying that 35 y/o Baitullah Masood (also Mehsud), a South Waziristan Taliban commander aligned with al Qaeda, is responsible for the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. [sify, jamestown 2006]
Baitullah calls himself a Talib and swears by Mullah Omar, despite signing a deal with the Pakistani army in February 2005, in which Baitullah and three other tribal leaders promised the government they would not support or shelter Al Qaeda terrorists.
Baitullah Masood was responsible for the first bombing at Bhutto's return to Pakistan, October 19, 2007 where 128 people were killed [Guardian, CSM]. This, one day after Bhutto was quoted in a BBC interview that Pakistan was "one of the most dangerous
countries in the world."
A Taliban commander, Baitullah Masood, has threatened to deploy suicide bombers against her, but Bhutto told the newspaper that the real threat came from within the powerful military establishment.
"I'm not worried about Baitullah Masood, I'm worried about the threat within the government," she said. "People like Baitullah Masood are just pawns. It is those forces behind him that have presided over the rise of extremism and militancy in my country."
Ms Bhutto singled out as her most potent enemy retired military officers "who have fought the jihad".
"They have a lot of supporters and sympathisers within the echelons of administration and intelligence," she said.
From the Musharraf's address to FATA Jirga in Peshawar (26 Apr, 2006):
I say if you succeed we will withdraw our troops from here but I am telling you what you
have to do. The foreign elements have to be expelled to curb extremism. This extremism
has to be stopped, he added. He stated that previous Corps Commander Gen Safdar had
signed a peace agreement with Baitullah Masood and Nek Muhammad and army halted
its operations and then what did they do. They did not honour the agreement and they
stabbed in the back. This was not in accordance with the Pukhtoon traditions. You also
know they broke the agreement and again resorted to same activities, as a result Nek
Muhammad was killed. You know what Baitullah Masood is doing now. He is telling
lies. He is indulging in harmful activities, he will be dealt with. If you take action
according to traditions then I will support you and the army would make a ceasefire. You
should dissociate yourself from these elements.
Note my previous post mentioning Nek Mohammed, US incursions into Pakistan: Going where they won't (12/2005), where it was mentioned that the Pakistani army was continually embarrassed by the 27 y/o Taliban commander. Baitullah Masood came into prominance after Nek Mohammed was killed by a US Predator drone. As mentioned, Musharraf and the Pakistani army wasted no time in claiming that they killed him, contrary to the evidence.
Bhutto had said that if she died, Musharraf would be partially responsible. The responsibility she speaks of, to me, is Musharraf's consistent behavior of talking but not doing. His inability to enforce any sort of rule on the FATA area has been shown over and over again begging the question of complicity - is his attempt to navigate between internal independence and the yoke of US-UK foreign influence contributing to the instability of his country? My opinion is yes, and Pakistan is suffering for it.
Whether Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party (PPP), a party formed by her father, can survive the death of its only charismatic leader and continue to pursue a transition to democracy is an almost irrelevant question. They're already blaming Musharraf [Forbes]. Will the elections, scheduled for 01/08/2008 occur as planned? One thing is for sure, they've earned the title of most dangerous country.
Other Taliban commanders have been gunning for both Musharraf and Bhutto, which is why the the government's snap accusation of al Qaeda-linked Taliban militants as the source of Bhutto's death is not far off. Note that with the Pakistani government, identifying the threat does not mean they're any closer to neutralizing the threat. In some cases with Pakistani's ISI, they themselves are the source of the threat, having propped up and encouraged Taliban elements.
The Taliban had threatened to kill Ms Bhutto after she suggested
that she would help American troops hunt for Osama bin Laden and other
al-Qaida fugitives inside Pakistan. "She has an agreement with America.
We will carry out attacks on Benazir Bhutto as we did on General Pervez
Musharraf," Taliban commander Haji Omar said yesterday.
