War against terror

[walker 0]

Hi all

Gosh people ancient history get over it. Try living in the present.

Kind regards walker

[Nemesis6 0]

ancient history

What are you refering to?

[walker 0]

Hi Nemesis6

A thirty year old resolution that did not go your way and was repealed 15 years ago. Bored now.

Kind regards Walker

[miles teg 1]

Thanks EiZei. I was not aware it was revoked because I see the original resolution all the time mentioned on Israeli websites and assumed that it was not revoked. But I'm glad that it was as it was pretty extreme in its language.

But by the way... speaking to the Israelies here, What is Zionism? I have never heard a straight answer on that.

Its like its a bad word these days and Israelies get mad if they get called a Zionist, but yet they get angry when people attack Zionism, so it leaves me a bit confused.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[harley 3 1185 0]

I'm not Israeli, but I admit to being confused at the way some people react to being called a "Zionist", especially Israeli Jews. If you are a Jew living in Israel, are you not the living embodiment of Zionism?

I was, needless to say, very surprised to come across anti-Zionist Jews. I have no idea of what Torah says about the issue, and I can only rely on the writings of others, but is this organisation just a fringe group or does it express the opinions of a substantial number of Jews?

And seeing as Zionism ended the "exile" of the Jews, yet displaced and in some places and periods of time has oppressed the Palestinians, maybe it is "racist". It wasn't back in the 70s, but times and threats have changed dramatically. Maybe you fellows out there could enlighten me?

[Akira 0]

Probably should move this discussion to the Middle East thread...

[Akira 0]

Trouble...

Quote[/b] ]US suspected of keeping secret prisoners on warships: UN official

The UN has learned of "very, very serious" allegations that the United States is secretly detaining terrorism suspects in various locations around the world, notably aboard prison ships, the UN's special rapporteur on terrorism said.

While the accusations were rumours, rapporteur Manfred Nowak said the situation was sufficiently serious to merit an official inquiry.

"There are very, very serious accusations that the United States is maintaining secret camps, notably on ships," the Austrian UN official told AFP, adding that the vessels were believed to be in the Indian Ocean region.

"They are only rumours, but they appear sufficiently well-based to merit an official inquiry," he added.

Last Thursday Nowak and three other UN human rights experts said they were opening an inquiry into the US detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where Washington has been holding more than 500 people without trial, and into other such locations.

The United States has neither refused nor granted requests by Nowak's group to visit Guantanamo.

"We have accepted, upon the request of the State Department and Pentagon, to limit our investigation for now to Guantanamo, but even in accepting this we have not had a positive response" to the request for a visit, Nowak said.

He said that if the "investigation into Guantanamo leads us to other things, we will follow them. We will bring up all these matters to the US government and expect Washington to say officially where these camps are."

The use of prison ships would allow investigators to interrogate people secretly and in international waters out of the reach of US law, British security expert Francis Tusa said.

"This opens the door to very tough interrogations on key prisoners before it even has been revealed that they have been captured," said Tusa, an editor for the British magazine Jane's Intelligence Review.

Nowak said the prison ships would not be "floating Guantanamos" since "they are much smaller, holding less than a dozen detainees."

Tusa said the Americans may also be using their island base of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean as a site for prisoners.

Some 520 people suspected of terrorism are currently being held without trial at Guantanamo and others are in camps the United States has refused to acknowledge, the human rights organization Amnesty International has said.

The United States has said that prisoners considered foreign combattants in its "war on terrorism" are not covered by the Geneva Conventions.

[walker 0]

Hi all

Breaking News Report

Quote[/b] ]US helicopter crash hunt begins

The US military says it has mounted a rescue operation to find any survivors from a helicopter that crashed on Tuesday in eastern Afghanistan.

There were 17 service personnel on board the Chinook, which came down west of Asadabad in Konar province, it said. My use of bold walker

Washington said it was possible that the helicopter was shot down, as the Taleban has claimed.

It was the second US Chinook to go down in Afghanistan this year, following an incident in April in which 18 died.

