1a
NATO's Global Open Door Policy
by "Rick Rozoff"
rwrozoff
1b
Re: NATO's Global Open Door Policy
by "Alan Kerns"
alankerns
2
Mediterranean: NATO Launches War Games Amid Tensions With Syria
by "Rick Rozoff"
rwrozoff
3
Azerbaijan: Reliable NATO Partner In Caucasus, On Caspian
by "Rick Rozoff"
rwrozoff
4
NATO Warships Move Into Eastern Mediterranean
by "Rick Rozoff"
rwrozoff
5
NATO Chief Gives Syria Ultimatum, Says Bloc To Back Turkey
by "Rick Rozoff"
rwrozoff
6
Russia Warns West Of "Big War" In Syria
by "Rick Rozoff"
rwrozoff
7
War Of Nerves Around Strait Of Hormuz Resumed
by "Rick Rozoff"
rwrozoff
8
U.S. Military Meddling In The Asia-Pacific
by "Rick Rozoff"
rwrozoff
9a
German Soldiers Wounded In Afghan Attack
by "Rick Rozoff"
rwrozoff
|
Thu Jul 5, 2012 5:43 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://rickrozoff.
Stop NATO
July 5, 2012
NATO's Global Open Door Policy
Rick Rozoff
On July 4 NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen delivered an address entitled "NATO – delivering security in the 21st century" at the Chatham House in London that should lay to rest forever any doubts about Western plans, already well underway, to create an international military network dominated by the United States and its major alliance partners.
Citing new challenges to Western preeminence in the world - with "many commentators predict[ing] the decline of the West as we know it" - especially to the virtually uncontested sway the U.S. and Western Europe have held in the quarter-century post-Cold War era, the military bloc's chief cited "turmoil and uncertainty across the Middle East and North Africa" and "emergence of new powers - economically, politically, and militarily" as areas of concern the alliance must address.
Although the world is "increasingly unpredictable, complex and interlinked,
With the emergence of trends toward multipolarity and the potential for a second-generation anti-colonial (or anti-neo-colonial) struggle in the non-"Euro-Atlantic" world - that is, the world of almost eight-ninths of humanity not residing in NATO member states - the "fundamental questions" have to be answered: "How can the Trans-Atlantic community keep its global power of attraction and influence? And as the world shifts, how do we embrace that shift and help shape it?" For which read divert and control contemporary dynamics emanating from beyond the "Trans-Atlantic community."
The solution, of course, is "a strong NATO," one moreover operating throughout the world. In Rasmussen's words: "It is an essential contributor to wider international security and stability. It means we can face today’s challenges from a position of strength."
With recent wars in three continents to back up his contention, he added: "We can launch and sustain complex joint operations in a way that no one else can. We can work effectively with partners in a way that no one else can."
NATO's purview, and theaters of war, having already expanded beyond its member states' territory to the Balkans, South Asia, the Arabian Sea and North Africa, the bloc must extend its reach to crisscross the planet and "must continue to strengthen its connection with other countries and organisations around the globe."
The armed forces of nations on all six inhabited continents (see below) must continue to be integrated for NATO interoperability and to provide troops and hardware for future missions. For, Rasmussen reminded his audience: "Militaries around the world aspire to our standards and the ability of our forces to work together. Importantly, we can integrate other nations’ contributions into complex multinational operations like no other organisation.
The international partnerships NATO has cultivated over the past twenty years, often while conducting air and ground wars and post-conflict "peacekeeping" operations "From Afghanistan to the Balkans, and last year over Libya," must expand beyond the forty or more nations enmeshed in them - which with NATO's 28 members account for comfortably over a third of the nations in the world - and be added to in all parts of the world.
"Partnership is not a choice between staying at home or going global. It is not peripheral to our business – it is part of NATO’s core business..."
"We cannot deal with today’s security challenges from a purely European perspective. What matters is being engaged wherever our security matters. That means here in Europe. Across the Euro-Atlantic area. And around the globe."
To do so the home front must be further secured, further integrated militarily.
"Alongside the European Union’s enlargement, NATO’s Open Door policy has already transformed this continent fundamentally, and permanently.
European Partnership for Peace members and those with Individual Partnership Action Programs and Membership Action Plans in addition - Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia, Finland, Georgia, Ireland, Malta, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Serbia, Sweden, Switzerland and Ukraine - "have restructured their armed forces" as a prerequisite for NATO integration. That is, they have been "professionalized" by abolishing conscription and shifting their mandate from territorial defense to expeditionary deployments abroad and transitioning from domestic and often Russian armaments to Western ones.
In a statement more truly revealing than perhaps he intended it to be, Rasmussen added:
"At the same time, the prospect of NATO membership gave confidence to investors. Which in turn led to economic drive, development and dynamism. And it is no coincidence that those countries who have joined NATO over the past thirteen years have also joined the European Union, or are preparing to do so.
"10 years ago, I was Prime Minister of Denmark when my country held the presidency of the European Union. That year, at the Copenhagen and Prague Summits, we invited new members to join the European Union, and NATO..."
Under the Berlin Plus agreement adopted at the fiftieth anniversary NATO summit in Washington, D.C. in 1999 and several arrangements in the interim the distinction between NATO and EU military policy has become at most an academic one.
Although "Russian misperceptions about NATO’s Open Door policy persist," NATO has done its ungrateful neighbor a favor by providing it "Stability on its western borders." For example, military bases, training and cyber warfare centers, Patriot Advanced Capability-3 and soon Standard Missile-3 interceptor batteries, air patrols by Western warplanes near its northwestern frontiers, and naval, air and infantry war games from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea and the South Caucasus.
As if the import of the above comments regarding business investment and the economy could be missed, Rasmussen reiterated:
"Our economy is globalised. Our security is globalised. And if we are to protect our populations effectively, our approach to security has to be globalised too."
