War against terror

[brgnorway 0]

Big download, around 4GB. Show is about 25 minutes long - no commercials.

After a while, Dutch and Afghan sound the same to me.

No gore, so it's forum safe.

Amazing footage. Not fun.

Poor balschoiw!

With thanks to Rizla Ranger for the heads-up on this OFP NG thread. Maxres Riz!

Strange........the talking in the first convoy you see is norwegian! He's saying "where is my gun" and something with " ........ when you see him you got to pull it/him back"

[theavonlady 2]

Strange........the talking in the first convoy you see is norwegian!

Joint patrol perhaps?

[Balschoiw 0]

I have been a bad boy and I regret it deeply.

[brgnorway 0]

Nice to hear you haven't lost your sarcastic touch - and that you are alright of course!

Stay safe Balschiow!

Happy New year!

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]Mysterious jet tied to torture flights

Sat Jan 8, 9:40 AM ET

Add to My Yahoo! Top Stories - Chicago Tribune

By John Crewdson Tribune senior correspondent

The first question is: Where is Leonard T. Bayard? The next question is: Who is Leonard T. Bayard? But the most important question may be: Does Leonard T. Bayard even exist?

The questions arise because the signature of a Leonard Thomas Bayard appears on the annual report of a Portland-based company, Bayard Foreign Marketing LLC, that was filed in August with the Oregon secretary of state.

According to federal records, Bayard Foreign Marketing is the newest owner of a U.S.-registered Gulfstream V executive jet reportedly used since Sept. 11, 2001, to transport suspected Al Qaeda operatives to countries such as Egypt and Syria, where some of them claim to have later been tortured.

The Central Intelligence Agency (news - web sites) has declined to discuss the plane. But one retired CIA (news - web sites) officer said that he understood the Gulfstream had been operated by the Joint Special Operations Command, an interagency unit that organizes counterterrorist operations in conjunction with the CIA and military special forces.

A search of commercial databases turned up no information on Leonard Thomas Bayard: no residence address, no telephone number, no Social Security (news - web sites) number, no credit history, no automobile or property ownership records--in short, none of the information commonly associated with real people.

And yet, someone signed the name Leonard T. Bayard to Bayard Foreign Marketing's annual report.

The report, which describes the company as an "international marketing firm," lists Bayard's principal place of business as a suite in a historic downtown Portland office building known as the Pittock Block. But a visitor to the suite who asked to see Bayard was told by a receptionist only that "Mr. Bayard doesn't work here."

The telephone number on Bayard's annual report is listed to a private residence in a rundown section of northeast Portland whose doorbell went unanswered earlier this week. Calls to that number, however, appear to be answered by a bank of operators.

An initial call was answered as "Baynard Foreign Marketing" by an operator who insisted she never had heard of Leonard Bayard. A second call two minutes later was answered as "Bayard Foreign Marketing" by a different operator, who said that "Mr. Bayard is away from his desk."

A message left by a reporter went unanswered. The CIA has long had a well-known practice of "backstopping" local telephone numbers for its proprietary companies around the world, whose calls are forwarded to operators at CIA headquarters in Langley, Va.

Scott Caplan, an attorney whose offices occupy the same Portland suite as the one listed by Bayard Foreign Marketing, identified Bayard as "a client" but declined to say more. Public documents show it was Caplan who filed the incorporation papers for Bayard Foreign Marketing when the company was created in August 2003.

Ann Martens, a spokeswoman for Oregon Secretary of State Bill Bradbury, said that knowingly filing a false corporate document in Oregon is punishable by up to 6 months in prison and a $1,000 fine.

November sale

Leonard T. Bayard--whoever he may or may not be--became the sole owner of the mysterious Gulfstream jet on Nov. 16, according to public records compiled by the Federal Aviation Administration (news - web sites).

The records show that Bayard Foreign Marketing purchased the plane, for an undisclosed sum, from Premier Executive Transport Services, whose address is the same as that of a Dedham, Mass., law firm that incorporated Premier Executive in January 1994.

The Massachusetts law firm's address is shared by a second company, Crowell Aviation Technologies Inc., which according to Dun & Bradstreet claims to have only a single employee and $65,000 in annual revenue.

