4 New Messages
Digest #4584
Messages
Sun Dec 23, 2012 7:24 am (PST) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.hurriyet
Hurriyet Daily News
December 22, 2012
Patriots to be in Turkey by the end of 2012
ISTANBUL: Patriot missiles will be deployed in Turkey at the end of December, NATO announced in a written statement according to private broadcaster NTV.
They will be reportedly deployed in the Mediterranean provinces of Kahramanmaraş and Adana and in the southeastern province of Gaziantep.
The total number of batteries to deploy were determined as six.
The Patriots are expected to be ready to use from the second half of January.
------------
http://www.todaysza
Sunday's Zaman
December 23, 2012
NATO announces Turkish locations for Patriots
İSTANBUL: Three NATO allies who have agreed to provide Patriot missiles to augment Turkey's air defenses - Germany, the Netherlands and the United States - have agreed on the locations where the batteries will be deployed, the alliance said on Friday.
“Germany will deploy its batteries to Kahramanmaraş, the Netherlands will deploy its batteries to Adana, and the United States will deploy its batteries to Gaziantep,” a NATO spokesperson said in a statement on Saturday.
The locations were “decided jointly with Turkey as the host nation and in close coordination with the Supreme Allied Commander Europe,” NATO said.
...
Turkey asked NATO for the Patriot system, designed to intercept aircraft or missiles, in November to help bolster its border security after repeated episodes of gunfire and shelling from Syria spilling into Turkish territory.
NATO agreed to send Patriots to Turkey with Germany, the Netherlands and the United States having offered to provide two Patriot batteries each.
NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen said on Friday that the Syrian military had fired more Scud-type missiles inside the country, justifying NATO's decision to dispatch Patriot anti-missile systems to NATO ally Turkey - a deployment criticized by Syria, Iran and Russia.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Hurriyet Daily News
December 22, 2012
Patriots to be in Turkey by the end of 2012
ISTANBUL: Patriot missiles will be deployed in Turkey at the end of December, NATO announced in a written statement according to private broadcaster NTV.
They will be reportedly deployed in the Mediterranean provinces of Kahramanmaraş and Adana and in the southeastern province of Gaziantep.
The total number of batteries to deploy were determined as six.
The Patriots are expected to be ready to use from the second half of January.
------------
http://www.todaysza
Sunday's Zaman
December 23, 2012
NATO announces Turkish locations for Patriots
İSTANBUL: Three NATO allies who have agreed to provide Patriot missiles to augment Turkey's air defenses - Germany, the Netherlands and the United States - have agreed on the locations where the batteries will be deployed, the alliance said on Friday.
“Germany will deploy its batteries to Kahramanmaraş, the Netherlands will deploy its batteries to Adana, and the United States will deploy its batteries to Gaziantep,” a NATO spokesperson said in a statement on Saturday.
The locations were “decided jointly with Turkey as the host nation and in close coordination with the Supreme Allied Commander Europe,” NATO said.
...
Turkey asked NATO for the Patriot system, designed to intercept aircraft or missiles, in November to help bolster its border security after repeated episodes of gunfire and shelling from Syria spilling into Turkish territory.
NATO agreed to send Patriots to Turkey with Germany, the Netherlands and the United States having offered to provide two Patriot batteries each.
NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen said on Friday that the Syrian military had fired more Scud-type missiles inside the country, justifying NATO's decision to dispatch Patriot anti-missile systems to NATO ally Turkey - a deployment criticized by Syria, Iran and Russia.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Sun Dec 23, 2012 7:24 am (PST) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.dailysta
Daily Star
December 23, 2012
Turkey to resume NATO cooperation with Israel
ISTANBUL: Turkey has agreed to drop its ban on cooperating with Israel as a third-country NATO partner, a diplomat said Sunday.
Ankara cut off such cooperation after the Israeli army raided a Turkish ship carrying humanitarian aid to the blockaded Gaza Strip in 2010, leaving nine Turks dead.
