Posted on 10/14/2009 6:25:18 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
When ten French soldiers were killed last year in an ambush by Afghan insurgents in what had seemed a relatively peaceful area, the French public were horrified.
Their revulsion increased with the news that many of the dead soldiers had been mutilated — and with the publication of photographs showing the militants triumphantly sporting their victims’ flak jackets and weapons. The French had been in charge of the Sarobi area, east of Kabul, for only a month, taking over from the Italians; it was one of the biggest single losses of life by Nato forces in Afghanistan.
What the grieving nation did not know was that in the months before the French soldiers arrived in mid-2008, the Italian secret service had been paying tens of thousands of dollars to Taleban commanders and local warlords to keep the area quiet, The Times has learnt. The clandestine payments, whose existence was hidden from the incoming French forces, were disclosed by Western military officials.
US intelligence officials were flabbergasted when they found out through intercepted telephone conversations that the Italians had also been buying off militants, notably in Herat province in the far west. In June 2008, several weeks before the ambush, the US Ambassador in Rome made a démarche, or diplomatic protest, to the Berlusconi Government over allegations concerning the tactic.
However, a number of high-ranking officers in Nato have told The Times that payments were subsequently discovered to have been made in the Sarobi area as well.
Western officials say that because the French knew nothing of the payments they made a catastrophically incorrect threat assessment.
“One cannot be too doctrinaire about these things,” a senior Nato officer in Kabul said. “It might well make sense to buy off local groups and use non-violence to keep violence down.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
It’s time to resume shock and awe over there.
Big time.
Sounds like the Italians used very poor judgment. Even to a lay person it would seem obvious that the Italians should have mentioned to the French, that the region was quiet because they were making payoffs. Without those payoffs, the region would therefore be more risky.
The Italians blindsided the French, no two ways about it.
I note this attack was carried out by the Taliban. Obama sure had them pegged right. “They’re no threat. Only Al Qaeda is our enemy.”
May God help our troops with this neanderthal in there.
You want to come into the 21st Century, welcome aboard. You want to live like primitive tribes, keep it within your own borders and leave the rest of us to be civilized.
No war needed. Just a real tight blockade, air, ground, and sea.
Screw these appeasing governments, the guys on the ground are another story. Soldiers first.
Is that you Mr Cheney?
We cant seal our own border.
How are we gonna seal theirs?
Well,
What did we expect?
This is what happens when you pay off bastards you should be putting holes into.
This money only goes to purchase weapons & sustenance that they can use in Hot Zones and once the aid is cut off, an illiterate and brainwashed enemy becomes belligerent Heck, The Talibunnies probably couldn’t tell the damn difference between a French and an Italian, they might of saw the Frog Flag and thought Red White and Blue must mean ‘American.’ No more money? Let’s Ambush, Abdullah!
These pricks need to be cut down and slaughtered like the wild animals that they are. Why we don’t know this is beyond me. These are the same fanatical bastards that harbored the terrorists that killed almost 3,000 of us 8 years ago!
Our problem is our people don’t have the stomach or courage for conflict. The Europeans are worse. One of the biggest weaknesses of Democracy is that it breeds cowards and the cowardice becomes generational and the efforts to construct a facade to continue the cowardice become more absurd and ridiculous. That’s what we have here, kids.
We can’t buy off the Taliban. It’s the most ignorant concept ever. We should be shredding them up like pulled pork covered with barbecue sauce.
Which is why we are fouling up by letting Brussels be in charge.
Now we are begging for more euroleadership.
I agree with you 100%
Posted on 08/26/2006 3:54:21 PM PDT by familyop
Rome, 10 August (AKI) - Italy will have to rely on its relationship with Iran to play a role in the Middle East, says Abolfazl Zohrevand, Tehran's new ambassador to Rome. In an interview to Tehran's radical Kayhan paper, the ambassador said that "Italy, as one of the eight major world powers, is looking for a more relevant role in the Middle East - a role it won't be able to play if it doesn't exploit its relations with Iran."
Ambassador Zohrevand also called for "stronger support to the Islamic Republic from the new government" of centre-left premier Romano Prodi, which was sworn in in May. The diplomat said such support was likely given that, "contrary to (the previous conservative prime minister Silvio) Berlusconi, Prodi doesn't pursue the objective of helping US interests in the region."