"It means NATO must be able, and willing, to engage politically and militarily with other nations, wherever they may be..." Australia, for example.
The NATO chief recalled visiting Australia last month, where he met with Prime Minister Julia Gillard and signed a Joint Political Declaration. "It is the first of its kind. But I am confident it won’t be the last."
In Afghanistan, "Australia is part of a NATO-led coalition of 50 nations, the largest in recent history." (The geography-challenge
Even when, or if, NATO withdraws the bulk of its 130,000-150,
The ten and a half years NATO has spent in its first Asian war have provided it the opportunity to forge a coalition of 50 nations for the alliance's next conflicts.
The post-Chicago summit concentration "is about NATO assuming a global perspective, about "[p]laying its part globally, and strengthening our ability to act in concert with our partners around the globe."
The militaries of the world must be subordinated to NATO standards, practices and policy and be equipped with "interoperable" weapons:
"Today, many partner countries take the opportunities NATO offers to participate in our military education, training and exercises. But this is largely on an ad-hoc basis. I would like to see a much more structured approach. And the broadest possible range of nations being involved in such activities."
Particular attention must be paid to the integration of and interoperability among special forces:
"We must build on the lessons that we learnt together in action in Afghanistan. So we can boost our ability to act together in the future."
Ever-expanding global partnerships should focus on "maritime security, energy security, and cyber security" cooperation.
Rasmussen stressed building partnerships, by which it is not to be understood ones of equality, with China and India. In March NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Europe, Admiral James Stavridis, spoke to the U.S. Congress on the topic of building partnerships with India and Brazil. The "emergence of new powers" must be neutralized and if possible co-opted. In Rasmussen's words: "To do all this, we need an alliance that is globally aware. Globally connected. And globally capable. That is my vision for NATO."
"NATO’s partnerships play a key part in meeting the security concerns of today and tomorrow – be they local, regional, or global. The range of our partnerships reflects the world we live in."
But among the scores of allies and partners around the world, NATO's first among equals was, is and ever will remain the U.S.
"The transatlantic bond lies at the very heart of NATO..."
"Some see the United States’ pivot to Asia-Pacific as the end of this unique partnership. They are wrong. The security of America and Europe is indivisible. We are stronger, and safer, when we work together. And that is why NATO remains the indispensable Alliance."
The indispensable, global military bloc. Rasmussen used the words globe, global, globally, globalized, world and international 27 times in his speech. No one can pretend not to understand what NATO's plans are.
============
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@
============
Stop NATO
July 5, 2012
NATO's Global Open Door Policy
Rick Rozoff
On July 4 NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen delivered an address entitled "NATO – delivering security in the 21st century" at the Chatham House in London that should lay to rest forever any doubts about Western plans, already well underway, to create an international military network dominated by the United States and its major alliance partners.
Citing new challenges to Western preeminence in the world - with "many commentators predict[ing] the decline of the West as we know it" - especially to the virtually uncontested sway the U.S. and Western Europe have held in the quarter-century post-Cold War era, the military bloc's chief cited "turmoil and uncertainty across the Middle East and North Africa" and "emergence of new powers - economically, politically, and militarily" as areas of concern the alliance must address.
Although the world is "increasingly unpredictable, complex and interlinked,
With the emergence of trends toward multipolarity and the potential for a second-generation anti-colonial (or anti-neo-colonial) struggle in the non-"Euro-Atlantic" world - that is, the world of almost eight-ninths of humanity not residing in NATO member states - the "fundamental questions" have to be answered: "How can the Trans-Atlantic community keep its global power of attraction and influence? And as the world shifts, how do we embrace that shift and help shape it?" For which read divert and control contemporary dynamics emanating from beyond the "Trans-Atlantic community."
The solution, of course, is "a strong NATO," one moreover operating throughout the world. In Rasmussen's words: "It is an essential contributor to wider international security and stability. It means we can face today’s challenges from a position of strength."
With recent wars in three continents to back up his contention, he added: "We can launch and sustain complex joint operations in a way that no one else can. We can work effectively with partners in a way that no one else can."
NATO's purview, and theaters of war, having already expanded beyond its member states' territory to the Balkans, South Asia, the Arabian Sea and North Africa, the bloc must extend its reach to crisscross the planet and "must continue to strengthen its connection with other countries and organisations around the globe."
The armed forces of nations on all six inhabited continents (see below) must continue to be integrated for NATO interoperability and to provide troops and hardware for future missions. For, Rasmussen reminded his audience: "Militaries around the world aspire to our standards and the ability of our forces to work together. Importantly, we can integrate other nations’ contributions into complex multinational operations like no other organisation.
The international partnerships NATO has cultivated over the past twenty years, often while conducting air and ground wars and post-conflict "peacekeeping" operations "From Afghanistan to the Balkans, and last year over Libya," must expand beyond the forty or more nations enmeshed in them - which with NATO's 28 members account for comfortably over a third of the nations in the world - and be added to in all parts of the world.
"Partnership is not a choice between staying at home or going global. It is not peripheral to our business – it is part of NATO’s core business..."
"We cannot deal with today’s security challenges from a purely European perspective. What matters is being engaged wherever our security matters. That means here in Europe. Across the Euro-Atlantic area. And around the globe."
To do so the home front must be further secured, further integrated militarily.
"Alongside the European Union’s enlargement, NATO’s Open Door policy has already transformed this continent fundamentally, and permanently.
European Partnership for Peace members and those with Individual Partnership Action Programs and Membership Action Plans in addition - Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia, Finland, Georgia, Ireland, Malta, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Serbia, Sweden, Switzerland and Ukraine - "have restructured their armed forces" as a prerequisite for NATO integration. That is, they have been "professionalized" by abolishing conscription and shifting their mandate from territorial defense to expeditionary deployments abroad and transitioning from domestic and often Russian armaments to Western ones.