The decision to renew NATO links came at a December 4 meeting in Brussels of the 28-member alliance on a proposal by its Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the diplomat said.
The ban had "created a lack of confidence among the partners", he said.
However Turkey will maintain its ban on joint military manoeuvres, and Ankara has reserved the right to bar activities with Israel on its own soil.
The agreement comes after NATO agreed early this month to deploy Patriot anti-aircraft missiles along the Turkish border with Syria.
Turkey's relations with its former ally deteriorated sharply after the raid on the Turkish ship in international waters in the Mediterranean.
Israel has rejected Ankara's demands for an apology and compensation.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Daily Star
December 23, 2012
Turkey to resume NATO cooperation with Israel
ISTANBUL: Turkey has agreed to drop its ban on cooperating with Israel as a third-country NATO partner, a diplomat said Sunday.
Ankara cut off such cooperation after the Israeli army raided a Turkish ship carrying humanitarian aid to the blockaded Gaza Strip in 2010, leaving nine Turks dead.
The decision to renew NATO links came at a December 4 meeting in Brussels of the 28-member alliance on a proposal by its Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the diplomat said.
The ban had "created a lack of confidence among the partners", he said.
However Turkey will maintain its ban on joint military manoeuvres, and Ankara has reserved the right to bar activities with Israel on its own soil.
The agreement comes after NATO agreed early this month to deploy Patriot anti-aircraft missiles along the Turkish border with Syria.
Turkey's relations with its former ally deteriorated sharply after the raid on the Turkish ship in international waters in the Mediterranean.
Israel has rejected Ankara's demands for an apology and compensation.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Sun Dec 23, 2012 5:48 pm (PST) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.shipping
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
December 20, 2012
Netherlands Submarine Crew in River Thames Visit
HNLMS Bruinvis crew awarded NATO medal for counter piracy mission
Yesterday, the crew of the Dutch submarine, HNLMS Bruinvis, were awarded NATO's Africa medal for their work as part of NATO's counter piracy mission, Operation Ocean Shield. The submarine made a scheduled visit to London, berthing at Canary Wharf.
The medal ceremony took place at Canary Wharf and was attended by Rear Admiral Ian Corder (RN) Commander of NATO's Submarine Force and Major General (RN Marine Corps) Rob Verkerk, Deputy Commander of the Royal Netherlands Navy. They were joined by members of the merchant shipping community.
Before awarding the crew their medals with Maj Gen Verkerk, RAdm Corder said
"During your deployment you’ve sailed an extensive amount of sea miles. Your operations have pushed both you and your boat towards the endurance limits of the WALRUS class submarine. Your professionalism and enthusiasm gave both NATO and the Dutch submarine service a position where they’ve used your capabilities with all available confidence. With your integration in the NATO counter piracy task force and your support to task forces you have contributed in an extensive way to the counter piracy effort.
"Although the counter piracy mission may look different from more traditional submarine missions, you’ve proven again the invaluable contribution of a submarine in the NATO counter piracy effort."
...
The crew will remain in London for another day before heading home to Den Helder where they will be reunited with family and friends shortly before Christmas.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
December 20, 2012
Netherlands Submarine Crew in River Thames Visit
HNLMS Bruinvis crew awarded NATO medal for counter piracy mission
Yesterday, the crew of the Dutch submarine, HNLMS Bruinvis, were awarded NATO's Africa medal for their work as part of NATO's counter piracy mission, Operation Ocean Shield. The submarine made a scheduled visit to London, berthing at Canary Wharf.
The medal ceremony took place at Canary Wharf and was attended by Rear Admiral Ian Corder (RN) Commander of NATO's Submarine Force and Major General (RN Marine Corps) Rob Verkerk, Deputy Commander of the Royal Netherlands Navy. They were joined by members of the merchant shipping community.