Zohrevand said top on his agenda as the Iranian ambassador in Rome was to "create the conditions enabling the Islamic Republic to make the most of Italy's presence within the European Union, the board of governors of the IAEA (the UN atomic watchdog, International Atomic Energy Agency) and international institutions."
Italy is Iran's main trading partner in Europe and commercial relations between the two countries were reportedly worth five billion euros in 2005.
(Rah/Aki)
Posted on 05/27/2006 4:34:21 PM PDT by familyop
(AGI) - Rome, May 26 - Economic sanctions under discussion against Iran would damage Italy in particular, which is an important trade partner of Iran. This was the statement by Foreign Minister Massimo D'Alema, in an interview with the Israeli newspaper "Maariv". The head of the foreign office warned of the risks of an escalation in the international clash over the nuclear program of the Islamic Republic. "not only us, but also Americans believe that the possibility of a military attack on Iran is a disastrous possibility", explained D'Alema, "when we find ourselves faced with such a choice, we must evaluate costs and benefits for all parties involved". The foreign ministry spokesperson, Pasquale Terracciano, explained in a briefing that D'Alema feels that it is important for Italy to be involved in negotiations on the Iranian nuclear program. "In the un-hoped-for possibility in which an agreement cannot be found, Italy will pay a price and it is only fair that it has a say in the matter and not only because others have raised their voices". Terracciano spoke about the fact that on Tuesday Italy participated in London with the political director Giulio Terzi in a meeting as part of the G8 on Iran's nuclear program. "The countries of the G8 must be joined together in dealing with this delicate international issue", insisted the foreign office spokesperson, especially because Italy believes it has " a particular format adapted to favouring the treatment of sensitive political issues". (AGI) .
Cleaning up after the Italians has always been a dirty thankless chore.
Good point. ‘bout time we find someone who will do both.
(AGI) - Berlin, Aug. 26 - After having a protagonist role for peace in Lebanon Italy asks to take part in the 5+ 1 group that negotiates with Iran on nuclear. Foreign minister, Massimo D'Alema in an interview to "Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung" asks a place near to the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. "We are Iran's most important commercial partners with Germany and we are pledged in Lebanon with Hezbollah. So we have the right to be included in the negotiation with Iran. The goal is not a new conflict but talks aimed at preventing Iran from having an atomic bomb, he said. Italy searched for a greater G8 involvement in the negotiation with Iran but it remained excluded from the 5 plus 1, the group that started a negotiation with Tehran offering incentives in exchange for the suspension of the uranium enrichment program. This exclusion was due to the fact that Rome was not part of the European trio (France, Germany and UK) that had tried the first mediation with Tehran and represented the EU in the 5 plus 1. D'Alema remembered that the United Nations and the EU had not a role in the Iraqi crisis, and warned that the new opportunity in Lebanon could not be missed now. "It is a very difficult mission full of unknown points but it is worth pledging or the only alternative would be a new burst of war" he said. The foreign minister, was sceptical on the possibility of a new UN resolution for the mission in Lebanon asked by the US. "I'm sceptical about it, because in these situations they always open long negotiations. The strategic plan is clear and the resolution was completed defining the rules of engagement. If they will make a new resolution soon I agree with them but the most important thing is getting there as soon as possible (In Lebanon)" he said.
Lately I’ve been reading Churchill’s “The Malakand Field Force”. Sounds like the Afghanistan-Muslim situation viz. the West hasn’t changed much in the past 100+ years.
...and influences on our politicians by way of Italian-American lobbies,...
Vatican Condemns Israel for Attacks on Lebanon
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1665678/posts
US pressure prompts delay of [Israel’s] offensive (”We do not want escalations” - White House)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1680983/posts
Israel Asks U.S. to Ship Rockets With Wide Blast-State Department seeks to delay supply
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1681771/posts
I guess my response would be that nations should ween themselves off trade entanglements that were problematic, but then who are we to talk? We might just as well put bulls-eyes on our foreheads for China.
Carter and now Obama do so much less than they think to stabilize the world. These guys not only destabilize the Middle-East, but also Europe.