Intelligence
reports suggested at least three groups with al-Qaida or Taliban links
were plotting suicide attacks, according to a provincial official
quoted by Reuters. [Guardian, 10/19/2007]
About 57 y/o Haji Omar:
Nevertheless, despite Haji Omar's influence, he has been overshadowed
by Baitullah Mehsud, another prominent leader in South Waziristan
(Terrorism Focus, July 5). This development occurred because of the
ethnic fault line that affects South Waziristan. The two main tribes
that populate the agency are the Wazir and the Mehsud. While the late
Nek Mohammed and Haji Omar are Wazir, Baitullah is Mehsud. After the
death of Nek Mohammed, the Wazirs were unable to maintain leadership
and Baitullah took control of the Talibanization movement there.
Currently, militants like Abdullah Mehsud are working under Baitullah's
command. Therefore, under the present circumstances, Haji Omar has to
work under the guidance of Baitullah. According to his close
associates, in order to avoid this subordinate role, Omar has
maintained a low profile and for the time being is not playing an
active role in the insurgency. [Jamestown, 08/08/2006]
I've
been watching Pakistan and the whole Subcontinent area for a while now
and this latest bully move by Musharraf to retain some sort of control
of his country by declaring martial law, or "emergency plus" powers as
the locals are calling it, continues to be instructive. Here in
America we have a choice, do we continue supporting a so-called-ally on
the War on Terror, Musharraf, as in this assertion of power or do we
support our overarching goal, the Rule of Law, which has been the
ostensible underlying principle of our engagement with the rest of the
world as well as the War on Terror?
Musharraf's been
subverting what we'd consider an approved ROL path for years, starting
with his coup and continuing through sacking judges and now this
martial law declaration, all in hopes of bringing the country
together. This latest move was in a small part to attempt to get his
soldiers whom the NWFP rebels captured w/o a shot. Musharraf's been
playing two ends against each other, in my opinion, which to be honest,
is almost the only way he can do it - he's been turning a blind eye,
sort of, to our cross-border interactions between Afghanistan and the
NWFP, causing us to refer to him as an "ally" and causing his own
countrymen to call him a hypocrite and a tyrant. This enrages his
opposition - both the seemingly more democratic Buhtto-esque side as
well as the more fundamentalist Taliban side. The foregone fact that
Al Qaeda's in full force in the NWFP makes it even more of a joke that
we call him an "ally."
So, this new step - does the War on
Terror trump the Rule of Law? Defenders of the Constitution already
have their answer, but for foreign policy nerds we'll have our answer
burned bright in how we react - via hollow diplomatic rebukes (aka
"disappointment") or actual pulling of monies and materiel support.
[Follow up edit]:
CSM Article on this very topic.
Wow. The US government, and dare I say Israel, got their a**es handed to them regarding their believability of evidence for convicting charity organization Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development of terrorism (technically, providing material support to foreign terrorist organizations, aka Hamas). No decision on the consipracy charges, no decisions on whether they helped terrorist organizations, etc.
The government argued that the money collected by Holy Land went to other charities which then went to Hamas, which they provided no evidence for, just saying that the money benefitted Hamas. Since 1995, it's been illegal for US organizations to provide money to Hamas. Israeli agents provided via pseudonyms evidence that these other organizations gave their money to Hamas, but not Holy Land. What a strange tactic.
I can't imagine why our government would drop the ball on this case at all. For them, the implications are disasterous - they/we look like we're secret-evidence toting, brown-person targetting, remorseless Muslimhating, double-standard charity platers. It's sad and rediculous. Break out the mouse suits, let the schadenfreude from the left begin.
Brown people jumping on themselves? Check
Babies holding sad signs? Check
To be fair and balanced:
Disaffected, unhappy "fact" reporting? Check
Pictures of Hamas? Check
For what it's worth, Holy Land Foundation Charities is the big fish the government's been trying to spear, knocking off suckerfish over the years:
- Oct 2006 - Georgia Imam Shorbagi pled guilty to funding Hamas (via Holy Land Foundations) (nyt)
- Feb 2007 - Salah & Ashqar acquitted of helping Hamas, where Holy Land was claimed as a defendant (nyt)
Fun quote #1: “The government has tried to turn the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into
something criminal,” said William Moffitt, who is Dr. Ashqar’s lawyer.