That crash, which took place in a sandstorm, brought the single heaviest loss of life for US troops since they entered Afghanistan in 2001.

The BBC's Andrew North in eastern Afghanistan says the latest incident, if confirmed as hostile fire, is going to cause real concern about the Taleban's capability to launch attacks.

Rebel claims

The helicopter came down in a remote, mountainous area.

The twin-engined aircraft had been sent to the area to support troops on the ground.

The helicopter was transporting forces into the area as part of Operation Red Wing, which is part of the enduring fight to defeat al-Qaeda militants and deny them influence in Konar province," a military statement said, quoted by AP news agency.

"Initial reports indicate the crash may have been caused by hostile fire. The status of the service members is unknown at this time..."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4631947.stm

Waiting and hoping they are OK Walker

[theavonlady 2]

But by the way...  speaking to the Israelies here, What is Zionism?  I have never heard a straight answer on that.

Here's a standard defiinition. It's beyond me why no one can give you a straight answer:

Quote[/b] ]Zion, Zionism

(Mount) Zion is an ancient Hebrew designation for Jerusalem, but already in biblical times it began to symbolize the national homeland (see e.g., Psalm 137.1-6). In this latter sense it served as a focus for Jewish national-religious hopes of renewal over the centuries. Ancient hopes and attachments to Zion gave rise to Zionist longings and movements since antiquity, culminating in the modern national liberation movement of that name. The Zionist cause helped the Jews return to Palestine in this century and found the state of Israel in 1948. The goal of Zionism is the political and spiritual renewal of the Jewish people in its ancestral homeland. See also Herzl.

- Source.

I disagree with the claim that "spiritual renewal of the Jewish people" is one of Zionism's goals, though to a certain extent, it may be an outcome.

Quote[/b] ]Its like its a bad word these days and Israelies get mad if they get called a Zionist,

No. Look at the context of denigration it usually comes along with. Snearing at me on the street and shoouting "Jew" would make me angry, though I'm very thankful to be Jewish. Context.

[Nemesis6 0]

And seeing as Zionism ended the "exile" of the Jews, yet displaced and in some places and periods of time has oppressed the Palestinians, maybe it is "racist".

Which people did it displace? If you're refering to 1948: Most of those Palestinians left of their own free will, in that that when they returned, "Palestine" would be judenrein. In many places they were incouraged by the Jewish residents to stay, but most did not listen. They were essentially told "Get out so we can get in!". Problem was: The Jews weren't whiped out and they're not really Israel's problem, yet, Israel has been taking the heat for their stupidity. Israel even tried resettling some of them in Gaza, but this was stopped by the U.N. - Their status as "refugees" had to be maintained.

Anyway, I don't believe the Palestinians are "opressed". Well, depends: There are Arabs living in Israel and there are the PA Arabs. The Arabs in Israel enjoy full rights, freedom of speech, and generally have a good life. In the PA, however, people are shot for "collaborating", people are shot for holding hands in public(engaged couples), the money doesn't poor into the economy, it goes to the terrorists, which is now, actually, security forces. In short, the PA controlled areas are generally a really unpleasent. Look at Betlehem and Hebron. Control of them were transfered to the PA, and now, in Betlehem, Christians are threatened, attacked, and just forced into a life of Dhimmitude. Now to Hebron - The story is pretty much the same, actually, except I suspect there are more terrorists there. I can't remember which one it was, but there was one city that contained a place holy to Jews, and when it was transfered to PA control, the place was desecrated and destroyed.

By the way, most of these "Palestinians" aren't really Palestinians. A lot of them came to the region when they learned that Jews were rebuilding the land, and making generally the land habitable. Arafat himself was an Egyptian! And their new so-called "leader" is a Tunisian.

Zionism isn't racism as the U.N. would have you believe.

[SPQR 0]

You know what ? The more each side pours us with its own propaganda and rewritten history, the more people won't care about your puny land anymore.

Your stories (both sides) keep smeeling like african ones, setting political matters with matchets...

