Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ralphwiggum

War against terror

Recommended Posts

No, Balls, I was at the same reichstag that hitler lit on fire, the same reichstag where policy is made, the same reichstag where you cannot listen in. I stood on top of the damn building. I saw the deputy's entrance as well as the main entrance. But I'll digress as it IS your country, and I dont want to say I know more about your government than you do, as I dont. But I expect the same kind of respect when speaking in terms of how my gov't works.

But, it's your choice to toe the line on the issue and hide behind your screwy reasoning. If you ask me, you sound like a real hard-nose who can shove an article in people's faces with the rest of them, but has yet to offer up any solid reasoning or facts about the WOT. Like I said before, you are seeing this thing through a media filter, and even to the point of using a random poll to back it up. For your information, those polls are not nationwide, are not necessarily  accurate, and at any one time, there is a large, what they call, "margin of error" or skew within the result.

Once you can give me solid facts from a nonmedia, nonpundit source, Ill be able to talk to you.

-Breaker Out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once you can give me solid facts from a nonmedia, nonpundit source, Ill be able to talk to you.

-Breaker Out

Try these facts.

Osama Bin Laden was responsible for planning the attacks on the 11th of September 2001.

He has not been brought to justice.

Nearly four years later and Bin Laden's still laughing at the incompetance of the US military and it's buffoon of a Commander in Chief.

Well that last sentence isn't a fact, but it can be safely assumed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, Balls, I was at the same reichstag that hitler lit on fire, the same reichstag where policy is made, the same reichstag where you cannot listen in.

Of course you can. I'm surprised how you could have missed it - there's usually a long line of tourists marking the place where you go in. I was there a few months ago, but I never bothered to enter the chamber as the queue for entering was long.

Next time you visit, you might want to ask for directions at the information counter. Or at least look it up on their website:

http://www.bundestag.de/htdocs_e/info/050vberl.html

Or if you want, you can watch live broadcasts on TV or via the web:

http://www.bundestag.de/htdocs_e/info/001tv.html

And you are of course free to visit the European Parliament sessions in Brussels, Strasbourg and Luxembourg. Not to mention that you can get video feeds, audio feeds and transcripts in 20 different languages.

Quote[/b] ]Once you can give me solid facts from a nonmedia, nonpundit source, Ill be able to talk to you.

Now what exactly would be a "nonmedia" source? Blog bullshit by amateurs who pick their stuff from the media anyway? Rubbish propaganda given by various governments? People who've been in Iraq or Afghanistan that have seen a microscopic portion of it and could not possibly have a full picture?

The only thing we have is media. If you wish to discredit Bals' source, you have to back it up with some other source - and convince us that your source is more reliable.

Sure, the media is biased (especially US media seems to have a very clear political agenda), and sure they make mistakes, get carried away by irrelevant stories and ignore important ones. Still, it's not only the best thing we have - it's the only thing we have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once you can give me solid facts from a nonmedia, nonpundit source, Ill be able to talk to you.

-Breaker Out

Try these facts.

Osama Bin Laden was responsible for planning the attacks on the 11th of September 2001.

He has not been brought to justice.

Nearly four years later and Bin Laden's still laughing at the incompetance of the US military and it's buffoon of a Commander in Chief.

Well that last sentence isn't a fact, but it can be safely assumed.

NOW WAIT A DAMN MINUTE HERE!!!

lets take a look at were OBL went when the US started an invasion... Tora Bora mountans on the boarder of PAKISTAN. do I have to explain that Pakistan isn't really a strong ally in the WOT? do i have to explain the possibility of OBL crossing to Pakistan and maybe even further? A US recon force would not be able to cross the boarder... Pakistan didn't alow it.

yes, lets look at the facts, Pakistan started patrolling the boarder for AQ units nearly 4 years after 9/11. kinda makes you think were he whent?

Quote[/b] ]Was war ever justified ? Were the reasons correct ? Why do US soldiers have to die there ? For what reasons again ? Why did he lie to the ENTIRE World ? Why does he betray hie OWN people ?

Why has he NOT made the world a safer place ? Why is he responsible for AQ rising ?

Why is Rumsie still in his office? Why is Condi still in her office ?

hmm... lets see me unload another round...

The war was justified due to a pres bafoon, but not Bush. remember Clinton? the Pres that LOST the codes to launch nukes more than once!!! are we critisizing him? NO!!! To be honest the world did become a safer place, we had a mini-stallin on our hands for crying out loud!!! Bush is in no way resposible for the AQ rising. you really need to learn about the last 20 years...

1) the Soviets invade Afghanistan to break out of the ring around them placed by NATO, SEATO, Iran, and China (indirectly but held them because they were thier ally and the Soviets wouldn't attack a fellow commie)

2) OBL was part of an army that repealled the invasion (with US help unofficially)

3) OBL made a database of people that they might call on if the soviets attack again (hmm... I belive it's name was oh! Al Queda!wink_o.gif)

4) Iran falls and a new gov. is set up, one that isn't to befriending to the US (<= very important right now)

5) Iraq invades Iran and Kuait

6) US troops are hired as mercinaries* to repel the Iraqi forces (* the US did have cuation in going on "holy land" since the US is primarily a Christian coutry and the soldiers were first stationed at Suidi Arabia or a Muslim coutry. so this caused problems since they weren't  too happy about the crusades)

7) OBL gets pissed at the US because a christian country stepped foot on "holy ground"

8) OBL seeks revenge against the US

Can you tell me were Bush comes in in all of this?

Rumsie, if i recall, was asked if he would step down. it was his choice. Why wouldn't Rice not be in her office? As for the lying part... its too long to explain here. the list goes on and on. From US <-> Chechneyan relations to unseen events around the globe (just wiat at least 7 years, the picture will be clearer)

Let me throw some questions your way.

1) Why did Iran and Syria sign a treaty? think about that!

2) what happens to Saudi Arabian support to AQ if Iraq is turned around into a democratic country?

3) How does the terror attack on the USS Cole at Yemen shores impact the US <-> Yemen relations?

4) How would Gore or Kerry do in the pres position? would Kerry continue on changing his mind? would Gore whine and complain untill AQ stops?

5) Were is China in all of this?

6) Were is Russia in all of this?

7) What really made the French not support the US?

8) What is going in in Labanon that makes the US turn to Lebanon's aide against Syria?

9) Why did the US invite Veitnamise diplomats to build up relations?

10) What finnaly made the Isralis pull out of the gaza strip?

11) How does the public effect a forien War?

12) Whats going on in Somolia?

Lets see if you can tie all of thoese question's answers together that makes me pat you on the back. To be honest, if you cant awnser at least 3 of those questions right, then you have no right to be fireing off rounds at Pres Bush. If you can answer questions 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12 right then I would have found a new friend. because it shows you are looking at the world around you, and I highly admire that ability anywere. unlike most Ignorant people that just hears one thing and it sticks in thier head were no one could shake it even if its proven false more than a million possibiliteis. are you one of them?  pistols.gif

Quote[/b] ]Gen. George S. Patton

hey look! the last American!!!

oh by the way... one more question...

Why are you trying to discreadit Pres Bush even though its his last term? he can't run again. you're wasting you time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Sophion-Black

I think you give OBL to much credit in the first place.