“Maybe the government will get it in their heads that the conflict
won’t be settled in the criminal courts of the United States.”
Fun quote #2: The lone guilty finding against Salah related to a written response in
which he denied being a Hamas member that was made in a civil suit won
by the family of David Boim, a 17-year-old American killed in Israel in
1996. Piers [defense attorney] said he expected the $156 million judgment in that case to
be overturned on appeal. [The parents accused Salah and Ashqar of conspiring to kill their son via donations to Hamas] The trial saw an unprecedented appearance by agents of Israel's Shin
Bet intelligence service, who testified in disguise to a cleared
courtroom. They reportedly said Salah was not tortured.
Hillarity #3: [Riotous shill, Judith] Miller testified that she saw no evidence of mistreatment when she
witnessed an interrogation of Salah and -- in an unprecedented twist
for a U.S. courtroom -- two Israeli interrogators testified under
aliases that Salah was treated well. (
wapo)
What's really interesting is the level of desire to point to Hamas as the issue. Places that are known for good research, like the
9/11 Finding Answers foundation, put the Ikhwan/Muslim Brotherhood and their ties to Hamas down (properly) as a source of violence, but to whom and in what context? In our governments specific fight against "funding sources of terrorist organizations," they've fallen down here, blowing legit chances at unraveling knots by refusing to show how threads are connected, regardless of the clear connections in that region. But here? Our own ties with Israel make our funding pursuit look more and more like a pro-Israel "witchhunt" rather than an exposure of how violent NGOs continue to get funded.
Which is stupider the Biden-Brownback Iraqi partition bill
or the Leiberman-Kyl blind rage run-up to a war on Iran bill?
All the throngs of readers of this prolific blog will
recognize, I find it the height of hubris for our domestic pandering Neanderthals,
Congress, to start pretending they’re aware of or anything north of Minnesota or
south of Galveston Island. For these
people, the rest of the world is one big photo op and list topper for the last
few years, the prize paparazzi joint, has been the horrifically dangerous Iraq,
the one place these people can’t get into fast enough so they can decry how
quickly our troops should be getting out.
Add to this the almost universal and unexplainable zeitgeist
of hatred spewing out towards Iran this week coupled with the handjobbery and
backpattery from all sides, from the president of Columbia University, to Fred
Thompson, Newt Gingrich and Socialist radio personalities on Air America, all
falling over to up the count of how many times they can say “evil” and “Ahmedinejad”
with the same breath.
Literally everyone is trying to point the finger at someone
else, preferably someone of the brownish persuasion, about who’s to blame for
Iraq – it’s either the Iraqis themselves or their neighbors who are causing our
boys and our country to fail – not in any way us. Introspecting or discussing what’s within our
power to change is liable to be branded either “planning to fail” or not
wanting to succeed. Try getting a radio
talk show host to define what “success” looks like in Iraq without rehashing
Bush’s vague “stable democracy that supports America.”
With General Petraus stating that Iran is waging a proxy war
against us, it’s opened the door for a bipartisan photo op of unprecedented damage,
garnering 73 votes in the Senate for the Leiberman-Kyl bill that states we
should go ahead with a covert war against Iran.
Let’s not bother questioning whether this is a consequence of short term
policy decisions on either side or whether there’s any implications beyond this
week’s Iran hating press cycle. First
off, we should acknowledge that Iraq’s a mess of corruption and multiple
attitudes towards all insurgents of all stripes and that there are any number
of organizations that would fund combatants and supply arms to those
combatants, from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Israel, yes, Iran, and geez,
guess who, us (ref. all the dead Anbar leaders). It’s myopic and retarded to think that Iraq’s
neighbors aren’t going to try to influence Iraq in a multitude of ways and,
eventually, one of those ways will blow up or fly at supersonic speeds and kill
one of our boys. Second, if
intentionally killing one of our soldiers were a cause for war, we would’ve
attacked Israel long, long ago.