In a statement more truly revealing than perhaps he intended it to be, Rasmussen added:
"At the same time, the prospect of NATO membership gave confidence to investors. Which in turn led to economic drive, development and dynamism. And it is no coincidence that those countries who have joined NATO over the past thirteen years have also joined the European Union, or are preparing to do so.
"10 years ago, I was Prime Minister of Denmark when my country held the presidency of the European Union. That year, at the Copenhagen and Prague Summits, we invited new members to join the European Union, and NATO..."
Under the Berlin Plus agreement adopted at the fiftieth anniversary NATO summit in Washington, D.C. in 1999 and several arrangements in the interim the distinction between NATO and EU military policy has become at most an academic one.
Although "Russian misperceptions about NATO’s Open Door policy persist," NATO has done its ungrateful neighbor a favor by providing it "Stability on its western borders." For example, military bases, training and cyber warfare centers, Patriot Advanced Capability-3 and soon Standard Missile-3 interceptor batteries, air patrols by Western warplanes near its northwestern frontiers, and naval, air and infantry war games from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea and the South Caucasus.
As if the import of the above comments regarding business investment and the economy could be missed, Rasmussen reiterated:
"Our economy is globalised. Our security is globalised. And if we are to protect our populations effectively, our approach to security has to be globalised too."
"It means NATO must be able, and willing, to engage politically and militarily with other nations, wherever they may be..." Australia, for example.
The NATO chief recalled visiting Australia last month, where he met with Prime Minister Julia Gillard and signed a Joint Political Declaration. "It is the first of its kind. But I am confident it won’t be the last."
In Afghanistan, "Australia is part of a NATO-led coalition of 50 nations, the largest in recent history." (The geography-challenge
Even when, or if, NATO withdraws the bulk of its 130,000-150,
The ten and a half years NATO has spent in its first Asian war have provided it the opportunity to forge a coalition of 50 nations for the alliance's next conflicts.
The post-Chicago summit concentration "is about NATO assuming a global perspective, about "[p]laying its part globally, and strengthening our ability to act in concert with our partners around the globe."
The militaries of the world must be subordinated to NATO standards, practices and policy and be equipped with "interoperable" weapons:
"Today, many partner countries take the opportunities NATO offers to participate in our military education, training and exercises. But this is largely on an ad-hoc basis. I would like to see a much more structured approach. And the broadest possible range of nations being involved in such activities."
Particular attention must be paid to the integration of and interoperability among special forces:
"We must build on the lessons that we learnt together in action in Afghanistan. So we can boost our ability to act together in the future."
Ever-expanding global partnerships should focus on "maritime security, energy security, and cyber security" cooperation.
Rasmussen stressed building partnerships, by which it is not to be understood ones of equality, with China and India. In March NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Europe, Admiral James Stavridis, spoke to the U.S. Congress on the topic of building partnerships with India and Brazil. The "emergence of new powers" must be neutralized and if possible co-opted. In Rasmussen's words: "To do all this, we need an alliance that is globally aware. Globally connected. And globally capable. That is my vision for NATO."
"NATO’s partnerships play a key part in meeting the security concerns of today and tomorrow – be they local, regional, or global. The range of our partnerships reflects the world we live in."
But among the scores of allies and partners around the world, NATO's first among equals was, is and ever will remain the U.S.
"The transatlantic bond lies at the very heart of NATO..."
"Some see the United States’ pivot to Asia-Pacific as the end of this unique partnership. They are wrong. The security of America and Europe is indivisible. We are stronger, and safer, when we work together. And that is why NATO remains the indispensable Alliance."
The indispensable, global military bloc. Rasmussen used the words globe, global, globally, globalized, world and international 27 times in his speech. No one can pretend not to understand what NATO's plans are.
============
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@
============
Thu Jul 5, 2012 11:03 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Alan Kerns" alankerns
"Delivering security"is what protection racketeers do.
The father of the public relations racket - Eddie Bernays - couldn't
have put it better than Anders (The Fogh of War) Rasmussen.
Cheers
Alan Kerns
On 05/07/12 22:43, Rick Rozoff wrote:
>
> http://rickrozoff.
>
> Stop NATO
> July 5, 2012
>
> NATO's Global Open Door Policy
> Rick Rozoff
>
> On July 4 NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen delivered an
> address entitled "NATO – delivering security in the 21st century" at
> the Chatham House in London that should lay to rest forever any doubts
> about Western plans, already well underway, to create an international
> military network dominated by the United States and its major alliance
> partners.
>
CUT
The father of the public relations racket - Eddie Bernays - couldn't
have put it better than Anders (The Fogh of War) Rasmussen.
Cheers
Alan Kerns
On 05/07/12 22:43, Rick Rozoff wrote:
>
> http://rickrozoff.
>
> Stop NATO
> July 5, 2012
>
> NATO's Global Open Door Policy
> Rick Rozoff
>
> On July 4 NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen delivered an
> address entitled "NATO – delivering security in the 21st century" at
> the Chatham House in London that should lay to rest forever any doubts
> about Western plans, already well underway, to create an international
> military network dominated by the United States and its major alliance
> partners.
>
CUT
Thu Jul 5, 2012 5:55 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.rt.
RT
July 5, 2012
NATO launches war games in Mediterranean amid tension with Syria
NATO’s joint maritime group is flexing its muscle in the eastern Mediterranean Sea by conducting anti-terrorism drills as tensions between NATO member Turkey and its neighbor Syria escalate.
The Standing NATO Maritime Group 2 (SNMG2) is determined “to give a clear message to terrorists in the region that NATO is on duty,” German Rear Admiral Thorsten Kahler told the Turkish daily Hurriyet.
“What we have to make sure is to tell the terrorists to be careful; we are here and providing security for NATO member states,” he said.