Just imagine if the Shah’s family were still in charge of Iran. What a different situation that region would be in.
We also need a cultural, and religious blockade, just like the one THEY HAVE!
Is the Italian position one that it would fight against Hezballah if it went after the Lebanese government?
It seems it would be helpful to have one of Tehran’s main trading partners in on the (nuclear centered) negotiations. Perhaps Tehran would take the talks more serious.
I appreciate your archived article.
It’s just unconscionable to deny Israel what it needs. Hezbollah is arming to the teeth in southern Lebanon. Why are they playing supply games.
The Vatican should be wiser than to criticize Israel here.
I don’t like the storm clouds on the horizon one bit.
No argument here.
Agreed. And because of our trade entanglements, it might be a good idea for anyone who can, to have a place prepared in a remote area. I’m building such a site now and will also be building an emergency radio commo system here, including digital (great site for antennae). It’s well over a mile off of the grid, so there’s much to do. ...buttoning things up and powering more up for the long winter ahead now (about 8 months of winter here).
Good for you. I think you may need that place sooner than you think too. And one mile, is probably considerably less than what you really need to be safe. You’ve got the right idea IMO.
It worked for the US in Iraq...
Posted on 07/20/2006 12:48:50 AM PDT by familyop
"The ship is sinking and all of us, the Lebanese, should stick together and work together to stop the Israeli aggression," Amin Gemayel, a Maronite Christian who served as president from 1982 to 1988, told the Arabic-language TV station Al-Jazeera . . . Michel Aoun, a one-time commander in Lebanon's 15-year civil war who now serves in parliament, said . . . "I don't think that Israel has the capability to destroy Hezbollah militarily because Hezbollah is not a group of armed men," Aoun said. "Hezbollah is a major part of the Lebanese social fabric."
(Excerpt) Read more at edition.cnn.com ...
[There was a photo, but it's gone now. The caption that was with it remains behind the link above. Here's the caption.]
"From left, Prime Minister Faoud Siniora, Saad Hariri and ex-President Amin Gemayel pose with Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah in June."
Posted on 09/12/2007 2:12:26 AM PDT by familyop
Beirut: Boutros Harb, long-serving Maronite Lebanese Member of Parliament, is standing for president and reaching out to the Shiite Hezbollah, across the political divide in the country.
He is part of the ruling anti-Syrian coalition, called 14 March, but he has hopes of support from parts of the pro-Syrian opposition coalition, called 8 March. Harb spoke on the Shiite TV station NBN earlier this week, and to Gulf News the day before.
"I have proposed that the Lebanese army and government must be in control of declaring war, and that we should find a way to incorporate Hezbollah's forces into the army. But this has to be on the condition that the Lebanese government and army accept the full duty of being ready to fight and protect Hezbollah if Israel attacks," he said, adding that it was also important that Lebanon had to liberate the occupied territory of the Sheba'a Farms from Israel.
"A president has to be ready to fight against Israel whenever the country is attacked. The present president does not have a vision and was not ready to lead when Israel attacked Lebanon last year," he added, making clear that if the plan is implemented, Hezbollah would not be on its own in any future fight against Israel, as it was last summer, but nor could it initiate conflict.
The 1989 Taif Accord required all the militias to disband, but the only militia which refused to do this was Hezbollah, thanks to Syrian agreement. The guarantors of the Taif Accord were Saudi Arabia, Morocco and Algeria, but "unfortunately they were unable to enforce it because Saddam invaded Kuwait, the Americans formed alliances with several Arab Muslim states, including Syria, to send troops to fight Saddam. And this new alliance allowed Syria to ignore Taif, and so gave Lebanon to Syria", he said.
Encouraged
Harb told Gulf News that he was encouraged this week by the tacit approval for his electoral programme indicated by a deliberate silence from Hezbollah, pointing out that if they wanted to oppose it, a torrent of furious comments would have emerged.
Within the ruling 14 March coalition, Harb is competing with Nassib Lahoud for the presidency, but feels that he has a wider appeal across all communities. The opposition candidate, former general Michel Aoun, who has bizarrely allied himself with his former enemies, Hezbollah, is facing a challenge in getting support from enough parties in parliament. For example, Druze leader Walid Junblatt spoke out a few days ago making very clear that he will not support an Aoun presidency "under any circumstances".