Government records show, however, that Crowell is one of only nine companies, along with Premier Executive, that has Pentagon (news - web sites) permission to land aircraft at military bases worldwide.

The same day it transferred ownership of the Gulfstream to Bayard, Premier Executive sold an unmarked, 3-year-old Boeing 737 to Keeler and Tate Management LLC of Reno. That company's address is the same as that of the Reno law firm that incorporated it in October 2003, records show.

Like Leonard T. Bayard, the only named principal in Keeler and Tate, one Tyler Edward Tate, also appears not to exist in any public records accessible by the Tribune.

Premier Executive's only listed executive is its president, Bryan P. Dyess. A person with that name does appear in commercial databases, but his only addresses are two post office boxes in Arlington, Va., not far from CIA headquarters.

Premier Executive purchased or leased the new Gulfstream V in 1999, FAA (news - web sites) records show. The plane's original registration number, N581GA, would later be changed by the FAA to N379P, and again to 8068V.

The first public mention of the Gulfstream appeared six weeks after Sept. 11, 2001, when a Pakistani newspaper reported that Jamil Qasim Saeed Mohammed, a 27-year-old microbiology student at Karachi University, had been spirited aboard the plane at Karachi's airport by Pakistani security officers in the early hours of Oct. 23, 2001.

There is no information about where Mohammed was taken. But Pakistani officials said later that Mohammed, a Yemeni national, was believed by the U.S. to belong to Al Qaeda and to have information about the October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole (news - web sites).

Since Sept. 11, unnamed U.S. officials have been quoted in several publications discussing the U.S. practice of "rendition," which involves sending suspected terrorists or Al Qaeda supporters captured abroad for interrogation to countries where human rights are not traditionally respected.

Well-documented case

One well-documented rendition occurred in December 2001, when two Egyptian nationals, Ahmed Agiza and Muhammed al-Zery, were flown aboard the Gulfstream from Sweden's Bromma airport to Cairo. A Swedish television broadcaster, TV4, reported last year that a check of the plane's registration number, N379P, showed it belonged to Premier Executive.

The Swedish ambassador to Cairo later said Agiza and al-Zery both told him they had been tortured by Egyptian police. Al-Zery was released in October 2003 without charges. Agiza was sentenced to 25 years in prison for his alleged membership in an Egyptian terrorist group.

The Swedish government has called on Egypt to agree to an international investigation into the torture charges. The government has said it had been assured by Egypt that the two men would not be mistreated.

Another widely reported rendition to Egypt occurred in January 2002, when the Gulfstream arrived in Jakarta, Indonesia, to pick up a 24-year-old Al Qaeda suspect and dual Egyptian-Pakistani citizen, Muhammad Saad Iqbal, and transport him to Cairo.

German intelligence sources later said Indonesia refused to permit subsequent renditions to Cairo after learning that Iqbal had been tortured.

An international network of "plane spotters," hobbyists who log the comings and goings of specific aircraft around the world, have posted on the Internet photographs of the Gulfstream in various locations.

The Sunday Times of London, which claimed to have obtained the plane's flight logs, reported in November that the plane was based at Dulles International Airport outside Washington. The newspaper said it had flown to at least 49 destinations outside the U.S., including Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, other U.S. military bases, as well as airports in Egypt, Jordan, Iraq (news - web sites), Morocco, Afghanistan (news - web sites), Libya and Uzbekistan.

Two days after the Sunday Times report, Premier Executive Transport sold the Gulfstream to Bayard Foreign Marketing. On Dec. 1, records show, the FAA assigned the plane yet another tail number, N44982.

Link

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

lol, did you see the car on the back of the camel?

[Necromancer- 0]

Balschoiw... uhh..

Isn't that classified information that you're posting here?

[ran 0]

Balschoiw... uhh..

Isn't that classified information that you're posting here?

No accurate location, orbat or activities description, I guess it's allright.

[Necromancer- 0]

Balschoiw... uhh..

Isn't that classified information that you're posting here?

No accurate location, orbat or activities description, I guess it's allright.

Incase it IS classified...

Quick, make copies!

[turms 0]

Thanks for the heads up Balls, stay safe!