Before awarding the crew their medals with Maj Gen Verkerk, RAdm Corder said
"During your deployment you’ve sailed an extensive amount of sea miles. Your operations have pushed both you and your boat towards the endurance limits of the WALRUS class submarine. Your professionalism and enthusiasm gave both NATO and the Dutch submarine service a position where they’ve used your capabilities with all available confidence. With your integration in the NATO counter piracy task force and your support to task forces you have contributed in an extensive way to the counter piracy effort.
"Although the counter piracy mission may look different from more traditional submarine missions, you’ve proven again the invaluable contribution of a submarine in the NATO counter piracy effort."
...
The crew will remain in London for another day before heading home to Den Helder where they will be reunited with family and friends shortly before Christmas.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Sun Dec 23, 2012 5:48 pm (PST) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.nation.
The Nation
December 23, 2012
Defining our war
Jalees Hazir
====
The problem with those eager to claim the US-led intervention in the region as our war is that they use the acts of terror perpetrated by militant groups as a justification to support the far more serious and barbaric strategy of terror officially sanctioned by the superpower and its Nato allies. The one-eyed liberal fascists seem to have no ideas of their own.
What brand of noble intentions could justify the brutal occupation of Afghanistan for more than a decade? What kind of fictitious weapons of mass destruction make the hell let loose on Iraqi citizens acceptable? What definition of human rights and freedom allows the continued destruction of Libya? Which human values sanction subversion of order in Syria?
Are they really ignorant of the nexus between militant groups scattered all over the globe and the CIA that has fathered, adopted, nurtured and fanged them?
====
Acts of terror in and around Peshawar last week reminded us once again that we are in the middle of a war. These recent attacks that claimed many innocent lives made some commentators renew their advocacy of accepting the US-led so-called war on terror as our war. On the other hand, the evil-looking tattoo on the back of one of the killed terrorists was considered by many as evidence to write off the entire menace of militant extremism as a US-controlled project that will disappear in thin air with an end to the US occupation of Afghanistan. It is important to move beyond these simplistic formulations in order to understand the challenge we face and to define the war we’re trapped in.
The problem with those eager to claim the US-led intervention in the region as our war is that they use the acts of terror perpetrated by militant groups as a justification to support the far more serious and barbaric strategy of terror officially sanctioned by the superpower and its Nato allies. The one-eyed liberal fascists seem to have no ideas of their own.
They would like us to believe the false narrative spun by the US establishment as divine injunction and dance to its belligerent tune like a good unquestioning ally. They would like the state of Pakistan and its security forces to become an errand boy for a two-faced Uncle Sam, implementing his dubious war strategy that has brought death and destruction to Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Are they so naïve, these ‘our-war’ cheerleaders? Their logic seems to suggest as much. According to them, the US is fighting a global war against terrorism and since Pakistan is being attacked by terrorists as well, we have a common enemy and we should fight it together. Of course, for them, fighting it together means taking orders and doing as we are told. They would like to take the obviously hypocritical pronouncements of the so-called superpower on their face value. Truthful to the US narrative, they would like to bundle together the resistance in Afghanistan with the terrorism we face and convince us that the only hurdle in defeating terrorism is our reluctance to cooperate whole-heartedly with the US game plan.
Their complete faith in the US and what it says is a bit confounding. What brand of noble intentions could justify the brutal occupation of Afghanistan for more than a decade? What kind of fictitious weapons of mass destruction make the hell let loose on Iraqi citizens acceptable? What definition of human rights and freedom allows the continued destruction of Libya? Which human values sanction subversion of order in Syria? What makes these ‘our war’ cheerleaders blind to not just these, but countless covert and overt imperialist interventions by the US around the world?
Are they really ignorant of the nexus between militant groups scattered all over the globe and the CIA that has fathered, adopted, nurtured and fanged them?