The admiral said the group will be heading from Istanbul further into the Mediterranean on July 7. The force currently consists of three frigates from Turkey, Germany and France. The ships are armed with 76-mm and 27-mm guns, Mark 46 anti-submarine torpedoes, surface-to-air and surface-to-surface missiles and carry helicopters. They are manned by 545 sailors in total.
Kahler took over command of the group from his Turkish colleague Rear Admiral Sinan Azmi Tosun on June 15.
The naval drills come as relations between Turkey and its neighbor Syria remain tense following a recent cross border incident. Syrian troops shot down a Turkish jet last month after it violated the country’s airspace.
Damascus says their military acted in self-defense, but offered an apology for the incident and the subsequent death of the two Turkish pilots onboard.
Ankara said it was an act of aggression on Syria’s part, claiming that the plane crossed the border by incident and was shot down without warning after flying back into the international airspace.
Turkey called a NATO meeting to discuss the incident. The alliance condemned the incident, but refrained from taking any more serious action against Syria.
Syria and Turkey has increasingly been at odds recently over Ankara’s vocal criticism of the Syrian crackdown on its domestic opposition. Following the downing of the jet, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan pledged support to the Syrian opposition in their bid to topple the government.
============
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@
============
RT
July 5, 2012
NATO launches war games in Mediterranean amid tension with Syria
NATO’s joint maritime group is flexing its muscle in the eastern Mediterranean Sea by conducting anti-terrorism drills as tensions between NATO member Turkey and its neighbor Syria escalate.
The Standing NATO Maritime Group 2 (SNMG2) is determined “to give a clear message to terrorists in the region that NATO is on duty,” German Rear Admiral Thorsten Kahler told the Turkish daily Hurriyet.
“What we have to make sure is to tell the terrorists to be careful; we are here and providing security for NATO member states,” he said.
The admiral said the group will be heading from Istanbul further into the Mediterranean on July 7. The force currently consists of three frigates from Turkey, Germany and France. The ships are armed with 76-mm and 27-mm guns, Mark 46 anti-submarine torpedoes, surface-to-air and surface-to-surface missiles and carry helicopters. They are manned by 545 sailors in total.
Kahler took over command of the group from his Turkish colleague Rear Admiral Sinan Azmi Tosun on June 15.
The naval drills come as relations between Turkey and its neighbor Syria remain tense following a recent cross border incident. Syrian troops shot down a Turkish jet last month after it violated the country’s airspace.
Damascus says their military acted in self-defense, but offered an apology for the incident and the subsequent death of the two Turkish pilots onboard.
Ankara said it was an act of aggression on Syria’s part, claiming that the plane crossed the border by incident and was shot down without warning after flying back into the international airspace.
Turkey called a NATO meeting to discuss the incident. The alliance condemned the incident, but refrained from taking any more serious action against Syria.
Syria and Turkey has increasingly been at odds recently over Ankara’s vocal criticism of the Syrian crackdown on its domestic opposition. Following the downing of the jet, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan pledged support to the Syrian opposition in their bid to topple the government.
============
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@
============
Thu Jul 5, 2012 5:55 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://en.trend.
Trend News Agency
July 5, 2012
Azerbaijani government is NATO reliable partner in both air and ground transit
E. Mehdiyev
Baku: The Azerbaijani government is a reliable partner of NATO, the Alliance's special representative for the South Caucasus and Central Asia, James Appathurai, told reporters in Baku on Thursday.
"The Azerbaijani government has always been a reliable partner of NATO when it comes to transit, both air transit and ground transit. We have agreed to do more together," Appathurai said.
He said NATO has started to draw down in Afghanistan; most of what NATO has there will come out.
"And so the route through Azerbaijan has always been very dependable for NATO, other routes have been less dependable. So we are very grateful for that. We hope across the Caspian as well we start to be able to bring non-military goods. So I think it will be an economic benefit also to Azerbaijan," Appathurai underscored.
Appathurai also said the new Individual Partnership Action Plan (IPAP) has been approved.
"We had discussions about IPAP. It has now been agreed and work has been started," he underscored.
Appathurai said NATO and Azerbaijan are moving forward; an important part of that is planning and review process, which focuses much more on the defense aspect.
"That is what we are negotiating right now. We are now taking forward cooperation on defense modernization, security structures also like in energy security," he added.
Azerbaijan has been cooperating with NATO within the IPAP since 2005. The program was originally designed to last two years. Today, cooperation is held within the second phase of the Individual Partnership Action Plan between Azerbaijan and NATO, which covers 2008-2010.
============
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@
============
Trend News Agency
July 5, 2012
Azerbaijani government is NATO reliable partner in both air and ground transit
E. Mehdiyev
Baku: The Azerbaijani government is a reliable partner of NATO, the Alliance's special representative for the South Caucasus and Central Asia, James Appathurai, told reporters in Baku on Thursday.
"The Azerbaijani government has always been a reliable partner of NATO when it comes to transit, both air transit and ground transit. We have agreed to do more together," Appathurai said.
He said NATO has started to draw down in Afghanistan; most of what NATO has there will come out.
"And so the route through Azerbaijan has always been very dependable for NATO, other routes have been less dependable. So we are very grateful for that. We hope across the Caspian as well we start to be able to bring non-military goods. So I think it will be an economic benefit also to Azerbaijan," Appathurai underscored.
Appathurai also said the new Individual Partnership Action Plan (IPAP) has been approved.
"We had discussions about IPAP. It has now been agreed and work has been started," he underscored.
Appathurai said NATO and Azerbaijan are moving forward; an important part of that is planning and review process, which focuses much more on the defense aspect.
"That is what we are negotiating right now. We are now taking forward cooperation on defense modernization, security structures also like in energy security," he added.
Azerbaijan has been cooperating with NATO within the IPAP since 2005. The program was originally designed to last two years. Today, cooperation is held within the second phase of the Individual Partnership Action Plan between Azerbaijan and NATO, which covers 2008-2010.