With the popular outrage of the progress of the war in Iraq
and the general apathy and ignorance towards the Middle East in this country,
the desire for having our troops get out of Iraq is growing. One of the more
stupid ideas has been peddled by Senator Biden for a few years now and it’s a “weak
federal government, strong ethno-regional state government, and equal oil
distribution” plan. In the historical
categories of occupation, it falls somewhere in the annals of colonial strategies,
something like divide-and-conquer but with a twist of ostrich – run away and
hide your head from the consequences. It’s
clear that the heyday of colonialism is long past, yet Biden thinks it’s World
War 1 again, where the west has the power to divide a country via our perception,
like a modern day Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916, of their ethnic
differences – whee, he figured out that there are 3 (never mind all the others)
types of brown people! – and then expect things to work out. It’s also clear, historically, that if you
want to do divide-and-conquer you have to have enforcement, like the British
did during the Raj (twist your Google Earth centered on Baghdad a few
longitudes to the left) with their governors and strict rule enforcement. Also never mind that we’ve already done our
version of it, with the Coalition Provisional Authority and L. Paul
Bremer. It takes a lot of gall to
suggest a colonial model – something we as Americans have always shunned – and then
follow it up with “it’ll all just work out.”
I can’t imagine anything stupider than our domestics
thinking their beltway ideas have any effect beyond our borders.
Two quick things:
- Yesterday, jury selection started in the Florida Liberty City Seven "cell," the Seas of David (Orlando Sentinel) who were caught "plotting" to blow up Chicago's Sears Tower (none of them had ever been to Chicago) - jury selection's expected to last 3 months. It should be interesting to see what comes out of this trial - the details of the FBI agent(s) posing as Al Qaeda, the details of the martial-arts organization and their connections with the Moorish Science Temple, and how the public regards another terror trial.
- We all know that after 9/11 other countries have been using the word "terrorist" willy-nilly to crack down on their unruly groups, but Israel's gone one better labeling the whole Gaza Strip as an "enemy entity" (Reuters) bringing in a pseudolegal justification of their apartheid. One wonders why they need to play rhetorical games when they've done so well without it?
Jack sent me an article from MSNBC that had this great picture of an Anbar province Iraqi shiek having a cigar with a US military commander. The article went on to describe how the US is making friends with the Sunnis of Anbar. I found it all ironic and just another rotation of the short-term US spotlight on various Iraqi ethnofactions in order to curry US domestic short term political gain. Then again, I'm opinionated and jaded. First, no-fly Kurds, then appeasing the Shia majority, now, pretending like minority Sunnis give a crap about the US just to appease surrounding Sunni states (Egypt, Saudi and the gulf emirates, and Jordan). At least they're getting closer to getting neighboring buy-in, only 4 years too late. They'll turn against us just like all of them do as our support wanes with our political tides.
Lucian Read / Atlas Press for Newsweek
Smoking Buddies: Marine Lt. Col. Craig Kozeniesky shares a cigar with Sheik Shakir Saoud Aasi, one of his new tribal alliesThe much bigger and historic news is the diplomatic meeting between
us and Iran this weekend. I'm literally agape at the whole thing, given the rhetoric on both sides, but it's much more of a real path to stablizing the region than a cigar/hooka exchange. This story's already faded from the front pages, which is also telling as to how serious the US populace and media consider the breaking of a 25 year diplomatic freeze.
2002 - Jose Padilla picked up and accused of planning a "dirty bomb" plot, stuffed in a Navy brig not to be seen for 3.5 years.
2007 - Fast forward 5 years, he's in civilian court being accused of supporting/organizing a cell in Florida assisting resistance/jihad in BCA (Bosnia, Chechnya, Afghanistan), along with Adham Amin Hassoun and Kifah Wael Jayyousi, "providing material support to extremist groups."