Leave us alone, that'll be good holidays for the others, the cows will be well guarded

Side of Good, side of Evil, come back when you'll grown up

Just wish, this summer, that Gaza strip doen't become an israeli-israelian Massada...

P.S. : I don't use to ironically make fun of faith (unless talking politics), color, size, weight or sex... but worthless mass

human stupidity...

[Nemesis6 0]

Quote[/b] ]The more each side pours us with its own propaganda and rewritten history, the more people won't care about your puny land anymore.

You know what? Instead of just denying your claims, I encourage you to present to me an example of "rewritten history" - as you call it - from the Israeli side. I know of plenty from the Palestinian, so I'd actually like to see some examples of Israel doing something like that.

Quote[/b] ]Your stories (both sides) keep smeeling like african ones, setting political matters with matchets...

What stories? What sides? He compared Zionism with racism, and I proved him wrong.

[walker 0]

Hi all

Please move middle east discusions to middle east thread. Bored now.

Regards Walker

[Balschoiw 0]

Rescuers Reach U.S. Helicopter Wreckage

Quote[/b] ]KABUL, Afghanistan - Rescuers have reached the wreckage of a U.S. special forces helicopter that crashed into a rugged mountain ravine in eastern

Afghanistan, but there was no immediate word on the fate of the 17 troops on board, a U.S. military spokesman said Thursday

"We are at the wreckage as we speak," U.S. military spokesman Lt. Col. Jerry O'Hara told The Associated Press. "We are conducting search and recovery operations. But we are more into the recovery stage."

He declined to elaborate on efforts to find survivors or the bodies of the 17, who were thought to have perished in Tuesday's crash.

A military statement said U.S.-led coalition forces are "currently assessing the cause of the crash and the status of the 17 servicemembers who were on board the MH-47 helicopter."

O'Hara said "there are still bad guys in the area" around the crash site and that troops were having to "do a recovery and a tactical operation at the same time."

Militants are believed to have shot down the MH-47 helicopter as it was bringing in reinforcements for a battle with suspected al-Qaida fighters.

If those aboard are confirmed dead, the crash would be the deadliest blow yet to American forces in Afghanistan, already grappling with an insurgency that is widening rather than winding down.

A storm that hampered rescuers from reaching the wreckage on Wednesday had passed by Thursday. Recovery operations have also been made difficult by the rugged terrain of the remote crash site, reachable only by foot, and the continued fighting with militants.

Officials in the United States said they knew of no communications from the crash site near Asadabad, in eastern Kunar province.

Even before word of the crash was announced, a Taliban spokesman claimed responsibility and said he had footage of the attack. As of Thursday, no video had surfaced.

U.S. military spokesman Col. James Yonts said the helicopter was fired on as it was approaching a landing zone in the mountains. It flew on but crashed about a mile away at dusk.

U.S. officials cited reports from the region that the helicopter either crashed or made a perilous landing on the side of a mountain, then went down into the ravine, suggesting little hope of survival. They said, however, they could not confirm the deaths, and spoke on condition of anonymity since rescue operations were still underway.

Only eight months ago, Afghan and U.S. officials were hailing a relatively peaceful presidential election here as a sign that the Taliban rebellion was finished. That bravado has been yet another casualty in a war some feel could escalate into a conflict on the scale of

Iraq's.

The loss of the helicopter follows three months of unprecedented fighting that has killed about 465 suspected insurgents, 43 Afghan police and soldiers, 125 civilians, and 29 U.S. troops. Afghan and American officials have predicted the situation will deteriorate before legislative elections are held in September.

The Taliban have stepped up attacks, and there are disturbing signs that foreign fighters — including al-Qaida — might be making a new push to sow mayhem. Afghan officials say the fighters have used the porous border with Pakistan to enter the country, and have called on the Pakistani government do more to stop them.

The crash was the second of a Chinook helicopter in Afghanistan this year. On April 6, 15 U.S. service members and three American civilians were killed when their chopper went down in a sandstorm while returning to the main U.S. base at Bagram.

If hostile forces are still in the region they certainly were the first ones to get to the downed helo. Expect looted equipment and maybe missing bodies.