============
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@
============
Thu Jul 5, 2012 11:02 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.presstv.
Press TV
July 5, 2012
NATO warships move into Mediterranean Sea: Report
A convoy of NATO warships has left Turkey for the Mediterranean Sea purportedly to carry out anti-terrorism operations in the region, a report says.
According to a July 5 report published by the Turkish Hurriyet Daily, the Standing NATO Maritime Group 2 set off from Istanbul.
The group consists of Turkey’s TCG Gediz, France’s Courbet and Germany’s Bayern warships and the three frigates have a total of 545 crew members on board, with Germany leading the mission.
German Rear Admiral Thorsten Kahler said on Wednesday that the mission of the maritime group is “to give a clear message to terrorists in the region that NATO is on duty.”
“We are not telling our whole schedule, but we will stay in the region.”
Kahler said the anti-terrorism mission is “the only Article 5 mission of NATO so far.”
Article 5 of the Washington Treaty of NATO says the member states “agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.”
The development comes days after Syria said on June 22 that its air defense forces shot down a Turkish F-4 Phantom in the Syrian airspace “according to the laws that govern such situations.” The warplane crashed into the Mediterranean Sea.
Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu told TRT television on June 24, “According to our conclusions, our plane was shot down in international airspace, 13 nautical miles from Syria.”
However, Syrian Foreign Ministry spokesman Jihad Makdissi said in a press conference in Damascus on June 25 that the Turkish warplane “violated Syrian airspace, and in turn Syrian air defenses fired back and the plane crashed inside Syrian territorial waters.”
On June 26, the North Atlantic Council, which is the principal political decision-making body within NATO, met in Brussels upon a request from Ankara to discuss the issue of the Turkish aircraft.
The Hurriyet Daily reported on the same day that Ankara had deployed a “large number of military vehicles to the Syrian border,” including “15 armored tanks, in addition to long-distance guns and other military vehicles.”
In addition, the Turkish army said in a statement issued on July 1 that it had scrambled six F-16 warplanes near the border with Syria in response to Syrian helicopters flying close to the region.
============
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@
============
Press TV
July 5, 2012
NATO warships move into Mediterranean Sea: Report
A convoy of NATO warships has left Turkey for the Mediterranean Sea purportedly to carry out anti-terrorism operations in the region, a report says.
According to a July 5 report published by the Turkish Hurriyet Daily, the Standing NATO Maritime Group 2 set off from Istanbul.
The group consists of Turkey’s TCG Gediz, France’s Courbet and Germany’s Bayern warships and the three frigates have a total of 545 crew members on board, with Germany leading the mission.
German Rear Admiral Thorsten Kahler said on Wednesday that the mission of the maritime group is “to give a clear message to terrorists in the region that NATO is on duty.”
“We are not telling our whole schedule, but we will stay in the region.”
Kahler said the anti-terrorism mission is “the only Article 5 mission of NATO so far.”
Article 5 of the Washington Treaty of NATO says the member states “agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.”
The development comes days after Syria said on June 22 that its air defense forces shot down a Turkish F-4 Phantom in the Syrian airspace “according to the laws that govern such situations.” The warplane crashed into the Mediterranean Sea.
Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu told TRT television on June 24, “According to our conclusions, our plane was shot down in international airspace, 13 nautical miles from Syria.”
However, Syrian Foreign Ministry spokesman Jihad Makdissi said in a press conference in Damascus on June 25 that the Turkish warplane “violated Syrian airspace, and in turn Syrian air defenses fired back and the plane crashed inside Syrian territorial waters.”
On June 26, the North Atlantic Council, which is the principal political decision-making body within NATO, met in Brussels upon a request from Ankara to discuss the issue of the Turkish aircraft.
The Hurriyet Daily reported on the same day that Ankara had deployed a “large number of military vehicles to the Syrian border,” including “15 armored tanks, in addition to long-distance guns and other military vehicles.”
In addition, the Turkish army said in a statement issued on July 1 that it had scrambled six F-16 warplanes near the border with Syria in response to Syrian helicopters flying close to the region.
============
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@
============
Thu Jul 5, 2012 11:02 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.google.
Agence France-Presse
July 5, 2012
NATO chief warns Syria to avoid escalation with Turkey
LJUBLJANA: NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen urged Syria Thursday to find a political solution to the country's crisis and warned against any new incidents with Turkey after a plane was shot down.
"I would expect that the Syrian authorities will do all they can to avoid any escalation and any such unacceptable incident as we saw when they shot down a Turkish aircraft," Rasmussen told a joint news conference with Slovenian Prime Minister Janez Jansa in Ljubljana.
"It goes without saying that Turkey can count on NATO. NATO is of course prepared to defend Turkey if it is so necessary," he added.
A Turkish F-4 Phantom was shot down on June 22 by Syrian fire but the two countries disagree on whether the incident took place in international or Syrian airspace.
After the incident, Turkey requested consultations under Article 4 of NATO's founding treaty, enabling any of the allies to call for talks should they consider their territorial integrity, political independence or security to be under threat.
"We all agree that there is no military solution to the crisis in Syria, we need a political solution," Rasmussen also said during his one-day visit to Slovenia.
A weekend deal by world powers in Geneva aimed at achieving a transition of power in Syria was "a step in the right direction," he said.
============
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@
============
Agence France-Presse
July 5, 2012
NATO chief warns Syria to avoid escalation with Turkey
LJUBLJANA: NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen urged Syria Thursday to find a political solution to the country's crisis and warned against any new incidents with Turkey after a plane was shot down.
"I would expect that the Syrian authorities will do all they can to avoid any escalation and any such unacceptable incident as we saw when they shot down a Turkish aircraft," Rasmussen told a joint news conference with Slovenian Prime Minister Janez Jansa in Ljubljana.
"It goes without saying that Turkey can count on NATO. NATO is of course prepared to defend Turkey if it is so necessary," he added.