OBL is a product on a movement ,not the origin of the movement itself.While individuals can have a profound influence on major events ,they are as much subject to it than that they stand above it.Was Hitler the origin of WW2 ,or a product of a movement in Germany.Was it Alexander the great who wanted the greek to defeat the Persians ,or were it the Greek who wanted Alexander to defeat the Persians?Would Napoleon have existed withought the withought the French revolution?

I bet you ,if OBL would today tell his terrorist budy's that he wants to retire from the position and have his pension they'll probably frag him.

OBL's poppularity under elements of society all over the muslim world can only be explained by Anti-American resentment in those society's ,and that resentment has an origin ,you can ask yourself if the resentment is justified ,but it exist.

Primarily it seems ,that the general movement that include's moderate elements like conventional mujahedeen and radical terrorists ,has it's primary goal to Defend the soverignity of muslim country's and promote a theocratic goverment ,or atleast a goverment based on moralism and clericalism.

The danger of greater millitant movement's is it's power to grow larger ,the more people join themselfs to it's cause the harder it is to defeat the cause.

That is the problem with Iraq ,you might see it as a justified cause ,but the majority in the Muslim world doesn't.Then youre justification is irrelivant ,because in reality the movement grows regardless of youre arguments ,and the real danger for the USA grows.

Even more ,the danger in the middle east grows.For the Less stable goverments of the middle east this movement could be very dangerous ,even more the fall the goverment of a major middle east country to fanatical elements pro Mujahedeen might spark more revolutions in the Middle east ,could give the movement real power. (regardless who leads it)

The danger is even greater financially for the whole western world for the effect this movement could have if it grows on teh suplly of oil to the Western world ,oil prices are rising ,production peeking ,demand With country's as China and India growing rapidly.Sabotage of oil supply from the ME might lead to economical downturn in the west.

Afcourse ,the ME ,as a whole ,is very diverse ,with many differnt custom's ,languaghe's ,etc.Some country's are more stabel that others.

The stress is mostly on the Persian gulf surrounding's of the Middle east ,Saudi Arabia ,Iraq ,Iran ,the rich oil sector of the Middle east basicly.And it's felt out there.It's not a poppulation rich region though ,so it's not that manpower intensive ,though Iran with it's 60Million and 75% mountains looks like a bigger challange than Iraq conventionaly.

In the end though i'm sure America's resources are so vast that it can always win war ,if they throw about a million and a half on Iran it should probably do the trick.But that would cost a lot though and would be aa big hit for the US budget ,and then you still havn't won the harder to get peace and tranquility ,as you only angered the movement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Calling the US military incompetent is a trite and unbecoming opinion that gives me the urge to kick you between the shoulderblades. As a member of the aforementioned force, of course.

Frankly, I tire of this discussion, and wish to leave a few final words before I depart the thread (though I may check back).

As a JOURNALISM major, I can tell you that there are other ways of getting info about a situation then media. I wont bother explaining them as they are straightforward and simple.

We (The USA) are doing our part to win the war on terror. We are going to the heart of the beast and destroying it. The general thought seems to be criticism of the US and no support for its efforts in helping to deter the threat to the world. When I was in france, police and soldiers walked about in paris, and had the right to bust (quite literally) any person of middle eastern origin. Our policies our alienating us? Heh, i guess you would know all about that *COUGH* algeria *COUGH*.

At the end of the day, each side here will remain firmly entrenched in their politico-military views, using the facades of "news" reports and carefully spun heresay to attempt some sort of strategic game. But I ask those who think we are wrong for our actions, who will you turn to when the bombs start going off in your neck of the woods? Each other? By then, you'll all be in the same sinking boat.

Again, I impart no disdain or dislike to my Euro-cousins, only to those who brand those like myself "incompetent".

Sleep well, y'all.

-Breaker Out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
do I have to explain that Pakistan isn't really a strong ally in the WOT?

Yes, you do.

Pehaps you think OBL was the architect of the 9/11 attacks.  Actually, it was a guy named Khalid Shaikh Mohammed:

Quote[/b] ]On March 1, 2003, the ISI reported that they had captured him in a raid in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. The raid was variously reported to be all-Pakistani, in the presence of the United States FBI, or a joint raid with the FBI.

Quote of the week:

Calling the US military incompetent is a trite and unbecoming opinion that gives me the urge to kick you between the shoulderblades.

rofl.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a JOURNALISM major, I can tell you that there are other ways of getting info about a situation then media. I wont bother explaining them as they are straightforward and simple.

Please do. As I am not a journalism major, I have no idea how to get a good general picture, without the media.

Quote[/b] ]We (The USA) are doing our part to win the war on terror. We are going to the heart of the beast and destroying it.

So, the heart of the beast was in Iraq?

Quote[/b] ]When I was in france, police and soldiers walked about in paris, and had the right to bust (quite literally) any person of middle eastern origin.

You know, making things up is not a good start for a journalism major. Of course the police can't arrest people without probable cause or an arrest warrant. That's just nonsense.

Quote[/b] ] Our policies our alienating us? Heh, i guess you would know all about that *COUGH* algeria *COUGH*.

The French campaign there, while it certainly had some morally questionable stuff, worked. And the approach there was quite different from what the US is doing today. You're not fighting against terrorists, you are involved in trying to maintain an occupation of a country while being attacked by all forms of insurgents.

Quote[/b] ]But I ask those who think we are wrong for our actions, who will you turn to when the bombs start going off in your neck of the woods?

I consider both London and Madrid as "my neck of the woods" - the EU. And thank you very much, but I'd much rather be without your "help" as it does far more damage than it helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will take some time to get the facts striaght, but I gladly take the time.

@sophion black: You claimed that pakistan was more or less guilty that OBL hasn´t been caught after the Tora Bora siege. Well that´s not true.

Let´s try it with the truth, shall we ?

Here is the map of the misssion area:

0304p12a.jpg

And here is the timeline of events:

Quote[/b] ]As the US intensified its airstrikes on Tora Bora, US and Afghan helicopters started to arrive with supplies for the Afghans. Also - as was its pattern elsewhere in Afghanistan - the US began enlisting local warlords. Two - Hazret Ali and Haji Zaman Ghamsharik - would become notorious in the battle for Tora Bora.

Both Mr. Ali and Mr. Ghamsharik say they were first approached by plain-clothed US officers in the middle of November and asked to take part in an attack on the Tora Bora base.

"We looked at the entire spectrum of options that we had available to us and decided that the use of small liaison elements were the most appropriate," says Army Col. Rick Thomas in a phone interview from US Central Command Headquarters in Tampa, Fla.

"We chose to fight using the Afghans who were fighting to regain their own country," Colonel Thomas says. "Our aims of eliminating Al Qaeda were similar."

Ali is a short, cocky fighter who won control over most of Jalalabad when the Taliban vacated on Nov. 13. He then became security chief for the Eastern Shura, the self-proclaimed government here. With only a fourth-grade education, he can sign documents, but he has trouble reading them. As an anti-Taliban fighter allied to former Northern Alliance commander Ahmed Shah Masood, who was assassinated just before Sept. 11, Ali and his band of hillbilly fighters fought against the Taliban in the north for six years. Local Pashtuns in Jalalabad complain that Ali's men went on a looting spree during their first days in town.