Actually, we don’t need any tattoo to convince us that the US is involved in spreading terrorism in the world. It is documented history. Its dangerous covert games are no longer secret in any case as its leaders openly boast of funding and arming terrorists that they dub as rebels or any convenient name that sounds less offensive.
In the case of Pakistan, when CIA and Blackwater operatives were thrown out after the Raymond Davis episode, the CIA head calmly told us that the agency did not need its agents on the ground anymore as it had established an extensive network of local assets in the country. Does this network include the TTP contacts on Raymond Davis’ phone?
Certainly, we need to pull out of this imperialist war and work with other neighbours of Afghanistan to rid the region of the US presence. Pulling out of the US war is an important first step, and it will help us on two counts at least. It will bring an end to the dangerous covert games the meddlesome superpower plays under the garb of cooperation and friendship to begin with. Besides, it will take away the flimsy ideological excuse used by militants, who think it is kosher to kill innocent Pakistani Muslims because their country is siding with the infidels.
More importantly, without the distraction of trying to do more in line with the US devious demands, it will also bring clarity to our understanding of the problem and, hence, help us in evolving an effective strategy to counter it. However, to say that the menace of militant extremism will disappear with an end to US occupation of Afghanistan is equally simplistic.
While it is true that growth of militant extremism owes much to CIA and American proxies in the Middle East, its roots have grown deep in Pakistan over the last three decades and it is supported by an environment of distorted and sectarian notions about Islam that have become common in our society.
A multi-pronged response is needed to counter it. Other than a strong military offensive against the mercenary hardcore terrorist groups, the government will have to closely monitor the sources of funding, syllabi and activities of the large number of seminaries that have mushroomed all over Pakistan. In many cases, they are involved in spreading sectarian hatred and militant attitudes that encourage impressionable students to use coercion and violence against people who do not subscribe to their version of Islam. The government will have to act against the blatant abuse of loud speakers in mosques and self-proclaimed scholars of Islam issuing fatwas that incite hatred and violence against other sects and communities. It is not difficult to prod youngsters weaned on such ideas to commit acts of terror to please God.
In fact, the entire society will have to get involved. The media will have to be more careful about what it dishes out in the name of religion. And the educated Muslims will have to reclaim their religion from an ignorant clergy. It’s not only about hunting and killing a handful of mercenary terrorists acting on foreign commands. To defeat militancy in the name of Islam, the nation must fight it on all fronts.
The writer is a freelance columnist.
The Nation
December 23, 2012
Defining our war
Jalees Hazir
====
The problem with those eager to claim the US-led intervention in the region as our war is that they use the acts of terror perpetrated by militant groups as a justification to support the far more serious and barbaric strategy of terror officially sanctioned by the superpower and its Nato allies. The one-eyed liberal fascists seem to have no ideas of their own.
What brand of noble intentions could justify the brutal occupation of Afghanistan for more than a decade? What kind of fictitious weapons of mass destruction make the hell let loose on Iraqi citizens acceptable? What definition of human rights and freedom allows the continued destruction of Libya? Which human values sanction subversion of order in Syria?
Are they really ignorant of the nexus between militant groups scattered all over the globe and the CIA that has fathered, adopted, nurtured and fanged them?
====
Acts of terror in and around Peshawar last week reminded us once again that we are in the middle of a war. These recent attacks that claimed many innocent lives made some commentators renew their advocacy of accepting the US-led so-called war on terror as our war. On the other hand, the evil-looking tattoo on the back of one of the killed terrorists was considered by many as evidence to write off the entire menace of militant extremism as a US-controlled project that will disappear in thin air with an end to the US occupation of Afghanistan. It is important to move beyond these simplistic formulations in order to understand the challenge we face and to define the war we’re trapped in.
The problem with those eager to claim the US-led intervention in the region as our war is that they use the acts of terror perpetrated by militant groups as a justification to support the far more serious and barbaric strategy of terror officially sanctioned by the superpower and its Nato allies. The one-eyed liberal fascists seem to have no ideas of their own.