A Turkish F-4 Phantom was shot down on June 22 by Syrian fire but the two countries disagree on whether the incident took place in international or Syrian airspace.
After the incident, Turkey requested consultations under Article 4 of NATO's founding treaty, enabling any of the allies to call for talks should they consider their territorial integrity, political independence or security to be under threat.
"We all agree that there is no military solution to the crisis in Syria, we need a political solution," Rasmussen also said during his one-day visit to Slovenia.
A weekend deal by world powers in Geneva aimed at achieving a transition of power in Syria was "a step in the right direction," he said.
============
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@
============
Thu Jul 5, 2012 6:14 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://en.rian.
Russian Information Agency Novosti
July 5, 2012
Moscow Warns West of ‘Big War’ in Syria
MOSCOW: Moscow lashed out on Thursday at the Western position on Syria, saying it could aggravate the situation to the point of war.
“Their [Western] position is most likely to exacerbate the situation, lead to further violence and ultimately a very big war,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said.
The West has also distorted the Russian position on Syria by suggesting Moscow should offer Syrian President Bashar al-Assad asylum, he said.
“This is either an unscrupulous attempt to mislead serious people who shape foreign policy or simply a misunderstanding of what is going on,” Lavrov said.
He also warned that Russia will reject any UN Security Council peace enforcement resolution on Syria, since that would be “nothing but intervention.”
The minister also said representatives of the Syrian opposition will visit Moscow next week.
On Wednesday, Moscow urged Syrian opposition groups to unite to find a peaceful solution to the ongoing crisis.
...
The UN Security Council has so far failed to find a way to settle the conflict. Russia and China have refused to support any plans for outside interference in Syria.
============
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@
============
Russian Information Agency Novosti
July 5, 2012
Moscow Warns West of ‘Big War’ in Syria
MOSCOW: Moscow lashed out on Thursday at the Western position on Syria, saying it could aggravate the situation to the point of war.
“Their [Western] position is most likely to exacerbate the situation, lead to further violence and ultimately a very big war,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said.
The West has also distorted the Russian position on Syria by suggesting Moscow should offer Syrian President Bashar al-Assad asylum, he said.
“This is either an unscrupulous attempt to mislead serious people who shape foreign policy or simply a misunderstanding of what is going on,” Lavrov said.
He also warned that Russia will reject any UN Security Council peace enforcement resolution on Syria, since that would be “nothing but intervention.”
The minister also said representatives of the Syrian opposition will visit Moscow next week.
On Wednesday, Moscow urged Syrian opposition groups to unite to find a peaceful solution to the ongoing crisis.
...
The UN Security Council has so far failed to find a way to settle the conflict. Russia and China have refused to support any plans for outside interference in Syria.
============
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@
============
Thu Jul 5, 2012 6:17 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://english.
Voice of Russia
July 5, 2012
The war of nerves around the Hormuz Strait resumed
Boris Volkhonsky
====
Any war (if it is ever going to be started) will be started by the US only. The current moment, though, is rather unfavorable for the US to start any unprovoked activity. The crisis in Syria is not over yet, and the US at the moment is mostly preoccupied with the task of toppling Bashar al-Assad (and replacing him with something like Al Qaeda?) rather than thinking of shifting its attention to other areas.
Still, it is definitely true that toppling Assad is not an aim in itself, but rather a preparatory step for doing the same with the present Iranian leadership.
====
The US and Iran have renewed their exchange of belligerent statements and symbolic deeds aimed at demonstrating their firm stance in the years-long standoff.
On Monday, as reported by London's Daily Telegraph, the Iranian parliament introduced legislation to authorize a blockade of oil tankers in the Hormuz Strait, through which a fifth of the world's traded oil passes. That followed a ban on EU imports of Iranian oil which came into force on Sunday.
On Tuesday, the Pentagon disclosed that it has for the first time sent an amphibious vessel, the USS Ponce, into the Persian Gulf region. The ship, having a capacity of about 900 troops, can be used to transport a landing force.
The US Defense Department has also doubled the number of minesweepers assigned to the Gulf to eight vessels and added an unspecified number of F-22 stealth fighters and F-15C warplanes on two of its bases.
The message sent to Iran is clear: Washington warns Tehran against any moves that can be seen as attempts to block the Strait.
Iran sent a reciprocal message starting a three-day military exercise designed to simulate attacks on Western and Israeli targets in the northern Semnan Desert. During the exercise, Iran's Republican Guard test-fired missiles against a model of an American base in the Gulf.
On Wednesday, commander of the Revolutionary Guards Amir Ali Haji Zadeh said that Iran could destroy U.S. military bases across the Middle East and target Israel within minutes of being attacked.
The developments prompted many observers to express fear that among the growing tension it might be Israel who may launch the first preventive strike.
The big question still remains the same as it was several months ago, when many thought that the situation had gotten out of control and that full-scale war is imminent.
Still, most experts on Iran whom your correspondent has talked to, agree on several points.
First. Israel will hardly launch a strike without the Big Brother's consent. Therefore, whatever belligerent statements come from Jerusalem, 99 percent of them should be regarded as pure verbal pressure aimed at frightening the foe (and probably at extracting some aid from Washington's bosses).
Second. Iran will never launch a first strike, since such a kind of action would be totally suicidal. That means that even threats to block the Hormuz Strait or attack oil tankers are no more that a continuation of the war of nerves.
Third. Any war (if it is ever going to be started) will be started by the US only. The current moment, though, is rather unfavorable for the US to start any unprovoked activity. The crisis in Syria is not over yet, and the US at the moment is mostly preoccupied with the task of toppling Bashar al-Assad (and replacing him with something like Al Qaeda?) rather than thinking of shifting its attention to other areas.
Still, it is definitely true that toppling Assad is not an aim in itself, but rather a preparatory step for doing the same with the present Iranian leadership. But in this case it should be noted that Americans seldom get involved in any war which bears a risk of a retaliatory slap in their face. And this one surely bears such risk.