As a counterbalance to Ali, the US chose another powerful regional warlord, Ghamsharik, whom they had lured back from exile in Dijon, France, in late September. Known to many as a ruthless player in the regional smuggling business, Ghamsharik was given a rousing party on his return, including a 1,000-gun salute. He became the Jalalabad commander of the Eastern Shura. But he still didn't have the support of his own Afghan tribesmen (Khugani). Many of them, in fact, were proud to admit that they worked for Al Qaeda inside the Tora Bora base as well as in several nearby bases.

From the start, Ghamsharik was clearly uncomfortable with the power-sharing arrangement. Ali's men were Pashay - no relation to Ghamsharik's own Pashtun followers. He called his rival Ali "a peasant," and said he could not be trusted.

The rift between the two men would seriously hinder US efforts to capture Al Qaeda's leadership. Although backed by the United States, the Jalalabad warlords would have to determine by themselves - while sometimes arguing fiercely - how best to go after Tora Bora's defenders.

Moreover, in the early stages of the Eastern Shura discussions about Tora Bora, these leaders talked about "asking the Arabs to leave," not about attacking them outright. A key powerbroker, Maulvi Younus Khalis, a Jalalabad patriarch who supported bin Laden, had stacked the Shura with his own sympathizers. "The Americans can bomb all they want, they'll never catch Osama," he quipped to the Monitor on Nov. 25.

While ceding some power to the two competing warlords - Ali and Ghamsharik - Khalis, who had been temporarily handed the key to Jalalabad when the Taliban vacated, made sure that his personal military commander, Awol Gul, retained the heavy fighting equipment. Mr. Gul and another Khalis man, Mohammed Amin, traveled into Tora Bora on several occasions beginning Nov. 13, according to Ghamsharik.

The Afghan warlords estimated that Tora Bora held between 1,500 and 1,600 of the best Arab and Chechen fighters in bin Laden's terror network.

Ghamsharik said on Nov. 18 that the fight would be a tough one: "[Al Qaeda fighters] told us through our envoys that 'We will fight until we are martyred.' "

They also suspected that bin Laden himself would be directing the battle. After all, it was the place from which he had most successfully fought the Soviets in the 1980s.

And on Nov 29, Vice President Dick Cheney told ABC's "Primetime Live" that, according to the reports that were coming in, bin Laden was in Tora Bora."I think he was equipped to go to ground there," Mr. Cheney said. "He's got what he believes to be a fairly secure facility. He's got caves underground; it's an area he's familiar with."

Meanwhile, in the weeks following bin Laden's arrival at the Tora Bora caves, morale slipped under the constant air assault. One group of Yemeni fighters, squirreled away in a cave they had been assigned to by the Al Qaeda chief, had not seen bin Laden since entering on Nov. 13.

But they say bin Laden joined them on Nov. 26, the 11th day of Ramadan, a warm glass of green tea in his hand. Instead of inspiring the elite fighters, he was now reduced, they say, to repeating the same "holy war" diatribe.

Around him that day sat three of his most loyal fighters, including Abu Baker, a square-faced man with a rough-hewn scruff on his chin."[bin Laden] said, 'hold your positions firm and be ready for martyrdom,' " Baker told Afghan intelligence officers when he was captured in mid-December. "He said, 'I'll be visiting you again, very soon.' " Then, as quickly as he had come, Baker says, bin Laden vanished into the pine forests.

Between two and four days later, somewhere between Nov. 28 to Nov. 30 - according to detailed interviews with Arabs and Afghans in eastern Afghanistan afterward - the world's most-wanted man escaped the world's most-powerful military machine, walking - with four of his loyalists - in the direction of Pakistan.

On Dec. 11, in the village of Upper Pachir - located a few miles northeast of the main complex of caves where Al Qaeda fighters were holed up - a Saudi financier and Al Qaeda operative, Abu Jaffar, was interviewed by the Monitor. Fleeing the Tora Bora redoubt, Mr. Jaffar said that bin Laden had left the cave complexes roughly 10 days earlier, heading for the Parachinar area of Pakistan.

Jaffar, whose foot was blown off by a cluster bomb, was traveling with his Egyptian wife. He stayed in Upper Pachir one night, before fleeing north, then east toward the famed Khyber Pass.

Bin Laden, according to several fighters and the Saudi financier, later phoned back to the enclave, urging his followers to keep fighting. He also reportedly told them he was sending his own son, Salah Uddin, to replace him. Bin Laden's talk with his followers in Tora Bora just a few days after his departure may explain why US intelligence officials said that they thought they heard his voice on Dec. 10, probably on a short-wave transmission.

The slow but growing exodus from Tora Bora now became a mad rush. Mohammed Akram, who had occasionally cooked for bin Laden, says he was fixing dinner in a cave at the end of November, when a huge bomb exploded at the base and blew him some 30 feet back into the mouth of the grotto. Two of his colleagues were killed, and he, along with another Saudi and a Kurdish fighter, decided to flee.

His flight, he stated in February, began about the same day at end of November as bin Laden escaped. "We received a lot of Iranian currency, and the commanders distributed it to the soldiers," he said, adding that he had received 700,000 ($1,400) rials for his own personal use. "Our own Chechens were killing people who tried to leave so we left at night and traveled into Paktia [the province to the south] near to Gardez and onto Zarmat."

As panic overtook the fighters inside the enclave, local villagers who had been regularly paid off by bin Laden's men were available to help.

Malik Habib Gul, who had attended bin Laden's Nov. 10 speech in Jalalabad, says he was happy to arrange mule trains. He says the Al Qaeda fighters paid between 5,000 and 50,000 Pakistani rupees for mules and Afghan guides, which moved stealthily along the base of the White Mountains, over a major highway, and into the remote tribal areas of Pakistan.

"This was a golden opportunity for our village," he said in Jalalabad last week. "The only problem for the Arabs was the first 5 to 10 kilometers northeast from Tora Bora to our village of Upper Pachir. The bombing was very heavy. But after arriving in our village, there were no problems. You could ride a mule or drive a car into Pakistan."

He and other villagers say that from about Nov. 28 to Dec. 12, they probably escorted some 600 people out, including entire families. "Our main responsibility was getting people across the Kabul River at Lalpur. To do this, we had to cross the main road, but there was no one guarding it. To the south [in the direction of Parachinar, Pakistan], only walkers, mostly young fight- ers crossed. The snow was deep and the climb was difficult."

Pir Baksh Bardiwal, the intelligence chief for the Eastern Shura, which controls eastern Afghanistan, says he was astounded that Pentagon planners didn't consider the most obvious exit routes and put down light US infantry to block them.

"The border with Pakistan was the key, but no one paid any attention to it," he said, leaning back in his swivel chair with a short list of the Al Qaeda fighters who were later taken prisoner. "And there were plenty of landing areas for helicopters, had the Americans acted decisively. Al Qaeda escaped right out from under their feet."

The intelligence chief contends that several thousand Pakistani troops who had been placed along the border about Dec. 10 never did their job, nor could they have been expected to, given that the exit routes were not being blocked inside Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, back in Jalalabad, the Afghan warlords enlisted by the US to attack Tora Bora were also cutting deals to help the Al Qaeda fighters escape.