Not a good day. A shot down US helo is a big triumph for reviving Taleban forces that will get them a lot of new support and followers.

With upcoming legislation process it´s definately getting hot there.

[walker 0]

Hi all

George Bush Junior mentions 9/11 in connection with Iraq when it had nothing to do with Iraq; I smell an ineffectual leader trying to cover his backside. He is not concerned with 9/11 he just wants the oil.

Afghanistan seems to be a bit of a forgotten war as far as TBA is concerned. All this is despite the fact that this is where the terrorists who gave us 9/11 were trained.

Afghanistan is where 9/11 was set in motion yet still the Taliban are not defeated able to shoot down coalition aircraft.

It seems to me like TBA are more interested in Arab Oil than they are in bringing justice to the perpetrators of 9/11. Bin Laden still roams free years after he planned 9/11.

Seems to me like TBA starts wars it cannot finish either TBA were never interested in 9/11 or they are more interested oil George Bush Junior needs to stop his dithering like a wuss and take command.

Hacked of walker

[theavonlady 2]

George Bush Junior mentions 9/11 in connection with Iraq when it had nothing to do with Iraq; I smell an ineffectual leader trying to cover his backside. He is not concerned with 9/11 he just wants the oil.

I smell something else.

(Embedded links in the original article).

Quote[/b] ]It’s All About 9/11

The president links Iraq and al Qaeda — and the usual suspects moan.

President George W. Bush forcefully explained last night — some of us would say finally forcefully explained last night after too long a lull — why our military operations in Iraq are crucial to success in the war on terror.

   

It was good to hear the commander-in-chief remind people that this is still the war against terror. Specifically, against Islamo-fascists who slaughtered 3000 Americans on September 11, 2001. Who spent the eight years before those atrocities murdering and promising to murder Americans — as their leader put it in 1998, all Americans, including civilians, anywhere in the world where they could be found.

It is not the war for democratization. It is not the war for stability. Democratization and stability are not unimportant. They are among a host of developments that could help defeat the enemy.

But they are not the primary goal of this war, which is to destroy the network of Islamic militants who declared war against the United States when they bombed the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993, and finally jarred us into an appropriate response when they demolished that complex, struck the Pentagon, and killed 3000 of us on September 11, 2001.

That is why we are in Iraq.

On September 12, 2001, no one in America cared about whether there would be enough Sunni participation in a fledgling Iraqi democracy if Saddam were ever toppled. No one in lower Manhattan cared whether the electricity would work in Baghdad, or whether Muqtada al-Sadr’s Shiite militia could be coaxed into a political process. They cared about smashing terrorists and the states that supported them for the purpose of promoting American national security.

Saddam Hussein’s regime was a crucial part of that response because it was a safety net for al Qaeda. A place where terror attacks against the United States and the West were planned. A place where Saddam’s intelligence service aided and abetted al Qaeda terrorists planning operations. A place where terrorists could hide safely between attacks. A place where terrorists could lick their wounds. A place where committed terrorists could receive vital training in weapons construction and paramilitary tactics. In short, a platform of precisely the type without which an international terror network cannot succeed.

The president should know he hit the sweet spot during his Fort Bragg speech because all the right people are angry. The New York Times, with predictable disingenuousness, is railing this morning that the 9/11 references in the speech are out of bounds because Iraq had “nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorist attacks.†Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and the tedious David Gergen, among others, are in Gergen’s words “offended†about use of the 9/11 “trump card.â€

If the president is guilty of anything, it's not that he's dwelling on 9/11 enough. It's that the administration has not done a good enough job of probing and underscoring the nexus between the Saddam regime and al Qaeda. It is absolutely appropriate, it is vital, for him to stress that connection. This is still the war on terror, and Iraq, where the terrorists are still arrayed against us, remains a big part of that equation.

And not just because every jihadist with an AK-47 and a prayer rug has made his way there since we invaded. No, it’s because Saddam made Iraq their cozy place to land long before that. They are fighting effectively there because they’ve been invited to dig in for years.