Harb's election manifesto is based on starting a new presidency with a programme of reuniting all the parties in Lebanon through accepting the constitution, and implementing the 1989 Taif Accord in full. The accord redrafted the Lebanese constitution giving more power to the Sunni and Shiite parties, and reducing the powers of the Maronite presidency.
This election is the first after the shocking assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, which triggered huge popular outrage and led to the political reshaping of the alliances in what is called the Ceder Revolution, which vastly reduced the Syrians' direct influence in Lebanon. This new atmosphere, combined with the Americans's efforts to reduce Syria's influence in the Middle East at large, is why Harb thinks his ideas have a better chance than ever before.
AT A GLANCE Crucial weeks ahead for the country
- Lebanon's president is voted in by a simple majority of the 128 members of parliament, as long as two-thirds of the MPs take part.
- Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri has refused to call parliament for over a year due to the political turmoil.
--September 25: Speaker Berri has called for a special session of parliament to vote for a new president.
--It is unlikely that the traditional agreement between all parties on a consensus candidate will be achieved.
--Following weeks: Intense lobbying to find a suitable consensus
--November 15: Ten days before incumbent Emile Lahoud's term runs out, parliament has to reassemble in a special session to vote for a new president, again by simple majority.
--Constitutional experts are arguing over whether this special session requires a 50 per cent turnout of MPs or still needs the two-thirds turnout of the earlier session. The answer to this is vital since a lower quorum reduces the opportunity to block a candidate.
--November 25: Incumbent Emile Lahoud has to leave office. Parliament should have voted in a new candidate by this date. If not, Lebanon faces even more political and constitutional confusion.
D’Alema is a Communist, the son of two high level Communists.
Which leads to questions as to why he had such a post in the Burlesconi administration.
The US has left plenty of sh!t behind too @sshole.
You’ve really got to question a guy’s sanity who considers Hezbollah to be his best friend. Israel is the only reason why Lebanon still exists. Syria would march over it about ten minutes after Israel was destroyed.
We live in a time where leaders are almost insane. It’s okay if Hezbollah occupies southern Lebanon in perpetuity, but it’s terrible if Israel drives them out then leaves.
Go figure...
Not the most thoughful post ever written.
Freepmail.
When the Italy sided with Hitler’s Germany early on in WWII the British said ‘We had them in WWI and the Germans are certainly welcome to them’ or words to that effect.
Now you’re talkin. ;-)
On D’Alema, Forzia does not like communists. It’s a Parliament, so they have no choice but to share power. Forzia, on the other hand, was combined from a more or less conservative constituency and a fascist party.
I would rather that the majority in Italy were more pro-American and hope to do a tiny part to help facilitate that by posting facts that most people ignore (entertainment information overload from television). In other words, honestly define the problem, then proceed to solve it. Some Italian-Americans even fought against Italy for the USA and our allies during WWII (remembering a family of dear friends of my own).
Oh this is getting upsetting. Wish we could just pay O to go home.
Love the proposal but implementation will be tough. More drastic measures might be needed.
GFY
Italy did not receive the reparations the “Allies” promised for her participation in WW1 and ended up a victor with 1 million dead and treachery from France, Britain and England. Add to this the Kellogg Briand Treaty which reduced Italy to a third rate power, and the hypocritical posturing of England, France and the USA who had colonial territories, but decided after WW1 that the new world order would only permit France, Britain and the USA to hold colonial assets.
I owe you bro
TREACHERY? Had not italy been given the Veneto by the central powers, as france took the cote d’azure from them. Had not Italy signed a binding alliance with the German powers, the famous triple alliance. Did not italy readily abrogate that solemn commitment and sell herself like a prostitute to france and England for what were just hollow promises? But it was just as well. Italy did more damage to the cental Europeans being allied with them in the 40’s than as an enemy in the teens.
No thanks douchbag
Italy lost over 1 million soldiers fighting the Great war and was denied the promises of territories in Germany and the Ottoman Empire by the Big Three and the Kellog Briand Pact resticting the size of naval forces reducing Italy to a third rate power after sacrificing sll of her blood and treasure to defeat the Huns and Ottomans for the allied powers. Learn history.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.