In the shoddy lobby of the Spin Ghar Hotel in downtown Jalalabad on Dec. 3, Haji Hayat Ullah - a member of the Eastern Shura who, according to both Afghan and Pakistani sources had long ties to bin Laden - asked for the "safe passage" for three of his Arab friends.

After a 20-minute discussion with Commander Ali, which was overheard by the Monitor in the empty hotel lobby, a deal was struck for the safe passage of the three Al Qaeda members.

About the same day as the 10-day offensive was launched - on Dec. 5 - nearly three-dozen US special forces, their faces wrapped in black and white bandanas, watched the fighting unfold from behind boulders on mountainsides, their trusted laser target designators in hand. They were "painting" the mouths of caves and bunkers inside the complex. The US bombing became markedly more accurate - almost overnight, according to Afghan civilians and local commanders.

The battle was joined, but anything approaching a "siege" of Tora Bora never materialized. Ghamsharik says today that he offered the US military the use his forces in a "siege of Tora Bora," but that the US opted in favor of his rival, Hazret Ali.

Indeed, Mr. Ali paid a lieutenant named Ilyas Khel to block the main escape routes into Pakistan. Mr. Khel had come to him three weeks earlier from the ranks of Taliban commander Awol Gul.

"I paid him 300,000 Pakistani rupees [$5,000] and gave him a satellite phone to keep us informed," says Mohammed Musa, an Ali deputy, who says Ali had firmly "trusted" Khel.

"Our problem was that the Arabs had paid him more, and so Ilyas Khel just showed the Arabs the way out of the country into Pakistan," Mr. Musa adds.

Afghan fighters from villages on the border confirmed in interviews last week in Jalalabad that they had later been engaged in firefights with Khel's fighters, who they said were "firing cover for escaping Al Qaeda."

As a Russian-made tank commandeered by US-backed Afghans blasted the valleys dividing snow-capped peaks, American B-52s rained down bombs from above, sending giant mushroom clouds that hovered over the pine forests.

The remaining Arab fighters - now reduced to a few hundred from the original 1,500 to 2,000 - continued to hold out, and could be overheard speaking on their radio handsets on Dec. 6. "OK. You can come out shooting," said one Al Qaeda fighter, speaking to another. "The US planes have flown out of the area again."

"The Sheikh [bin Laden] says keep your children in the caves and fight for Allah. Give guns to your wives as necessary to fight against the infidel aggressors."

But talk of surrender came quickly and unexpectedly on Dec. 11, amid heavy gunbattles in the bombed-out pine forests here. Arab fighters used an Afghan translator earlier in the day to convey their wishes: "Our guest brothers want to find safe passage out of your province."

Ghamsharik responded: "Our blood is your blood, your wives our sisters, and your children our children. But under the circumstances, I am compelled to tell you that you must either leave or surrender."

When Ali, whose men had paid Khel to guard the rear nearly two weeks earlier, complained that no deals should be cut, Ghamsharik shot back: "If you want to hold this ridge, send your own men up here. You are down there with the press and the pretty ladies, and I'm stuck up here." Both men chuckled.

On Dec. 13, Al Qaeda-backer Younus Khalis sent his own man into the fray - this time on the US side of the battle.

Awol Gul was calm and relaxed as B-52s pummeled a mountain behind him and Al Qaeda sniper fire rang out in the distance. "They've been under quite a bit of pressure inside there," he said. "It is likely that they have made a tactical withdrawal farther south. They have good roads, safe passage, and Mr. bin Laden has plenty of friends.

"We are not interested in killing the Arabs," Mr. Gul went on to say. "They are our Muslim brothers."

By Dec. 11, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld sounded unsure about how effective Pakistan's military could be in blocking the border. He said: "It's a long border. It's a very complicated area to try to seal, and there's just simply no way you can put a perfect cork in the bottle."

On Dec. 16, Afghan warlords announced they had advanced into the last of the Tora Bora caves. One young commander fighting with 600 of his own troops alongside Ali and Ghamsharik, Haji Zahir, could not have been less pleased with the final prize. There were only 21 bedraggled Al Qaeda fighters who were taken prisoners. "No one told us to surround Tora Bora," Mr. Zahir complained. "The only ones left inside for us were the stupid ones, the foolish and the weak."

While the hunt for Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants has become increasingly invisible, it continues nonetheless. The ongoing fighting in Paktia Province, as well as the deployment of US troops to nations as far-flung as Georgia, Yemen, and the Philippines ensures that US pressure will stay on Al Qaeda's many cells - and that eyes around the world will remain open for "the Sheikh" and the $25 million bounty the US has attached to his head.

And while the US has taken justifiable pride in its ousting of the Taliban and supporting Afghanistan's fledgling interim government, President Bush's aim of catching the world's most wanted terrorist "dead or alive" has not been accomplished.

"There appears to be a real disconnect between what the US military was engaged in trying to do during the battle for Tora Bora - which was to destroy Al Qaeda and the Taliban - and the earlier rhetoric of President Bush, which had focused on getting bin Laden," says Charles Heyman, editor of Jane's World Armies. "There are citizens all over the Middle East now saying that the US military couldn't do it - couldn't catch Osama - while ignoring the fact that the US military campaign, apart from not capturing Mr. bin Laden was, up the that point, staggeringly effective."

@sophion black: As you can see in the detailed timeline it wasn´t Pakistan who was guilty for not catching OBL. It was poor planning in Afghanistan that kept all exit routes open for him. Do NEVER blame anyone else for your own faults.

You talk about accuracy ? Shove this accurate report down your throat and do not come up with generalizations before you have actually checked your sources.

@breaker 44

The Reichstag story is wrong. You claim to have a journalism major ? Sorry but that´s the journalism noone needs. Keep it with the facts and don´t make up fantasy stories you heard somewhere at your highschool...

As for the "your neck of the woods": You seem to forget that without the "euro commies" the mission in Afghanistan would have already ended as the US contigent there shrunk to a minimum and NATO keeps up the mission there.

Germany has a record of terrorism. RAF may ring a bell. We sorted them out one by one and the organization has seazed to exist, so I´d say we have already sucessfully busted a terror organization that spread unrest and horror over the country.

You´re a journalism major ? I guess you must have missed that.

Like you missed so many other things.

Now to sophion black indepth:

Quote[/b] ]Bush is in no way resposible for the AQ rising.

Iraq New Terror Breeding Ground

Quote[/b] ] Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of "professionalized" terrorists, according to a report released yesterday by the National Intelligence Council, the CIA director's think tank.

Iraq provides terrorists with "a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills," said David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats. "There is even, under the best scenario, over time, the likelihood that some of the jihadists who are not killed there will, in a sense, go home, wherever home is, and will therefore disperse to various other countries."

Low's comments came during a rare briefing by the council on its new report on long-term global trends. It took a year to produce and includes the analysis of 1,000 U.S. and foreign experts. Within the 119-page report is an evaluation of Iraq's new role as a breeding ground for Islamic terrorists.

President Bush has frequently described the Iraq war as an integral part of U.S. efforts to combat terrorism. But the council's report suggests the conflict has also helped terrorists by creating a haven for them in the chaos of war.

"At the moment," NIC Chairman Robert L. Hutchings said, Iraq "is a magnet for international terrorist activity."