Never one to be accused of repeating the obvious, I'll say it looks as if the legal system is being consistent, going for whatever they can make most easily stick, ie the low-hanging fruit. One could also state this in a way that faults the government - they're CYA'ing themselves by not revealing "national secrets" regarding the dirty bomb.
Another way to interpret this is that the lowering of the bar, ie going from terrorism to being a cheerleader as well as punting it to civilian court, is further widening the net to include anyone who's ever given money to support anyone in BCA. Yes, that's broad, but if that's the "scare" that then narrows to "evidence," (again, not to state the obvious) check your charitable records from pre-9/11 because if terrorism or the hint of terrorism is prosecutable in civilian instead of military court, I can't wait to watch the torts.
Btw, the government's evidence is a "
job application."
ref:
A first look at US case against Padilla, Christian Science Monitor
First off, I purchased 2Gb for my Vista box and let's just say Vista is quite happy with 3Gb. I'd go so far as to say it's definitely much more usable when it's not constantly redlining its mem usage (at 1 Gb).
Vista introduces a new easy evaluation rating for your hardware, the "Windows Experience Index." This number (and set of sub-ratings) gives you an idea of how your computer's performing. I haven't looked into it too much, but it's not out of 5 and I don't think it's out of 10. The overall number is the lowest score you get out of the categories of Processor, Memory (RAM), Graphics, Gaming graphics, and Primary hard disk. My numbers (prior to the +2Gb RAM) were, respectively, 5.4, 4.5, 4.7, 4.2, and 5.7 giving me a Windows Experience Index of 4.2. After the extra RAM, my RAM number, 4.5, went up to 5.5 giving me a Windows Experience Index of 4.2 (the lowest number hadn't changed).
The idea of one number you can look at and see if your computer's up to snuff is a pretty neat idea, really, since you can ask your mom or dad what their number is and go and help them up it. It seems like it'd be a good thing for game manufacturers to say "You need at least at 3.0 to play this game," too. What the number really means is wholly unclear, plus lame. So, for doofuses, good, for me, opaque (like the Vista borders).
With that said and done, I figured it was time to take another tentative step and install a non-MS program that I know was developed with DX9 on this Vista/DX10 system. WorldWind's wiki says to disable UAC to install & run WorldWind but, even though I may not like UAC personally, it's in Vista and circumventing it instead of trying to live with it also circumvents the whole Vista experiment I'm doing. Cancel or Allow UAC - "Cancel or Allow?" Unfortunately, Allow.
There are some issues with UAC (User Access Control) that can be gotten around by installing an app outside C:\Program Files. I tried it both ways and the result?
... and no launch of the app. Just that. Whee. Time to download the sources and install Visual C# Express and build WW myself. (Yes, I know, world of hurt, etc.)
Vista doesn't "crash" so much as catch itself crashing and restart Explorer. At least once a day.
Also for you, an article:
The Most Annoying Things About Windows Vista, PC World, 02/2007
The new iTunes + QuickTime (7.1.5) doesn't solve the previous issue, where any QT using app drops to Vista Basic UI. Uninstalling only QT makes iTunes unuseable. Thanks Microsoft Apple someone (probably me, for "trying out" Vista in the first place.
That brings me back to the whole wtf about Vista - If apps you want to use cause you to diddle with settings instead of using the app, it's the equivalent of a home-grown computer system, a less interesting networked uber executor, a "linux" if you will.
The Vista verdict still remains sliding slowly to Cancel. I have ordered 2 more GB of RAM (5300, not the 4200 that came with the system, and not the 11600 that in theory the motherboard can handle) and hopefully that'll allow me to have more than 5 tabs in IE and Firefox open at once without lag when switching between them. Yes, seriously. I've installed like 6 non-MS apps on this machine, Adobe Lightroom, Trillian, Mozilla Firefox, Eclipse 3.3M5, SecureCRT, and 7-zip. I haven't installed more for fear of being further disappointed.
So far, the benefits to going Vista boils down to Aero, the new UI with the pretty eye candy. If there's anything that stops Aero from working, I'm liable to make frownie fase and tell everyone I know to stay away from it. So...