[Tovarish 0]

U.S. jets buzz Iran airspace

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON – U.S. military warplanes flew over Iranian air space, raising Tehran's concerns preparations are being made to knock out its nuclear facilities, according to Iranian news media reports.

The U.S. jets reportedly flew out of bases in Afghanistan and Iraq, with the latest coming Saturday when a fighter buzzed at low altitude an area in the northeastern province of Khorrasan, which borders Afghanistan.

Other reports of overflights cited intrusions by F-16 and F-18 fighters over the southwestern province of Khuzestan, which borders southern Iraq. Papers said the planes appeared to be spying on nuclear sites.

The U.S. military was silent on the veracity of the reports. However, one source said he would not be surprised if the reports were accurate, given the building international tensions over the state of Iran's nuclear weapons program. "The circular maneuvering of the two American fighters indicated them as carrying out spying sorties and controlling the borders," said an Iranian official.

Less than a week earlier, Iranian air force chief Brig. Karim Qavami was quoted as having ordered his forces to open fire and shoot down any unidentified aircraft violating the country's airspace.

"Given that the intrusion of enemy aircraft over Iran's airspace is possible, all fighter jets of the country have been ordered by the army chief to shoot them down in the event of sighting them," he said.

In August, five U.S. warplanes entered Iranian airspace from the southwestern Shalamcheh border and overflew Khorramshahr. Iranian military specialists believe the intrusions are designed to assess the capabilities of Iran's anti-aircraft defenses.

Army chief Gen. Mohammad Salimi also said the Iranian air force has been ordered to defend the country`s nuclear sites in the event of an attack.

"The air force has been ordered to protect the nuclear sites, using all its power," the daily Iran quoted Salimi as saying, adding the air force had temporarily suspended all its maneuvers to focus its capabilities on patrolling the skies over Iran.

Such statements have raised the stakes in a war of words amid foreign press speculation about possible Israeli and American attack on Iran`s nuclear facilities. Iranian military commanders have warned of grave consequences if any such attack takes place.

U.S. test simulates attack on Iran's nuke sites

Quote[/b] ]The U.S. Defense Department reportedly has completed simulated war games to determine the feasibility of destroying Iran's nuclear weapons program.

The Atlantic Monthly magazine reported in its latest issue that the Pentagon held simulations of a U.S. military strike on Iranian bases and nuclear facilities. The magazine said the recent war games also included a ground invasion of Iran.

The simulation envisioned a three-phase war against Iran. The first phase was composed of air strikes against bases of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, believed to control Iran's nuclear and missile programs.

U.S. intelligence sources were quoted as saying that such a strike would require one day and would be the easiest part of any military campaign.

The second part of the simulation consisted of air strikes on suspected Iranian nonconventional weapons sites and support facilities. The magazine said the Pentagon and intelligence community identified 300 such sites, including 125 biological, chemical and nuclear complexes.

The third part was a ground invasion of Iran from five directions in an operation that would take about two weeks. U.S. troops would enter from Iraq, the northern Persian Gulf, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan and Georgia.

In the simulation, American troops surrounded but did not enter Tehran. Washington then helped appoint an Iranian government friendly to the United States.

The magazine said a war against Iran would be dangerous. The simulation was said to have included Iranian counterattacks, including use of its missile arsenal as well as insurgency attacks in the Gulf and Iraq. The exercise also took into account al-Qaida strikes inside the United States.

Members of the National Security Council, CIA, Pentagon and State Department attended the simulation, Atlantic reported.

The magazine said the simulation envisioned a scenario in which the International Atomic Energy Agency announced it no longer maintained hope in Iranian pledges to stop its uranium enrichment program.

A day following the IAEA announcement, according to the simulation, Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei announced that Tehran would continue its nuclear program. At that point, the scenario envisioned a 9 a.m. Friday National Security Council meeting to discuss an imminent U.S. military strike.

The Pentagon exercise also envisioned the need for U.S. help from its Middle East allies. This included the use of air space of Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey as well as air refueling facilities by Israel

[theavonlady 2]

/avon sends hubby to check on gas masks

[Baphomet 0]

What do you think? Sabre rattling at this point? Or do you really think the U.S is going to try to fight another nation in the middle east whilst still apparently embroiled in conflict in two other nations?