Before the U.S. invasion, the CIA said Saddam Hussein had only circumstantial ties with several al Qaeda members. Osama bin Laden rejected the idea of forming an alliance with Hussein and viewed him as an enemy of the jihadist movement because the Iraqi leader rejected radical Islamic ideals and ran a secular government.

Bush described the war in Iraq as a means to promote democracy in the Middle East. "A free Iraq can be a source of hope for all the Middle East," he said one month before the invasion. "Instead of threatening its neighbors and harboring terrorists, Iraq can be an example of progress and prosperity in a region that needs both."

But as instability in Iraq grew after the toppling of Hussein, and resentment toward the United States intensified in the Muslim world, hundreds of foreign terrorists flooded into Iraq across its unguarded borders. They found tons of unprotected weapons caches that, military officials say, they are now using against U.S. troops. Foreign terrorists are believed to make up a large portion of today's suicide bombers, and U.S. intelligence officials say these foreigners are forming tactical, ever-changing alliances with former Baathist fighters and other insurgents.

"The al-Qa'ida membership that was distinguished by having trained in Afghanistan will gradually dissipate, to be replaced in part by the dispersion of the experienced survivors of the conflict in Iraq," the report says.

According to the NIC report, Iraq has joined the list of conflicts -- including the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate, and independence movements in Chechnya, Kashmir, Mindanao in the Philippines, and southern Thailand -- that have deepened solidarity among Muslims and helped spread radical Islamic ideology.

At the same time, the report says that by 2020, al Qaeda "will be superseded" by other Islamic extremist groups that will merge with local separatist movements. Most terrorism experts say this is already well underway. The NIC says this kind of ever-morphing decentralized movement is much more difficult to uncover and defeat.

Terrorists are able to easily communicate, train and recruit through the Internet, and their threat will become "an eclectic array of groups, cells and individuals that do not need a stationary headquarters," the council's report says. "Training materials, targeting guidance, weapons know-how, and fund-raising will become virtual (i.e. online)."

The report, titled "Mapping the Global Future," highlights the effects of globalization and other economic and social trends. But NIC officials said their greatest concern remains the possibility that terrorists may acquire biological weapons and, although less likely, a nuclear device.

The council is tasked with midterm and strategic analysis, and advises the CIA director. "The NIC's goal," one NIC publication states, "is to provide policymakers with the best, unvarnished, and unbiased information -- regardless of whether analytic judgments conform to U.S. policy."

Other than reports and studies, the council produces classified National Intelligence Estimates, which represent the consensus among U.S. intelligence agencies on specific issues.

Yesterday, Hutchings, former assistant dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, said the NIC report tried to avoid analyzing the effect of U.S. policy on global trends to avoid being drawn into partisan politics.

Among the report's major findings is that the likelihood of "great power conflict escalating into total war . . . is lower than at any time in the past century." However, "at no time since the formation of the Western alliance system in 1949 have the shape and nature of international alignments been in such a state of flux as they have in the past decade."

The report also says the emergence of China and India as new global economic powerhouses "will be the most challenging of all" Washington's regional relationships. It also says that in the competition with Asia over technological advances, the United States "may lose its edge" in some sectors.

Remember, it´s not some euro-commie saying this, but the CIA think tank wow_o.gif

Your conclusions about the AQ-Afghanistan-US thing are not overall true and miss a lot of details. You´re final conclusion on why OBL started war on the US is wrong though.

Maybe this can clear things a bit:

Quote[/b] ]Al-Qaida (also spelled al-Qaeda, al-Qa'ida, al-Quaida, The Base , Arabic for the foundation) is a terrorist movement established by Osama Bin Laden in 1987 to expand the resistance movement against the Soviet forces in Afghanistan into a pan-Islamic resistance movement. It evolved from an organisation referred to as the Makhtab al-Khidamat, which initially helped to finance, recruit, and train mujahedeen for the Afghan resistance. This organisation was funded partly by Osama Bin Laden himself, but also by donations from many sources in Islamic countries and the US Government. Al-Qaida is thought currently to have several thousand members.

Although "Al-Qaeda" or "Al-Qaida" is the name of the organisation used in popular culture, as of 2003 the group's official name had changed to "Qaeda-al-Jihad" - the base of the jihad.

The military leader of al-Qaida is widely reported to have been Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who was reportedly arrested in Pakistan in 2003. Its previous military leader, Muhammed Atef, was allegedly killed in a U.S. bombing raid on Afghanistan in late 2001.

Al-Qaida's religious inspiration has its roots in the Wahhabi sect, the creed embraced by the current rulers of Saudi Arabia. The ultimate goal of al-Qaida is to establish a Wahhabi Caliphate across the entire Islamic world, by working with allied Islamic extremist groups to overthrow regimes it deems "non-Islamic" (ie non-Wahhabi Islamist). It sees western governments (particularly the US Government) as interfering in the affairs of Islamic nations in the interests of western corporations. The largest attack for which al-Qaida is believed to have been responsible was on the World Trade Center in New York and The Pentagon in Washington DC on September 11th, 2001. See Islamism.

History of al-Qaida

Al-Qaida evolved from the Makhtab al-Khidamat (MAK) - a mujahedeen resistance organisation fighting the Soviet forces in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Osama Bin Laden was a founding member of the MAK along with Palestinian militant Abdullah Azzam. Towards the end of the Soviet occupation, many mujahedeen wanted to expand their operations to include Islamist struggles in other parts of the world. A number of overlapping and interrelated organistaions were formed to further those aspirations.

One of these was al-Qaida, which was formed by Osama bin Laden in 1988. (The name "al-Qaida" was not self-chosen; it was coined by the United States government based on the name of a computer file of bin Laden's that listed the names of contacts he had made at the MAK.) Bin Laden wished to extend the conflict to non-military operations in other parts of the world; Azzam, in contrast, wanted to remain focused on military campaigns. After Azzam was killed in 1989, the MAK split, with a significant number joining bin Laden's organization.

Since other parts of the world were often not in such open warfare as Afghanistan under the Soviet occupation, the move from MAK to al-Qaida involved more training in terrorist tactics. Other organisations were formed, including others by Osama Bin Laden, to carry out different types of terrorism in different countries.

After the Soviet union withdrew from Afganistan, Osama Bin Laden returned to Saudi Arabia, while al-Qaida continued training operations in Afghanistan. He spoke against the Saudi Government during the Gulf War, and was encouraged to leave Saudi Arabia. In 1991 he moved to Sudan, whose Islamic government was fighting a civil war at the time. In 1996 he was expelled from Sudan after possible participation in an attempted assassination of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. Osama Bin Laden returned to Afghanistan with some of his Sudan operatives.

Al-Qaida training camps trained thousands of militant Muslims from around the world; some of whom later applied their training in various conflicts around the world such as Algeria, Chechnya, the Philippines, Egypt, Indonesia, Tajikistan, Somalia, Yemen, Kosovo and Bosnia.

In February 1998, bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri of Egyptian Islamic Jihad issued a statement under banner of "the World Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders" saying that it was the duty of all Muslims to kill US citizens, either civilian or military, and their allies everywhere.

Entity Record: Al Qaeda

Quote[/b] ]Did America create al-Qaida?

Many believe that al-Qaida would not have come into being without the US funding and training given to the Afghan mujahedeen fighting the Soviet invasion of 1979 to 1989. Some claim that several key US politicians, such as George H. W. Bush, have been involved in corporations, such as the Carlyle Group, which funded al-Qaida.