Do not install QuickTime if you like Aero.
I installed QuickTime (7.1.3) because some webpage wanted it and suddenly Trilian (3.1) became the reason that Windows Vista alerted me that Windows Vista Basic was now the profile I was going to use, until I quit Trillian. If apps I use start not working, the OS becomes a non-starter.
Searching the web gives you some horsemung explanation of how QT and GDI and Trilian's av.dll and blah blah, but it boils down to having Areo diabled. That means no transparent borders on windows, no window sizing effects, no "Windows Flip 3D," and no toolbar minimized menu previews.
I ended up uninstalling QT, rebooting, reinstalling QT, making sure Trillian had no camera and no camera source. QT in web pages seem to work. When it's a random combo of things that work, that's called "fragile." The alternative, of course, is to not watch the Black Snake Moan trailer until Apple releases a QT that works with Vista.
Thing #2 is the native unzipper. I downloaded and proceeded to unzip Eclipse, the Java-based IDE (size: 120Mb), and Vista thought about it, then told me it'd take 5 hours and 36 minutes to extract. Seriously? Yes, 5+ hours. That's unacceptable, Vista. Fix that.
Third party unzip programs work great and as expected. I prefer 7-zip. But that's not the point. Out of the box, don't expect a coffee break when unzipping something (unless it's under 120Kb, aka 11 minutes), just go to bed. That's what I did.
Today's the third day of my life with Microsoft's newest Windows operating system, Vista. I purchased a new computer from Dell in order to replace an ailing development machine and decided to also throw Vista into the mix of integrating a new desktop into the network.
There are a few things that are striking:
- Aero, the new "look & feel" for Vista, is very pretty - so pretty that when I look at the old G3 with Mac OS X Panther (10.3, the latest is 10.5) on it sitting off to my left, I realize where Windows got their inspiration for their resizable icons, animated window expansions, and backgrounds. It's still impressive to look at. "Windows Flip 3D" is an overly clever implementation of a much needed way to see all the open applications. Makes me want to open lots of applications just to see them in half-profile.
- Installing applications is aggravating. Who knows when User Access Control or, as my brother puts it, the Department of Desktop Secruity, will come knocking, forcing the beautifully coifed but otherwise helpless onto the vast expanse of the internet where mostly Vista haters reside to find an answer. The much maligned Secure Desktop of the "Cancel or Allow" fame (it's "continue or cancel" really) blinks the monitor and turns everything else but the dialog box dark. That's like having someone slap you in the face randomly while having a pleasant conversation. It can be hobbled, but as people will lament, it takes away the secure desktop.
- The sounds are soft and in the background, "part of the wallpaper" as they intended. They spent a lot of time and money on it, and I can barely hear the audio alerts. When I do, I'm in a peaceful trance or attempting to be really quiet and still so I can hear the alerts. Peaceful trance or audio equivalent of a deer in headlights - I dunno, one of the two.
- Things XP just does, like finding printers, seems missing. It took me two tries and another visit into the meat-smelling wilds of the internet to find Microsoft fanbois in order to have Vista recognize the HP LaserJet 1100 attached to another networked computer.
- Unzipping folders takes hours, literally. It's either a Vista bug or the Norton anti-virus checking each bit as its extracted. I haven't been able to emperically isolate who's screwed up here. Unzipping Eclipse (120mb zip) took 6 hours. Yes, hours. I went to bed.
- The Dell Dimension 9200 is, amazingly, "out of the picture" - it's quiet and just performs. The operating system is the star here. That's refreshing to not feel like a patchwork of hardware's a hurdle. With that said, Dell peppers and customizes the OEM OS with enough tchotchkes and unnecssary and useless trial apps that, if I didn't know it was Vista, I'd swear it was a sponsored NASCAR jacket. I'm seriously considering reinstalling the OS just to get rid of Dell's preinstalled mung.
This is day three of the rest of my life: Cancel or Allow?