The president needs to be talking about Saddam and terror because that’s what will get their attention in Damascus and Teheran. It’s not about the great experiment in democratization — as helpful as it would be to establish a healthy political culture in that part of the world. It’s about making our enemies know we are coming for them if they abet and harbor and promote and plan with the people who are trying to kill us.

On that score, nobody should worry about anything the Times or David Gergen or Senator Reid has to say about all this until they have some straight answers on questions like these. What does the “nothing whatsoever†crowd have to say about:

Ahmed Hikmat Shakir — the Iraqi Intelligence operative who facilitated a 9/11 hijacker into Malaysia and was in attendance at the Kuala Lampur meeting with two of the hijackers, and other conspirators, at what is roundly acknowledged to be the initial 9/11 planning session in January 2000? Who was arrested after the 9/11 attacks in possession of contact information for several known terrorists? Who managed to make his way out of Jordanian custody over our objections after the 9/11 attacks because of special pleading by Saddam’s regime?

Saddam's intelligence agency's efforts to recruit jihadists to bomb Radio Free Europe in Prague in the late 1990's?

Mohammed Atta's unexplained visits to Prague in 2000, and his alleged visit there in April 2001 which — notwithstanding the 9/11 Commission's dismissal of it (based on interviewing exactly zero relevant witnesses) — the Czechs have not retracted?

The Clinton Justice Department's allegation in a 1998 indictment (two months before the embassy bombings) against bin Laden, to wit: In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

Seized Iraq Intelligence Service records indicating that Saddam's henchmen regarded bin Laden as an asset as early as 1992?

Saddam's hosting of al Qaeda No. 2, Ayman Zawahiri beginning in the early 1990’s, and reports of a large payment of money to Zawahiri in 1998?

Saddam’s ten years of harboring of 1993 World Trade Center bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin?

Iraqi Intelligence Service operatives being dispatched to meet with bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998 (the year of bin Laden’s fatwa demanding the killing of all Americans, as well as the embassy bombings)?

Saddam’s official press lionizing bin Laden as “an Arab and Islamic hero†following the 1998 embassy bombing attacks?

The continued insistence of high-ranking Clinton administration officials to the 9/11 Commission that the 1998 retaliatory strikes (after the embassy bombings) against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory were justified because the factory was a chemical weapons hub tied to Iraq and bin Laden?

Top Clinton administration counterterrorism official Richard Clarke’s assertions, based on intelligence reports in 1999, that Saddam had offered bin Laden asylum after the embassy bombings, and Clarke’s memo to then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, advising him not to fly U-2 missions against bin Laden in Afghanistan because he might be tipped off by Pakistani Intelligence, and “[a]rmed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad� (See 9/11 Commission Final Report, p. 134 & n.135.)

Terror master Abu Musab Zarqawi's choice to boogie to Baghdad of all places when he needed surgery after fighting American forces in Afghanistan in 2001?

Saddam's Intelligence Service running a training camp at Salman Pak, were terrorists were instructed in tactics for assassination, kidnapping and hijacking?

Former CIA Director George Tenet’s October 7, 2002 letter to Congress, which asserted:

Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.

We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade.

Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression.

Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.

We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.

Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.

There's more. Stephen Hayes’s book, The Connection, remains required reading. But these are just the questions; the answers — if someone will just investigate the questions rather than pretending there’s “nothing whatsoever†there — will provide more still.

So Gergen, Reid, the Times, and the rest are “offended†at the president's reminding us of 9/11? The rest of us should be offended, too. Offended at the “nothing whatsoever†crowd’s inexplicable lack of curiosity about these ties, and about the answers to these questions.

Just tell us one thing: Do you have any good answer to what Ahmed Hikmat Shakir was doing with the 9/11 hijackers in Kuala Lampur? Can you explain it?

If not, why aren't you moving heaven and earth to find out the answer?

— Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

While we're at it - as the world turns:

Quote[/b] ]President invokes new Islamic wave

By Ramita Navai in Tehran

IRAN’S ultra-conservative President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, threw down a challenge to the West yesterday by declaring that his election victory marked the dawn of a new Islamic revolution that would spread around the world.