Sounds like intimidation at this point. I couldn't imagine the U.S government being so foolhardy as to bite off more than it could chew dropping bombs on Iran before things in Iraq are reasonably calm.

Anyhow.

Quote[/b] ]OTTAWA (CP) - The fact that Canada hasn't suffered a terrorist attack after 9-11 is largely luck, not good planning and preparedness, says a Senate report.

You know, to be honest. I really don't think that's the reason why. Canada just sort of pales in comparison to the United States when it comes to enticing terrorist targets (why bomb in Canada when you can blow something up right next door in the throne of the "great satan" itself?). Also we currently are -not- sympathetic to the initiative to send troops to aide invasions. Which didn't leave us in good stead with ol' Dubya. Jean Chretien wasn't exactly liked by or like Dubya either.

We've received some especially bad press from that american extremist Ann Coulter, foaming at the mouth and spewing much xenophobic and idiotic diarrhea about Canada and our lack of obsequious committment to the United States. Apparently the chief source of her ire for us is the fact that "we're" french.

All that could be looked upon favorably by the enemies of the U.S. Even though we supported them when they were attacked, we aren't about to take up arms and knock over countries with them. We're not active participants in my opinion in the war on terror. This could be looked upon as divisive. Our current relations with the U.S could be seen as such that we're not at the top of their hit list and may remain there for a while if things stay that way.

We're also not as wealthy as the U.S so naturally our country will opt to spend as much as is deemed necessary on security. We don't have a magic tree that grows deficit money on which to finance national security. So if we're not seen as a top threat, then chances are we're not going to spend that way. Which is something of an unfortunate boon for potential terrorists. Not to mention that we're right next door so not getting our country paranoid is going to make it easier for them to get "close" to the U.S at the very least.

Not a good situation for us. I blame lack of money and perhaps the lack of readiness to throw our country into debt over the issue. I still think keeping our side of the border secure as we possibly can should be a priority. It's just the neighborly thing to do.

[Tovarish 0]

What do you think? Sabre rattling at this point? Or do you really think the U.S is going to try to fight another nation in the middle east whilst still apparently embrioled in conflict in two other nations?

Sounds like intimidation at this point. I couldn't imagine the U.S government being so foolhardy as to bite off more than it could chew dropping bombs on Iran before things in Iraq are reasonably calm.

That's what I think, but what would happen if these planes got intercepted? Remember Iran has a good number of F-14's, and manufactures Phoenix missiles. I've also heard that these planes may have gotten some Russian upgrades. For that matter, how would Iran react if it lost fighters while defending it's own airspace?

[bucket man 2]

Iran has F-14's operational? I thought they were all grounded because of lack of spare parts.

[ran 0]

Iran has F-14's operational? I thought they were all grounded because of lack of spare parts.

Reverse engineering anyone ?

I doubt a piece of 70's technology couldn't be reverse enginered nowadays.

[walker 0]

What do you think? Sabre rattling at this point? Or do you really think the U.S is going to try to fight another nation in the middle east whilst still apparently embrioled in conflict in two other nations?

Sounds like intimidation at this point. I couldn't imagine the U.S government being so foolhardy as to bite off more than it could chew dropping bombs on Iran before things in Iraq are reasonably calm.

That's what I think, but what would happen if these planes got intercepted? Remember Iran has a good number of F-14's, and manufactures Phoenix missiles. I've also heard that these planes may have gotten some Russian upgrades. For that matter, how would Iran react if it lost fighters while defending it's own airspace?

Hi all

A great way for Dubya to excuse bringing in the Draft. Nothing takes the peoples minds off a stagnant economy like a war; as Hitler new, but maybe I am being too cynical.

Kind Regards Walker

[Tovarish 0]

Iran has F-14's operational? I thought they were all grounded because of lack of spare parts.  

They reportedly do have trouble getting some parts, but they do have many of them operational. One actually crashed recently:

Quote[/b] ]TEHRAN (AFP) Jun 21, 2004

An Iranian Air Force F-14 fighter plane has crashed during a training flight, killing the two crew on board, the official news agency IRNA reported Monday.