They would like us to believe the false narrative spun by the US establishment as divine injunction and dance to its belligerent tune like a good unquestioning ally. They would like the state of Pakistan and its security forces to become an errand boy for a two-faced Uncle Sam, implementing his dubious war strategy that has brought death and destruction to Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Are they so naïve, these ‘our-war’ cheerleaders? Their logic seems to suggest as much. According to them, the US is fighting a global war against terrorism and since Pakistan is being attacked by terrorists as well, we have a common enemy and we should fight it together. Of course, for them, fighting it together means taking orders and doing as we are told. They would like to take the obviously hypocritical pronouncements of the so-called superpower on their face value. Truthful to the US narrative, they would like to bundle together the resistance in Afghanistan with the terrorism we face and convince us that the only hurdle in defeating terrorism is our reluctance to cooperate whole-heartedly with the US game plan.
Their complete faith in the US and what it says is a bit confounding. What brand of noble intentions could justify the brutal occupation of Afghanistan for more than a decade? What kind of fictitious weapons of mass destruction make the hell let loose on Iraqi citizens acceptable? What definition of human rights and freedom allows the continued destruction of Libya? Which human values sanction subversion of order in Syria? What makes these ‘our war’ cheerleaders blind to not just these, but countless covert and overt imperialist interventions by the US around the world?
Are they really ignorant of the nexus between militant groups scattered all over the globe and the CIA that has fathered, adopted, nurtured and fanged them?
Actually, we don’t need any tattoo to convince us that the US is involved in spreading terrorism in the world. It is documented history. Its dangerous covert games are no longer secret in any case as its leaders openly boast of funding and arming terrorists that they dub as rebels or any convenient name that sounds less offensive.
In the case of Pakistan, when CIA and Blackwater operatives were thrown out after the Raymond Davis episode, the CIA head calmly told us that the agency did not need its agents on the ground anymore as it had established an extensive network of local assets in the country. Does this network include the TTP contacts on Raymond Davis’ phone?
Certainly, we need to pull out of this imperialist war and work with other neighbours of Afghanistan to rid the region of the US presence. Pulling out of the US war is an important first step, and it will help us on two counts at least. It will bring an end to the dangerous covert games the meddlesome superpower plays under the garb of cooperation and friendship to begin with. Besides, it will take away the flimsy ideological excuse used by militants, who think it is kosher to kill innocent Pakistani Muslims because their country is siding with the infidels.
More importantly, without the distraction of trying to do more in line with the US devious demands, it will also bring clarity to our understanding of the problem and, hence, help us in evolving an effective strategy to counter it. However, to say that the menace of militant extremism will disappear with an end to US occupation of Afghanistan is equally simplistic.
While it is true that growth of militant extremism owes much to CIA and American proxies in the Middle East, its roots have grown deep in Pakistan over the last three decades and it is supported by an environment of distorted and sectarian notions about Islam that have become common in our society.
A multi-pronged response is needed to counter it. Other than a strong military offensive against the mercenary hardcore terrorist groups, the government will have to closely monitor the sources of funding, syllabi and activities of the large number of seminaries that have mushroomed all over Pakistan. In many cases, they are involved in spreading sectarian hatred and militant attitudes that encourage impressionable students to use coercion and violence against people who do not subscribe to their version of Islam. The government will have to act against the blatant abuse of loud speakers in mosques and self-proclaimed scholars of Islam issuing fatwas that incite hatred and violence against other sects and communities. It is not difficult to prod youngsters weaned on such ideas to commit acts of terror to please God.
In fact, the entire society will have to get involved. The media will have to be more careful about what it dishes out in the name of religion. And the educated Muslims will have to reclaim their religion from an ignorant clergy. It’s not only about hunting and killing a handful of mercenary terrorists acting on foreign commands. To defeat militancy in the name of Islam, the nation must fight it on all fronts.
The writer is a freelance columnist.