“Thanks to the blood of the martyrs, a new Islamic revolution has arisen and the Islamic revolution of 1384 [the current Iranian year] will, if God wills, cut off the roots of injustice in the world,†he said. “The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world.â€

His fiery language shows that he has not lost the revolutionary ardour that propelled him into politics as a young Basij Islamic militia volunteer who had fought in the Iran-Iraq war. It is also reminiscent of the rhetoric of Ayatollah Khomenei, the architect of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, and is likely to sound alarm bells in the West, afraid that his victory could signal a return to post-revolutionary fundamentalism.

President Ahmadinejad has a reputation for defiant outbursts extolling Islamic values. But analysts say that he is stepping outside the confines of his role as President, as such rhetoric is the privilege of Iran’s spiritual Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei. As Mayor of Tehran, he was reprimanded by the Supreme Leader for a similar speech.

“He needs to be put in check by the Supreme Leader, who will make it quite clear that, if anyone’s going to talk about exporting Islam, it’s the Supreme Leader and not the President,†one veteran analyst said.

President Ahmadinejad’s win has given the ideological Right renewed confidence and, most importantly, absolute power. Analysts fear that the country is now a step closer towards a dictatorship.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]I smell something else.

Yeah. Its called bullshit.

Wow. I whole article trying to tie Saddam to Al Queda, despite the CIA and Pentagon reports (which I linked some two or three pages back) that say otherwise.

Quote[/b] ]— Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

[Balschoiw 0]

Hehe Avon, at least it gave me a good laugh.

You may also want to check your own countries history before going rampant on Iran´s new leader.

Let´s see what Menachim Begin had on his list before he became Israels prime minister:

He issued a call to arms and from 1945-1948 the Irgun launched an all-out armed rebellion, attacking British installations and posts. He planned the bombing of the British administrative and military headquarters (at the luxurious King David Hotel) in Jerusalem that killed 91 people, including many British officers and troops.

Impressive , heh ?

[theavonlady 2]

Hehe Avon, at least it gave me a good laugh.

You may also want to check your own countries history before going rampant on Iran´s new leader.

Let´s see what Menachim Begin had on his list before he became Israels prime minister:

He issued a call to arms and from 1945-1948 the Irgun launched an all-out armed rebellion, attacking British installations and posts. He planned the bombing of the British administrative and military headquarters (at the luxurious King David Hotel) in Jerusalem that killed 91 people, including many British officers and troops.

Impressive , heh ?  

Glad to oblidge. Sadly, with jokers like you, things will only get worse.

Quote[/b] ]You may also want to check your own countries history before going rampant on Iran´s new leader.

Let´s see what Menachim Begin had on his list before he became Israels prime minister:

He issued a call to arms and from 1945-1948 the Irgun launched an all-out armed rebellion, attacking British installations and posts. He planned the bombing of the British administrative and military headquarters (at the luxurious King David Hotel) in Jerusalem that killed 91 people, including many British officers and troops.

Impressive , heh ?

Very. The Brits were charming. You know, tea and scones, chap.

And yet you feel the urge to mention this in some twisted connection to a president of a country dreaming of conquering and ruling the world, while your government nambie pambies to their nuclear whims.

Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow......................

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Glad to oblidge. Sadly, with jokers like you, things will only get worse.

Care to elaborate ? I guess I´m not responsible for a great civillian slaughter and almost 1800 US soldiers killed for what reasons again ? Ah, to fight terrorism.

BULLSHIT ! The only ones who introduced terrorism to Iraq and it´s people are the people who started that war for 19292934 reasons that they don´t seem to remember anymore.

Quote[/b] ]And yet you feel the urge to mention this in some twisted connection to a president of a country dreaming of conquering and ruling the world, while your government nambie pambies to their nuclear whims.

No, I just wanted to demonstrate YOU that even your beloved country had no problem in selecting a terrorist for president. So I guess it´s your hypocrazy that makes some killers better than others.