The jet, bought from the the United States prior to the 1979 Islamic revolution, crashed while it was trying to land at a base near the central city of Isfahan.

Most of Iran's commercial and military planes are of US origin, and the country has a hard time finding spare parts due to a US embargo.

The report said the crash was being investigated.

Iran has actually done pretty well when it comes to military technology, IMHO. They've completely reverse engineered the Phoenix and manufacture it, and as well as fielding the F-14, MiG-29 and F-4, they have some interesting indigenous types of their own (though mostly based on the F-5):

Saeqeh-80

Shafaq

[Necromancer- 0]

That fighter looks very small compared to the US Navy fighters I've seen...

[Tovarish 0]

That fighter looks very small compared to the US Navy fighters I've seen...

Well, neither is from the U.S. - though the Saeqeh-80 has it's roots there, and neither is a Navy fighter

The Saeqeh-80 is small because it's based on the F-5 and that's no heavyweight - even so it is bigger than the F-5

The Shafaq is based on a MiG design for a lightweight multirole aircraft, and started out as a joint venture with Russia, until the Russians left it to the Iranians under U.S. pressure.

[der bastler 0]

[sOT]

Speaking of War against Terror...

http://dl.lustich.net/downloa....ror.wmv

http://dl.lustich.net/download/76-40-video-342c4291/nahost-frieden.wmv

(found them recently)

[/sOT]

[Tovarish 0]

well then, this seems to be getting serious:

US Congress targets Iran for regime change

Quote[/b] ]Support for “regime change†in Iran is growing in Congress, encouraging new exiled opposition groups supported by Washington's neoconservatives to spring up in the hope of receiving US funding.

Having adopted legislation in the past aimed at Cuba and Iraq, Republicans and Democrats in both houses are starting to champion political reform in Tehran.

The activity comes amid a magazine report that the US has been carrying out secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran in preparation for possible military strikes.

However, Dan Bartlett, a counsellor to George W. Bush, US president, said the article by Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker magazine was “riddled with inaccuraciesâ€.

Lawrence DiRita, Pentagon spokesman, said Mr Hersh had been fed with “rumour, innuendo and assertions about meetings that never happened, programmes that do not exist, and statements by officials that were never madeâ€.

One Washington exile group the Alliance for Democracy in Iran describes itself as an opposition umbrella group that would act as a “clearing house†for US taxpayers' money dedicated to advancing the cause of democracy.

“Our true purpose is to empower the Iranian people, to change the regime to become more democratic,†said Kamal Azari, the alliance president. He stressed that the group renounced violence.

In Congress, the proposed Iran Freedom and Support Act calls on the Bush administration to back “regime change†and promote alliances with opposition groups that renounce terrorism.

A similar bill in the House does not mention regime change but would back pro-democracy groups.

Pakistan helping US plan air strikes in Iran

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON: The United States is said to have set up an elite commando task force in South Asia which is “working closely with Pakistani scientists and technicians who had dealt with Iranian counterparts†for a possible search and destroy mission against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

According to an exclusive report in the New Yorker magazine, the Bush administration has been conducting secret missions inside Iran at least since last summer to gather intelligence and targeting information on Iranian nuclear, chemical, and missile sites. “The goal is to identify and isolate three dozen, and perhaps more, such targets that could be destroyed by precision strikes and short-term commando raids,†writes investigative reporter Seymour M Hersh.

Hersh was told by a government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon that the civilians in the Pentagon, such as Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, “want to go into Iran and destroy as much of the military infrastructure as possibleâ€.

A former high-level intelligence official told him that Islamabad was cooperating with the US in return for the assurance that Pakistan will not have to hand over nuclear scientist Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan for interrogation outside the country.

FO denies involvement

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan on Monday denied reports that it was helping US forces for air strikes in Iran. “There is no such collaboration,†foreign ministry spokesman Masood Khan said. “We do not have much information about Iran’s nuclear programme so I think this report is far-fetched and it exaggerates facts which do not exist in the first place,†Khan told a weekly press briefing in Islamabad. “I do not think there is any substance in what has been reported. I think this is pure conjecture.â€

US searching for weapons in Iran: report

Quote[/b] ]US commandos have already begun searching for secret chemical and nuclear weapon sites in Iran, according to a new report.