<![CDATA[
O O O O O
O O
O O
O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O
O O O
O O O O O O
O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O
O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O
O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O
O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O
i'm in ur cities
panicking ur DHS
]]>
Edit: what boston thought... (video)
So, yeah, ATHF made a PR stunt and now Boston's just getting around to realizing it and they've gone way off the deep end.
It's literally
fantastic.
In a news conference, Rich told reporters he had advised his clients
not to discuss the incident. Stevens and Berdovsky took the podium and
said they were taking questions only about haircuts in the 1970s. When
a reporter accused them of not taking the situation seriously, Stevens
responded, "We're taking it very seriously." Asked another question
about the case, Stevens reiterated they were answering questions only
about hair and accused the reporter of not taking him and Berdovsky
seriously.
Reporters did not relent and as they continued,
Berdovsky disregarded their queries, saying, "That's not a hair
question. I'm sorry."
I love it. Of course, they're already on eBay.
I really want one. They're the defining symbol of the Global War on Terror. Oh, and how Boston's full of queahs.
This + 50 or so of these = GWOT Mooninite 
That's Southhampton, UK's Bellemoor School for Boys where two prankish Year Eleven youths poured
weed killer in the shape of a dongule on their school lawns. Smart chaps killed the grass long enough for satellites to pick it up and propagate it. Cheerio, lads! That'll get you your A levels, indeed.
Microsoft's
Virtual Earth has 2006 imagery which still shows it,
Yahoo! maps with iCubed imagery doesn't get close enough, and Google Earth and
maps has 2007 imagery, where the "dark mark" has been reseeded.
This is for all you Google searches hitting here: Zamzola, South Waziristan (32.6919444, 70.0863889) (where the Pakistani military strafed villagers using a helicopter, claiming it as an anti-Al Qaeda operation, while the villagers insist it was missiles from a US plane, causing the Pakistanis to have to deny that the US was in any way involved furthering the oft repeated dance by the Pakistani military to assert it's sovereignty looking tough for the US while oppressing its own people) is not Damadola, North Waziristan (34.8055556, 71.4666667) (where, last year around this time, we tossed a Hellfire missile at some buildings, hoping to smush Zawahiri, and missed).
Thank you.
screenshot of Damadola and Zamzola from NASA WorldWind 1.4rc4
Mullah Omar, the leader of the Taliban that OBL once called "the Caliph," has eluded the NATO & US forces since the beginning of the operation in Afghanistan. His whereabouts are suspected to be in Afghanistan, but Afghani Secret Services' recent captures of Taliban spokesmen has put that in doubt, continuing the spat between the countries of Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Al Jazeera reports that Nato-led troops and Afghan forces arrested Muhammad Hanif, a Taliban spokesman, in Nangarhar province in the east after he crossed through a border checkpoint from Pakistan.
Al Jazeera, 01/17/2005
On Monday, NATO caught a top spokesman for the Taliban and on Tuesday, another.
The captured militant, whom NATO did not identify, had fled another recent offensive by Afghan and NATO forces in the south of the country, the alliance said. He was captured in the Gereshk district of Helmand province late Tuesday
Sayed Ansari, the spokesman for Afghanistan's intelligence service, told reporters Wednesday that the Taliban spokesman's real name is Abdulhaq Haji Gulroz, a 26-year-old Afghan from Nangarhar's Chaparhar district.
Ansari said Hanif had lived in northwestern Pakistani city of Peshawar and had told investigators that the Taliban's reclusive leader Mullah Omar was living in the southwestern Pakistani city of Quetta, protected by that country's intelligence agency.
Afghan raid nets Taliban chief, 01/17/2007
"He lives in Quetta," Hanif says of Omar, as he sits in an oversized chair in a dimly lit room, as Afghan agents pepper him with questions. "He is protected by ISI," the 26-year old said in a quiet voice, referring to Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency.