Of course, Barack Obama, being criticized by his GOP opponents for being "too soft", might be willing to launch a quick victorious war in his election year. But the fact is that a war against Iran will definitely be a long one and the ultimate victory is by no means guaranteed. In any case, the price would be too high.
All this only means that this year most probably will not witness the transformation of the present war of nerves into a full scale war. As for the year 2013, experts differ in their estimates. Much will depend on a whole array of factors, of which the outcome of the US presidential elections is important, but not the only one.
Then why has the tension around the Hormuz Strait escalated right now? One of the possible answers can be drawn from another piece of latest news that came relatively unnoticed against the belligerent background. And that is the information published by Wednesday's Washington Post that after more than 15 hours of expert-level talks, the United States and other world powers agreed with Iran to move toward a resumption of full negotiations on Iranian nuclear program. The talks stalled last month, and many observers expressed doubts that they would ever been resumed. On Wednesday, however, the participants reached an agreement to implement the "Moscow plan".
Against such a background the exchange of belligerent statements on both sides can be seen as a part of propaganda campaign aimed at making the other side more compliant at the negotiation table.
Boris Volkhonsky, senior research fellow, Russian Institute for Strategic Studies
============
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@
============
Voice of Russia
July 5, 2012
The war of nerves around the Hormuz Strait resumed
Boris Volkhonsky
====
Any war (if it is ever going to be started) will be started by the US only. The current moment, though, is rather unfavorable for the US to start any unprovoked activity. The crisis in Syria is not over yet, and the US at the moment is mostly preoccupied with the task of toppling Bashar al-Assad (and replacing him with something like Al Qaeda?) rather than thinking of shifting its attention to other areas.
Still, it is definitely true that toppling Assad is not an aim in itself, but rather a preparatory step for doing the same with the present Iranian leadership.
====
The US and Iran have renewed their exchange of belligerent statements and symbolic deeds aimed at demonstrating their firm stance in the years-long standoff.
On Monday, as reported by London's Daily Telegraph, the Iranian parliament introduced legislation to authorize a blockade of oil tankers in the Hormuz Strait, through which a fifth of the world's traded oil passes. That followed a ban on EU imports of Iranian oil which came into force on Sunday.
On Tuesday, the Pentagon disclosed that it has for the first time sent an amphibious vessel, the USS Ponce, into the Persian Gulf region. The ship, having a capacity of about 900 troops, can be used to transport a landing force.
The US Defense Department has also doubled the number of minesweepers assigned to the Gulf to eight vessels and added an unspecified number of F-22 stealth fighters and F-15C warplanes on two of its bases.
The message sent to Iran is clear: Washington warns Tehran against any moves that can be seen as attempts to block the Strait.
Iran sent a reciprocal message starting a three-day military exercise designed to simulate attacks on Western and Israeli targets in the northern Semnan Desert. During the exercise, Iran's Republican Guard test-fired missiles against a model of an American base in the Gulf.
On Wednesday, commander of the Revolutionary Guards Amir Ali Haji Zadeh said that Iran could destroy U.S. military bases across the Middle East and target Israel within minutes of being attacked.
The developments prompted many observers to express fear that among the growing tension it might be Israel who may launch the first preventive strike.
The big question still remains the same as it was several months ago, when many thought that the situation had gotten out of control and that full-scale war is imminent.
Still, most experts on Iran whom your correspondent has talked to, agree on several points.
First. Israel will hardly launch a strike without the Big Brother's consent. Therefore, whatever belligerent statements come from Jerusalem, 99 percent of them should be regarded as pure verbal pressure aimed at frightening the foe (and probably at extracting some aid from Washington's bosses).
Second. Iran will never launch a first strike, since such a kind of action would be totally suicidal. That means that even threats to block the Hormuz Strait or attack oil tankers are no more that a continuation of the war of nerves.
Third. Any war (if it is ever going to be started) will be started by the US only. The current moment, though, is rather unfavorable for the US to start any unprovoked activity. The crisis in Syria is not over yet, and the US at the moment is mostly preoccupied with the task of toppling Bashar al-Assad (and replacing him with something like Al Qaeda?) rather than thinking of shifting its attention to other areas.
Still, it is definitely true that toppling Assad is not an aim in itself, but rather a preparatory step for doing the same with the present Iranian leadership. But in this case it should be noted that Americans seldom get involved in any war which bears a risk of a retaliatory slap in their face. And this one surely bears such risk.
Of course, Barack Obama, being criticized by his GOP opponents for being "too soft", might be willing to launch a quick victorious war in his election year. But the fact is that a war against Iran will definitely be a long one and the ultimate victory is by no means guaranteed. In any case, the price would be too high.
All this only means that this year most probably will not witness the transformation of the present war of nerves into a full scale war. As for the year 2013, experts differ in their estimates. Much will depend on a whole array of factors, of which the outcome of the US presidential elections is important, but not the only one.
Then why has the tension around the Hormuz Strait escalated right now? One of the possible answers can be drawn from another piece of latest news that came relatively unnoticed against the belligerent background. And that is the information published by Wednesday's Washington Post that after more than 15 hours of expert-level talks, the United States and other world powers agreed with Iran to move toward a resumption of full negotiations on Iranian nuclear program. The talks stalled last month, and many observers expressed doubts that they would ever been resumed. On Wednesday, however, the participants reached an agreement to implement the "Moscow plan".
Against such a background the exchange of belligerent statements on both sides can be seen as a part of propaganda campaign aimed at making the other side more compliant at the negotiation table.