And yes, germany is part of the process to set up a frame for Iran and their nuclear program. At least we don´t send in fighters to bomb them....

We try to solve those matters in a civilized way.

Iran is a country with borders you know. Only because you hate them doesn´t keep them from aquiring nuclear technology for their power system.

What would you say if someone tells your country that you are not allowed to have this and that. I can hear you scream from Tel Aviv to Washington.

Things don´t get better by starting wars. If you haven´t learned that by now I have to assume you´ll never learn.

Oh and on a different note:

Iran veterans deny Ahmadinejad role in hostage siege

Quote[/b] ]TEHRAN (AFP) - Iranian veterans of the 1979 seizure of hostages at the US embassy in Tehran vehemently denied claims that president-elect Mahmood Ahmadinejad played a role in the siege.

Their comments on Thursday come after former US hostages who were held for 444 days by radical student followers of revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini said they were sure Ahmadinejad was a key player among hostage-takers.

"Mr Ahmadinejad was never one of students following the path of the imam that took the spy den (US embassy). He was never there," said Mohsen Mirdamadi, an ex-hostage taker who went on to become a member of parliament.

He told AFP that a picture circulating on the Internet and the printed media portraying a thickly bearded hostage-taker leading out a blindfolded American hostage did not show Ahmadinejad.

"Those who say he was one of the students are making a mistake. Even last night I was shown a picture but the person in the picture had little resemblance to him.

"I think that it is the picture which has led to the mistake. As I said he was never there. He was never among us even when we were deliberating over the issue," said Mirdamadi.

Abbas Abdi, who like Mirdamadi is regarded as one of the instigators of the embassy seizure, also fiercely denied that Ahmadinejad had anything to do with the operation.

"I say again: No Sir, he was not one of them. What I say is very clear. If you ask me if I know somebody and I say 'no' that is all I can say."

Hashem Aghajari, another veteran of the siege and leading political dissident said: "Ahmadinejad was a member of the OCU but as far as I know he was not involved in the US embassy (takeover)."

The Office for Consolidating Unity (OCU) is an umbrella grouping of student Islamic committees.

The BBC's World Affairs editor John Simpson had added to the speculation when he wrote on the BBC's website earlier this week that he instantly recognized the new president from his role in the siege.

"When I read a profile of him in the English-language Tehran Times, I realised where I must have seen him: in the former American embassy in Tehran," Simpson said.

Sources close to Ahmadinejad reaffirmed his camp's strict line from the past few days that nothing could be construed about the president-elect or his policies that did not come from his own mouth or an official statement.

Ahmadinejad's website makes no mention of link to the embassy siege, although it does make clear he was a founder member of the OCU. He was not questioned about the issue in his post-election news conference.

"Mahmood Ahmadinejad, before the triumph of the revolution, took part in religious ceremonies and through this entered the political sphere. He spread enlightening pamphlets on the revolution, and after the revolution he was one of the creators of Islamic student associations," the website says.

"In August 1979, he was a representative of the Science and Industry University in sessions held by the late imam (Khomeini), and then supreme leader, later he was one of the founders of OCU."

On November 4, 1979, in the wake of

Iran's Islamic revolution, a group of Islamist students stormed the US embassy in Tehran and held 52 of its staff hostage for 444 days.

The hostage crisis led to the suspension of diplomatic ties between Washington and Tehran, which remain severed to the present day. Ahmadinejad has dampened any hopes of a resumption of links, saying Iran "does not need" the United States.

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]Glad to oblidge. Sadly, with jokers like you, things will only get worse.

Care to elaborate ? I guess I´m not responsible for a great civillian slaughter and almost 1800 US soldiers killed for what reasons again ? Ah, to fight terrorism.

BULLSHIT ! The only ones who introduced terrorism to Iraq and it´s people are the people who started that war for 19292934 reasons that they don´t seem to remember anymore.

Quote[/b] ]And yet you feel the urge to mention this in some twisted connection to a president of a country dreaming of conquering and ruling the world, while your government nambie pambies to their nuclear whims.