Captured Taliban spokesman says militant leader lives in Pakistan, International Herald Tribune, 01/17/2007
This capture was confirmed by another Taliban spokesperson, Qari Yousef Ahmadi. This spokesperson, Ahmadi, contradicted a 12/13/2006 US report of having killed a top Taliban commander in Helmand province, Afganistan, Mullah Akhtar Mohammad Osmani. He did confirm the death of four Taliban commanders, including Mullah Abdul Zahir.
Quetta's the capital of Baluchistan province in Pakistan, a city of approx. 800k people and something like the 9th largest city.
A few days ago, on 01/05, Qatar's Gulf Times/Reuters published that Mullah Omar is in e-mail contact with the world and OBL and claims he's in Afghanistan.
So, who's to be believed? Pakistan's history of dissembling and mismanagement of their tribal areas vs. a Taliban PR guy who could very well be lying. Or, if he's not and there is protection from the Pakistani government, he's in no trouble revealing that fact, because no one in Pakistan'll scour Quetta.
Along with the Frontline report about the resurgence of the Taliban, a recent interview with Afghan warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, it's starting to feel a lot like deja vu around here. (Sure, there's some diplomatic dance off's going on with Iran, but that's just pretty-stepping.)
Three weeks ago, Pakistani satellite station Geo TV conducted an interview with the Afghan warlord that was just aired, confirming that OBL and Zawahiri were taken to an undisclosed location during the 2001 Tora Bora attacks.
Hekmatyar was a big Northern Alliance player and ally of ours against the Soviets during our clandestine guerrilla war in the 1970's which left Afghanistan in ruins, associating with OBL back when it was cool do to so. I still feel that this indicates OBL & Zawahiri are in Pakistan (and at the very least have enjoyed tacit cover by Pakistan) due to Hekmatyar's intimate association with the ISI. Since preferring to fight rather than participate in what he sees as an occupying force/government, he's been in hiding and is rarely heard from. In the 70's he formed a political party that's active in Pakistan, Hizb-i-Islami (Party of Islam) and was Prime Minister of Afghanistan from '93-'94. That's influence.
That he bailed when the Taliban took over in the mid '90s to live in Iran for a while makes some people think he's in with the Iranians and, therefore, an "undisclosed area" could possibly be in Iran. US pressure kicked Hekmatyar out of Iran. Get that? US pressure - that means us - on Iran - which further means we've got relations with Iran - made Hekmatyar a persona non grata there. So, more likely, the 2nd best place after Pakistan for hiding, would be Turkmenistan.
Two things, one to watch, one to listen:
- Frontline's excellent summary documentary on Pakistan and the Taliban, The Return of the Taliban. It's all on line. Watch it. Or, if you like, catch it on HD on PBS.
- Soundprint's Feminism and the Veil. A great piece on the use of the veil in contemporary Egyptian society. Listen (when they put it up on line).
- KGNU's Thursday Call In Show is on "Shi'ite and Sunni Islam," 01/11/2006 @ 6pm MST, a chat with Imam Ibrahim Kazerooni, an Iraqi Shia alim, and part of Denver's St. John’s Episcopal Cathedral's interfaith organization "Abrahamic Initiative" and head of the Islamic Center of Ahl Al-Beit in west Denver.
Yesterday, the International Crisis Group released a report that states what anyone who was/is paying any little bit of attention over there knows: The government of Pakistan is complicit in setting up a Taliban state in the FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan). That means our "buddy" Musharraf. I should say "continues to be complicit" when the word "Taliban" is mentioned, considering that the Pakistani "CIA," the ISI, fostered the Taliban. Also, with the Pakistani military being sporadically deployed over there, it further means that Pakistan has actively been supporting a resurgence of the Taliban. Pakistan has abdicated responsibility for that region of the country and won't bother bringing it in line. A tragedy for the real possibility of democracy in the region, Afghanistan. It's also a tragedy for you, dear reader, because I'm all pissed off and therefore will ramble.
For a country that thinks we had to do something after 9/11 and are action takers and "deciders," we sure don't really care to have our eyes on the ball. We let our "allies" shamelessly promote their autobiographies while fomenting insurgency against a neighboring country that we, ourselves, are propping up. We're funding both sides.