Boris Volkhonsky, senior research fellow, Russian Institute for Strategic Studies
============
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@
============
Thu Jul 5, 2012 6:46 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://usa.chinadai
China Daily
July 6, 2012
US military meddling
====
[I]t is widely perceived that the US strategic maneuvers in the Asia-Pacific cater to its desire to counter the rise of a few regional powers, China included. As US combat operations in Iraq have been brought to end and it is pulling troops out of Afghanistan, the US is counting on such a strategic shift to keep the vital region within the range of its gunpowder.
====
As ready proof of its strategic pivot to the Asia-Pacific, the United States is leading two military exercises in the region right now. While the largest-ever Rim of the Pacific naval exercises involving the US and 21 Asia-Pacific countries are in full swing in Hawaii, the US and the Philippines are also conducting naval exercises in the Mindanao Sea.
Last month the US staged a drill with the Republic of Korea in waters off the west coast of the Korean Peninsula. This came hard on the heels of a drill with the ROK and Japan in the Yellow Sea.
Amid lingering tensions in Northeast Asia, people cannot help but ask what is the real intention behind such brazen showboating of military muscle in the region. By staging bilateral, trilateral and multilateral military drills with allies and partners in the region, it seems the US has a multiple agenda.
The displays of force help drive home the message that for all its current woes the US remains the supreme military power. It helps mitigate the concerns that the US global influence is waning after fighting two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And by building up a high-profile military presence in the Asia-Pacific, the US also intends to deter its potential opponents and imaginary enemies.
Last but not least, it is widely perceived that the US strategic maneuvers in the Asia-Pacific cater to its desire to counter the rise of a few regional powers, China included. As US combat operations in Iraq have been brought to end and it is pulling troops out of Afghanistan, the US is counting on such a strategic shift to keep the vital region within the range of its gunpowder.
As one of the world's most economically dynamic regions, the Asia-Pacific area is a land of opportunities. And the region is willing to share those opportunities with the rest of the world, including the US.
While benefiting from these economic dividends, the US should behave responsibly and contribute to the region's peace and stability.
However, with the US displaying its war machines and firing its missiles in the region with increasing frequency, it is impossible to believe that Washington means to play a positive and constructive role in the Asia-Pacific.
============
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@
============
China Daily
July 6, 2012
US military meddling
====
[I]t is widely perceived that the US strategic maneuvers in the Asia-Pacific cater to its desire to counter the rise of a few regional powers, China included. As US combat operations in Iraq have been brought to end and it is pulling troops out of Afghanistan, the US is counting on such a strategic shift to keep the vital region within the range of its gunpowder.
====
As ready proof of its strategic pivot to the Asia-Pacific, the United States is leading two military exercises in the region right now. While the largest-ever Rim of the Pacific naval exercises involving the US and 21 Asia-Pacific countries are in full swing in Hawaii, the US and the Philippines are also conducting naval exercises in the Mindanao Sea.
Last month the US staged a drill with the Republic of Korea in waters off the west coast of the Korean Peninsula. This came hard on the heels of a drill with the ROK and Japan in the Yellow Sea.
Amid lingering tensions in Northeast Asia, people cannot help but ask what is the real intention behind such brazen showboating of military muscle in the region. By staging bilateral, trilateral and multilateral military drills with allies and partners in the region, it seems the US has a multiple agenda.
The displays of force help drive home the message that for all its current woes the US remains the supreme military power. It helps mitigate the concerns that the US global influence is waning after fighting two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And by building up a high-profile military presence in the Asia-Pacific, the US also intends to deter its potential opponents and imaginary enemies.
Last but not least, it is widely perceived that the US strategic maneuvers in the Asia-Pacific cater to its desire to counter the rise of a few regional powers, China included. As US combat operations in Iraq have been brought to end and it is pulling troops out of Afghanistan, the US is counting on such a strategic shift to keep the vital region within the range of its gunpowder.
As one of the world's most economically dynamic regions, the Asia-Pacific area is a land of opportunities. And the region is willing to share those opportunities with the rest of the world, including the US.
While benefiting from these economic dividends, the US should behave responsibly and contribute to the region's peace and stability.
However, with the US displaying its war machines and firing its missiles in the region with increasing frequency, it is impossible to believe that Washington means to play a positive and constructive role in the Asia-Pacific.
============
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@
============
Thu Jul 5, 2012 7:32 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.pajhwok.
Pajhwok Afghan News
July 5, 2012
German soldier wounded in Kunduz attack
By Wahidullahon
KUNDUZ CITY: Two German soldiers with the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) were wounded in a militant attack in northern Kunduz province, the defence ministry in Berlin announced on Thursday.
A statement from the ministry said the troops wounded in Wednesday attack were under treatment at an ISAF medical facility. Their injuries were not life-threatening, it added.
But a source in the German-led Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) told Pajhwok Afghan News that only one soldier was injured in the assault in the insurgent assault in Chahar Dara district.
Col. Ghulam Mohiuddin, the district police chief, said the Taliban attacked a foot patrol of German troops in the Sarak-i-Bala area, wounding one trooper. A vehicle of the soldiers was also damaged.
Asserting responsibility for the assault, Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid claimed that eight foreign troops were killed and two ISAF tanks destroyed.
Pajhwok Afghan News
July 5, 2012
German soldier wounded in Kunduz attack
By Wahidullahon
KUNDUZ CITY: Two German soldiers with the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) were wounded in a militant attack in northern Kunduz province, the defence ministry in Berlin announced on Thursday.
A statement from the ministry said the troops wounded in Wednesday attack were under treatment at an ISAF medical facility. Their injuries were not life-threatening, it added.
But a source in the German-led Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) told Pajhwok Afghan News that only one soldier was injured in the assault in the insurgent assault in Chahar Dara district.
Col. Ghulam Mohiuddin, the district police chief, said the Taliban attacked a foot patrol of German troops in the Sarak-i-Bala area, wounding one trooper. A vehicle of the soldiers was also damaged.
Asserting responsibility for the assault, Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid claimed that eight foreign troops were killed and two ISAF tanks destroyed.