No, I just wanted to demonstrate YOU that even your beloved country had no problem in selecting a terrorist for president. So I guess it´s your hypocrazy that makes some killers better than others.

And yes, germany is part of the process to set up a frame for Iran and their nuclear program. At least we don´t send in fighters to bomb them....

<span style='color:red'>We try to solve those matters in a civilized way.</span>

Iran is a country with borders you know. Only because you hate them doesn´t keep them from aquiring nuclear technology for their power system.

<span style='color:red'>What would you say if someone tells your country that you are not allowed to have this and that.</span> I can hear you scream from Tel Aviv to Washington.

<span style='color:red'>Things don´t get better by starting wars. If you haven´t learned that by now I have to assume you´ll never learn.</span>

[Akira 0]

L-A-M-E

[Balschoiw 0]

Looks like I was right:

Thirteen bodies recovered from U.S. Afghan crash

Quote[/b] ]KABUL (Reuters) - Thirteen bodies have been recovered from the crash site of a U.S. military helicopter in eastern

Afghanistan, but another seven U.S. soldiers are unaccounted for, the British Broadcasting Corp said on Thursday.

A report on the BBC Web Site quoted unnamed U.S. military officials on the recovery of the bodies from the site of Tuesday's crash in Kunar province, which borders Pakistan.

General Aminullah Patyani, the Afghan army commander for the east of the country, told Reuters "a few bodies" had been found at the site in the Dar-e-Paich area about 30 km (19 miles) northwest of Asadabad, but he did not know how many.

Patyani said the search operation was still going on but he did not have any information about any U.S. troops being captured by insurgents.

The BBC report said officials had said there was still hope that some of those unaccounted for were alive, but it also quoted correspondent Andrew North as saying that they may also have been captured by insurgents.

It said the BBC's North was at the U.S. military base at Asadabad, capital of Kunar. The aircraft crashed in the province after being hit by insurgent fire, the U.S. military said.

A U.S. military spokeswoman Kabul, Lieutenant Cindy Moore, said she could not confirm the BBC report.

"I don't know where they are getting that information," she said. I don't have what they are saying.

A U.S. official said in Washington Wednesday that all 17 U.S. troops aboard the helicopter, who included elite

U.S. Navy Seals, were presumed to have died.

The U.S. military has yet to confirm any deaths.

A statement Thursday said U.S. forces had secured crash site and were "assessing the cause of the crash and the status of the 17 service members."

It said U.S.-led forces were continuing an anti-militant operation codenamed "Redwing" in Kunar but gave no details.

The twin-rotor Chinook, which crashed during an anti-al-Qaeda operation, was probably struck by a rocket propelled grenade, General Peter Pace, vice chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff told a Congressional hearing in Washington.

Hakimi, whose information has often proven unreliable in the past, also said Wednesday that the guerrillas had killed seven U.S. "spies" in the area before shooting down the helicopter.

The U.S. military said the Chinook was hit as it approached a landing zone while bringing in reinforcements to assist troops on the ground and crashed 1-2 km (half to one mile) away.

So either some of them survived the crash and were taken prisoner or the dead bodies were just taken away by enemy forces for different reasons.

Option 3 would be that they managed to escape the crash site which is imo unlikely.

Option 4: they were thrown out of the wreck as it went down.

Keeping my thumbs pressed.

@Avon: I was right. You´ll never learn....

If you didn´t know, Pearl Harbour was a japanese playground, not a german one.

Cheap shots, is that all you can take ?

I´m still laughing

[theavonlady 2]

L-A-M-E

N-A-I-V-E-T-Y

[harley 3 1185 0]

Appeasement = American Failure to play its part on the World Stage after WW1, having come out (as usual) the winner. Britain and France, however, cannot be condemned enough for this policy.

Pearl Harbour = American Embargo on Oil and other Strategic Goods in Summer of '41 forced Japan to go to war or back down.

9/11 = For some reason there were a lot (tho a minority overall) of Muslims/Arabs who detest the United States for reasons too many to list here. Enough to do this.