Critics of US and Western actions in the Middle East and worldwide also claim that the actions have caused a great deal of opposition among Arab and Islamic people, and that terrorism is the extreme end of the resulting reactions. Such actions include the following:

US support of Israel, whilst activities such as the on-going occupation of the West Bank transpire;

US support of some dictators in the Middle East, including Saddam Hussein in Iraq before the Gulf War;

The mistaken US bombing of a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan in 1997, followed by US enforced embargoes of essential medicines killing several thousand people;

The use of Saudi Arabian bases by allied forces attacking Iraq in 1991. As the birthplace of Islam, the Arabian Peninsula is seen as a Holy Land under Islam: thus in the eyes of some Muslims making it against Islam for non-believers to be physically present there; and continued bombing of Iraq by the US and the UK since 1991 which has never been explicitly mandated by the UN and many claim is illegal

Now let´s move on to Rumsfeld. These are some of his

statements:

"Beyond abuse of prisoners, there are other photos that depict incidents of physical violence toward prisoners, acts that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhuman."

"I'm not a lawyer. My impression is that what has been charged thus far is abuse, which I believe technically is different from torture … I don't know if it is correct to say what you just said, that torture has taken place, or that there's been a conviction for torture. And therefore I'm not going to address the torture word."

"Let me be clear: I failed to recognize how important it was to elevate a matter of such gravity to the highest levels, including the president and the members of Congress."

Want some more ?

A little U.S.-Iraqi history

Quote[/b] ] WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Sen. Robert Byrd, a master at hectoring executive branch witnesses, asked Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld a provocative question last week: Did the United States help Saddam Hussein produce weapons of biological warfare? Rumsfeld brushed off the Senate's 84-year-old president pro tem like a Pentagon reporter. But a paper trail indicates Rumsfeld should have answered yes.

An eight-year-old Senate report confirms that disease-producing and poisonous materials were exported, under U.S. government license, to Iraq from 1985 to 1988 during the Iran-Iraq war. Furthermore, the report adds, the American-exported materials were identical to microorganisms destroyed by United Nations inspectors after the Gulf War. The shipments were approved despite allegations that Saddam used biological weapons against Kurdish rebels and (according to the current official U.S. position) initiated war with Iran.

This record is no argument for or against waging war against the Iraqi regime, but current U.S. officials are not eager to reconstruct the mostly secret relationship between the two countries. While biological warfare exports were approved by the U.S. government, the first President George Bush signed a policy directive proposing "normal" relations with Saddam in the interest of Middle East stability. Looking at a little U.S.-Iraqi history might be useful on the eve of a fateful military undertaking.

At a Senate Armed Services hearing last Thursday, Byrd tried to disinter that history. "Did the United States help Iraq to acquire the building blocks of biological weapons during the Iran-Iraq war?" he asked Rumsfeld. "Certainly not to my knowledge," Rumsfeld replied. When Byrd persisted by reading a current Newsweek article reporting these exports, Rumsfeld said, "I have never heard anything like what you've read, I have no knowledge of it whatsoever, and I doubt it."

That suggests Rumsfeld also has not read the sole surviving copy of a May 25, 1994, Senate Banking Committee report. In 1985 (five years after the Iraq-Iran war started) and succeeding years, said the report, "pathogenic (meaning "disease producing"), toxigenic (meaning "poisonous") and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq, pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce." It added: "These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction."

The report then details 70 shipments (including anthrax bacillus) from the United States to Iraqi government agencies over three years, concluding, "It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program."

With Baghdad having survived combat against Iran's revolutionary regime with U.S. help, President George H.W. Bush signed National Security Directive 26 on Oct. 2, 1989. Classified "Secret" but recently declassified, it said: "Normal relations between the United States and Iraq would serve our longer-term interests and promote stability in both the Gulf and the Middle East. The United States government should propose economic and political incentives for Iraq to moderate its behavior and to increase our influence with Iraq."

Bush the elder, who said recently that he "hates" Saddam, saw no reason then to oust the Iraqi dictator. On the contrary, the government's approval of exporting microorganisms to Iraq coincided with the Bush administration's decision to save Saddam from defeat by the Iranian mullahs.

The Newsweek article (by Christopher Dickey and Evan Thomas) that so interested Byrd reported on Rumsfeld's visit to Baghdad Dec. 20, 1983, that launched U.S. support for Saddam against Iran. Answering Byrd's questions, Rumsfeld said he did meet with Saddam and then-Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz, but was dismissive about assisting "as a private citizen ... only for a period of months." Rumsfeld contended he was then interested in curbing terrorism in Lebanon.

Quite a different account was given in a sworn court statement by Howard Teicher on Jan. 31, 1995. Teicher, a National Security Council aide who accompanied Rumsfeld to Baghdad, said Rumsfeld relayed then-Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir's offer to help Iraq in its war. "Aziz refused even to accept the Israeli's letter to (Saddam) Hussein offering assistance," said Teicher, "because Aziz told us that he would be executed on the spot."

Such recollections of the recent past make for uncomfortable officials in Washington and Jerusalem today.

Enough for that guy, now let´s check Condi, shall we ?

Pre-9/11 Intelligence:

Quote[/b] ] CLAIM: "I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 5/16/02

FACT: On August 6, 2001, the President personally "received a one-and-a-half page briefing advising him that Osama bin Laden was capable of a major strike against the US, and that the plot could include the hijacking of an American airplane." In July 2001, the Administration was also told that terrorists had explored using airplanes as missiles. [source: NBC, 9/10/02; LA Times, 9/27/01]

CLAIM: In May 2002, Rice held a press conference to defend the Administration from new revelations that the President had been explicitly warned about an al Qaeda threat to airlines in August 2001. She "suggested that Bush had requested the briefing because of his keen concern about elevated terrorist threat levels that summer." [source: Washington Post, 3/25/04]

FACT: According to the CIA, the briefing "was not requested by President Bush." As commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste disclosed, "the CIA informed the panel that the author of the briefing does not recall such a request from Bush and that the idea to compile the briefing came from within the CIA." [source: Washington Post, 3/25/04]

CLAIM: "In June and July when the threat spikes were so high…we were at battle stations." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

FACT: "Documents indicate that before Sept. 11, Ashcroft did not give terrorism top billing in his strategic plans for the Justice Department, which includes the FBI. A draft of Ashcroft's 'Strategic Plan' from Aug. 9, 2001, does not put fighting terrorism as one of the department's seven goals, ranking it as a sub-goal beneath gun violence and drugs. By contrast, in April 2000, Ashcroft's predecessor, Janet Reno, called terrorism 'the most challenging threat in the criminal justice area.'" Meanwhile, the Bush Administration decided to terminate "a highly classified program to monitor Al Qaeda suspects in the United States." [source: Washington Post, 3/22/04; Newsweek, 3/21/04]

CLAIM: "The fact of the matter is [that] the administration focused on this before 9/11." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

FACT: President Bush and Vice President Cheney's counterterrorism task force, which was created in May, never convened one single meeting. The President himself admitted that "I didn't feel the sense of urgency" about terrorism before 9/11. [source: Washington Post, 1/20/02; Bob Woodward's "Bush at War"]