The Bush administration views the hard-line Islamic country as the next big war zone, an unnamed former intelligence official told this week's The New Yorker magazine.

"This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign," he said "Next, we're going to have the Iranian campaign.

"We've declared war and the bad guys, wherever they are, are the enemy. This is the last hurrah - we've got four years, and want to come out of this saying we won the war on terrorism."

Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, who first revealed the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal in Iraq, claims US teams have penetrated eastern Iran with Pakistan's help.

He asserts he was repeatedly told that the next strategic target was Iran.

"Everyone is saying, `You can't be serious about targeting Iran. Look at Iraq," the ex-intelligence official said.

"But they say, `We've got some lessons learned - not militarily, but how we did it politically. We're not going to rely on agency pissants. No loose ends, and that's why the CIA is out of there."

Iran has long resisted demands to open its nuclear energy program to inspectors, fuelling speculation and international tensions.

While it has agreed to temporarily halt its enrichment programs, which generate fuel for nuclear power plants, western countries including Britain are aiming to persuade its leaders to go further and dismantle its machinery.

In return, Iran is reportedly calling for solid benefits from Europe, including oil-production technology and heavy-industrial equipment.

Hersh told CNN that if targets are lined up by this summer, US attacks may follow.

The report suggests that the Bush Administration has been conducting secret missions in Iran since last summer with intelligence gathering on nuclear, chemical and missile sites forming the focus.

"The goal is to identify and isolate three dozen, and perhaps more, such targets that could be destroyed by precision strikes and short-term commando raids," it reads.

Hersh quotes a government consultant who claims certain Pentagon civilians "want to go into Iran and destroy as much of the military infrastructure as possible".

The war on terror will be expanded in President George Bush's second term and effectively placed under the control of the Pentagon, headed by hard-line Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the journalist alleges, the aim being to rid America and its allies of a major state sponsor of terrorism.

The Pentagon later issued a sharp rebuttal to the article, describing it as "so riddled with errors of fundamental fact that the credibility of his entire piece is destroyed".

Spokesman Lawrence Di Rita claimed Hersh's sources had fed him "rumour, innuendo, and assertions about meetings that never happened, programs that do not exist, and statements by officials that were never made."

He said Iran's apparent nuclear ambitions and support for terrorist organisations were a global challenge that deserved "much more serious treatment" than the article, titled The Coming Wars.

"By his own admission, Mr Hersh is evidently working on an 'alternative history' novel," the statement read. "He is well along in that work, given the high quality of 'alternative present' that he has developed in several recent articles."

In the aftermath of the Abu Ghraib scandal, the Pentagon strongly denied Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had authorised a secret commando unit to extract intelligence from Iraqis at the prison using rough tactics and sexual humiliation as seen in photographs of prisoner abuse.

Responding to Hersh's revelatory article last May, Mr Di Rita said: "This is the most hysterical piece of journalistic malpractice I have ever observed."

[EiZei 0]

Coast guard people better start practicing their shooting skills or start booking flights to canada..

[Baphomet 0]

It still cracks me up that that delusional sea-hag Ann Coulter had the gall to call Canadians ungrateful because we're being "protected" by the "U.S nuclear shield." [/Dr. Evil quotation marks]

If anything we're looking at collateral damage in the event pissed off countries decided to fetch a few nukes south of us. Or worse, threatened personally by the U.S because we're not going to throw ourselves into debt monitoring our borders.

I think we have more to be concerned about from the U.S government than anything. If they bite off more than they can chew I can easily see them getting indignant that we're not there to bail them out.

[ruff 102]

i just think the US CAN win another battle easily but not occupy. i really believe US will attack iran if it had nukes. they won the battle in iraq easily against conventional troops but i think they cant occupy it, they might eventually win but occupy another country in thier current situation is not in their interest. theyll need conscription for that.

but overall i reckon the current administration has balls to do it. but i think they are planning just to eliminate the nukes/regime and install new government without occupying it.

thats if of course the atomic energy group announces it in the u.n.