CLAIM: "Our [pre-9/11 NSPD] plan called for military options to attack al Qaeda and Taliban leadership, ground forces and other targets -- taking the fight to the enemy where he lived." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

FACT: 9/11 Commissioner Gorelick: "There is nothing in the NSPD that came out that we could find that had an invasion plan, a military plan." Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage: "Right." Gorelick: "Is it true, as Dr. Rice said, 'Our plan called for military options to attack Al Qaida and Taliban leadership'?" Armitage: "No, I think that was amended after the horror of 9/11." [source: 9/11 Commission testimony, 3/24/04]

CLAIM: "The president increased counterterrorism funding several-fold" before 9/11. – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/24/04

FACT: According to internal government documents, the first full Bush budget for FY2003 "did not endorse F.B.I. requests for $58 million for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators" and "proposed a $65 million cut for the program that gives state and local counterterrorism grants." Newsweek noted the Administration "vetoed a request to divert $800 million from missile defense into counterterrorism." [source: New York Times, 2/28/04; Newsweek, 5/27/02]

CLAIM: "The president launched an aggressive response after 9/11." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

FACT: "In the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI, an internal administration budget document shows. The papers show that Ashcroft ranked counterterrorism efforts as a lower priority than his predecessor did, and that he resisted FBI requests for more counterterrorism funding before and immediately after the attacks." [source: Washington Post, 3/22/04]

CLAIM: "Not a single National Security Council principal at that meeting recommended to the president going after Iraq. The president thought about it. The next day he told me Iraq is to the side." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

FACT: According to the Washington Post, "six days after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush signed a 2-and-a-half-page document marked 'TOP SECRET'" that "directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq." This is corroborated by a CBS News, which reported on 9/4/02 that five hours after the 9/11 attacks, "Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq." [source: Washington Post, 1/12/03. CBS News, 9/4/02]

CLAIM: "It's not as if anybody believes that Saddam Hussein was without weapons of mass destruction." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/18/04

FACT: The Bush Administration's top weapons inspector David Kay "resigned his post in January, saying he did not believe banned stockpiles existed before the invasion" and has urged the Bush Administration to "come clean" about misleading America about the WMD threat. [source: Chicago Tribune, 3/24/04; UK Guardian, 3/3/04]

Surprisingly enough, what she had to say in 2001 was so contradicting her later doctrine:

Quote[/b] ]Condoleeza Rice, July 2001: "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

I´m so confused now help.gif

End of Reply part 1

Next post will deal with your questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Why are you trying to discreadit Pres Bush even though its his last term? he can't run again. you're wasting you time
Thankyou for reminding me there is light at the end of the tunnel.

Even if this was not the case, Sophion-Black, if you were of voting age, would you vote him back into office?

If yes, why is it you have a blind faith in President Bush? You seem unable to accept that the current war in Iraq, was his decision, and that ultimatly, it has been a bad decision? I don't beleive you can pass the buck onto former President Clinton. He may have made his suspicion of Iraq clear during the latter part of his presidency, but it certainly wasn't him who pressed the invasion button.

You can waive the "I support the president because I'm a patriot" flag bullshit all you like. But fact of the matter is, you can call out against, or at the very least think about the decisions the current president has made, without thinking it's an 'unpatriotic' act.

To be a true patriot means the country comes first, everything else, including the president, comes second..... So ask yourself.....Has Bush and his administration really done the right thing by America, by first claiming to be searching for WMD's, (and failing). And then switching over to claim the war is part of the 'War on Terror', despite the fact that the war has been counter productive on that front?

If all the above seems like a bit too much 'liberal' thinking for you, and just that, then perhaps the best thing you could do for your country is give the ultra nice recruitment officers at www.goarmy.com a call!

Remember, Uncle Sam wants YOU! rofl.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]1) Why did Iran and Syria sign a treaty? think about that!

Both are under constan US pressure with econoical and other sanctions and multiple times both have been threatened with a military strike. Iran and Syria cooperate for quite a while now. That´s nothing really new. They have co-operated closely for the past generation since the Iranian revolution, and their respective intelligence services are intensely active in Lebanon.

Iran funds the Hezbollah movement, which operates with Syrian approval in the south of Lebanon, and both nations support radical Palestinian factions that are based in Damascus.

The regime in Tehran is theocratic, absolutist and strongly guided by the precepts of Shiite Islam. The Damascus Government is secular, quasi-socialist in ideology, and led by a small faction of Alawites, with a majority Sunni Muslim population.

As we don´t know the detailed content of the treaty it´s hard to discuss this issue, but it shouldn´t be too surprising that 2 countries who are under constant US pressure team up.

On a sidenote the russian ministry of defence is also participating by selling an air defense system based on the Igla to Syria.

Quote[/b] ]2) what happens to Saudi Arabian support to AQ if Iraq is turned around into a democratic country?

The Saudi Arabian support for AQ was never initially bound to Iraq. They will finance them on and on, no matter of Iraq´s outcome. Besides this, the indicators in Iraq don´t show the move towards to democracy as we know it. Right now it´s too early to tell what this country will be one day. There are just too many conflicts within the multi-secular state that also can lead to very different things. A western style democracy is not on the list right now.

Apart from that it´s Saudi Arabia itself, that needs attention. They have tried to buy nuclear technology from Pakistan and noone really knows what has been achieved from the Khan deals.

You also have to be careful. Financing for AQ does not automatically come from the SA government. SA citizens do finance them but they are not automatically bound to the government. If you expect a fall of the king in SA because of the Iraq change, you might be wrong. SA people lack one thing: They are not totally unhappy about their situation as they don´t live in poverty or have to constantly suffer from governmental restrictions.

Quote[/b] ]3) How does the terror attack on the USS Cole at Yemen shores impact the US <-> Yemen relations?

Yemen government enjoyed a lot of wellbeeings from the US relations, even before the Cole incident. Yemen is an important partner in the WOT. The US had significant progrmans running in Yemen before GWI that were partially cancelled when GWI started but where resummed later on. Right now the US is spending 14,9 million dollars on military aid in Yemen.

YOu only have to keep in mind that the Yemen government and the Yemen population a two different pair of boots. The Yemen population does not like the US presence on their soil and they accuse them of keeping their government in place against their willing. Yemen is also known to be a torture-friendly country where US prisoners where sent to for special interrogations.

The Cole incident only fortified the US - Yemen ties it had no changing effect but only intensified cooperation.

Quote[/b] ]4) How would Gore or Kerry do in the pres position? would Kerry continue on changing his mind? would Gore whine and complain untill AQ stops?

No objective question, therefore not answered.

How would Donald Duck do in the pres position ? icon_rolleyes.gif

Quote[/b] ]5) Were is China in all of this?

China is on the rise and will most likely be put to your enemy number one position oneday.

Quote[/b] ]6) Were is Russia in all of this?

Russia is seeking EU partnerships and has learned that EU partners are more important than US relations. Russia is playing the role of the bad guys and the good guys in personal union. They want to make money by supporting their former allies against the US and they want to open markets to make money in the EU. They need money badly and the government seems to fall back into old paterns and schemes. Overall there is little space for them to move within right now as they are very much dependant on the western money-flow and therfore have to keep up the impression that they get more democratic by the second, while in reality the freedom within Russia is still limited.

Quote[/b] ]7) What really made the French not support the US?

One of that bash the french issues again...

You tell me, and while you´re at you will certainly tell me why germany also didn´t support you.

Quote[/b] ]8) What is going in in Labanon that makes the US turn to Lebanon's aide against Syria?

That is nothing new.

Quote[/b] ]

In 1975 syrian troops entered Lebanon and stayed there under Arab-League peace-keeping mandate with a force of approximatly 40000 soldiers.

At an Arab League sponsored meeting at Taif, Saudi Arabia in October 1989, the Lebanese Parliament agreed on a revised formula for power sharing within the Lebanese Government; it also adopted a plan for reestablishment of central authority and phased Syrian redeployment to the eastern Bekaa Valley within two years of the agreement's implementation, after which Lebanon and Syria would agree on the ultimate status of Syrian forces in eastern Lebanon.

U.S. Administrations and Members of Congress have expressed the view that Syrian forces should have redeployed in accordance with the Taif Agreement by 1992, and have also criticized Syrian toleration of the presence of the pro-Iranian Hizballah militia in southern Lebanon.

In early April 1996, Hizballah forces based in southern Lebanon began firing rockets at Israeli forces in Israel's self-proclaimed security zone in southern Lebanon and in some cases at northern Israel as well. Israel responded with aerial and artillery bombardments aimed at Hizballah targets in southern Lebanon over an 18-day period (Operation "Grapes of Wrath"); approximately 200 Lebanese were killed, including 102 civilians sheltering at a U.N. base which was hit by Israeli strikes (Israeli spokesmen have said the base was hit by mistake). A U.S. brokered cease-fire, which became effective on April 27, provided that (1) Israeli forces and forces cooperating with them would not fire on civilian targets in Lebanon, (2) armed groups in Lebanese would not fire on targets in Israel, and (3) a committee consisting of the United States, France, Syria, Lebanon, and Israel would be established to monitor compliance with the agreement. This five-party committee became operational on July 12. Syria maintains that the committee's mission should be purely military and not a substitute for bilateral peace talks, while the United States and Israel would like it to have a broader mission.

Between late August and mid-September, Syria redeployed approximately 12,000 troops, including an armored brigade and special forces units, from central Lebanon in a southeasterly direction to locations closer to the Israeli occupied Golan Heights territory, spurring Israeli concern over a possible attack. On September 17, Prime Minister Netanyahu described the troop movements as a Syrian attempt to pressure Israel into territorial concessions. Syrian spokesmen said the movements were part of a routine troop rotation and an on-going redeployment of Syrian forces in Lebanon. On September 22, however, Syria's Information Minister described Syrian troop movements as a defensive measure in response to threatening moves by Israel, and on October 6, Syria's Minister of Defense warned that Israel would incur heavy losses if it launched "a military adventure." On October 29, however, the Syrian Foreign Minister said allegations that Syria was planning an attack on Israel were baseless, and his statement was welcomed by the Israeli Prime Minister. Also on October 29, a U.S. State Department spokesman expressed the view that there was no cause for undue concern over the situation at this time.

In November and December, Syrian and Israeli officials continued to accuse the other of obstructing the peace process. On November 21, U.S. Senator Arlen Specter, after visiting both President Asad and Prime Minister Netanyahu, suggested that President Clinton invite both leaders to the White House for a summit conference to pursue the stalled peace process.

Allegations of Syrian involvement with terrorist groups have been a longstanding point of contention between Washington and Damascus. Some observers believe Syria was involved in the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks by Shi'ite Muslim militants in Lebanon, although others have blamed Iran, which had closer ties with the group responsible for this atrocity. Syrian intelligence was implicated in an abortive attempt to place a bomb on an El Al airliner in London in 1986, after which the United States withdrew its ambassador to Syria for a year. Initial reports indicated that the destruction of the Pan American Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988 was the work of a Palestinian group headquartered in Damascus and responsive to Syria; subsequent international police investigations have led the international community to charge Libya with responsibility, but some observers continue to believe there was a Syrian or Iranian connection. Turkey has long complained that Syria supports the separatist Kurdish Labor Party (PKK), which the U.S. State Department lists as a terrorist organization.

Syrian-U.S. Relations

Quote[/b] ]9) Why did the US invite Veitnamise diplomats to build up relations?

To say "sorry" ? rofl.gif

Just kidding...

Vietnam is a growing market and they are on the rise again economically. They have lately bought some aeroplanes from the US. It´s business and you want to be a trade partner of an upcoming country.

Quote[/b] ]10) What finnaly made the Isralis pull out of the gaza strip?

The laps of the moment. Sharon is a hardliner but he knows that if he makes the first step it will give him a very good position in talks conducted under White House obeyance. Arrafat was noone he could have had serious talks with without loosing popular support in Israel but as he´s dead now there is a chance that talks will be more sucessfull witht the new palestinian leadership and he won´t loose his face by doing so. Arrafat was noone he could have serious talks with.

As the situation has changed he took the chance and put himself into the light of the one who is willing to give up israelian interests to start the process again, while there are other motivations on the list also. Israel is very dependant on US financial aid. This move granted him the money-flow for several years. From a logical point of view it was also a decision he had to make as the protection of those settlements was a costly deal and the settlers there drifted more and more to the ultra direction. So he swatted a lot of flies at once with a move like that.He also defused a potential timebomb by doing so as the birth rate among palestinians outnumbers the israelian birthrate a lot. 8,000-9,000 Jewish settlers were living among 1.3 million Palestinians, number growing. It does not need a genius to see that these are numbers that don´t go well with each other over years.

Quote[/b] ]11) How does the public effect a forien War?

I guess you´re talking about "foreign" war.

Public is not as much concerned about foreign wars as they would be if the war was at their doors. The horror and drama is censor-served 2 dimensional on TV. Those media are highly manipulative as the "embedded" US media-campaign showed. You may remember the Jessica Lynch story. Best example for manipulative media coverage.

The public generally reacts like a slow cow. They eat what is served to them and it takes a long time until they realize that they have been victims of screwed information. Unless they suffer casualties among their own the war is far away and certainly a good thing, as it is:

1. Patriotic

2. Freedom loving

3. Has to be supported for whatever

4. The president is always right

5. United we stand

6. Pride and sacrifice for whatever reasons

Once the public is aware of the things that really happen/ed they turn against the warleading parties pretty soon and do have influence -> Vietnam

Quote[/b] ]12) Whats going on in Somolia?

Unrest and secessional-fighting in Puntland and the border to Somaliland in the northwest.

Pirates are active at the coast and near the island of Sokotra.

The government is partly still in exile in Kenia and they try for the 14th times to reinstate a working government. As they think Moga is dangerous to conduct their business there are now talks to alter the governmental location to Jowhar.

Rival warlords control large parts of the country and are not willing to give in to a new government. Aideed´s son who is mangling in somalian governmental affairs also after he has studied in the US is demanding his piece of the cake as others also do in Somalia today.

Perspective unknown.

Quote[/b] ]Why are you trying to discreadit Pres Bush even though its his last term? he can't run again. you're wasting you time.

Would you say the same if germany got a last term of Hitler ?

Exaggerated, but should indicate why some people should be opposed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Calling the US military incompetent is a trite and unbecoming opinion that gives me the urge to kick you between the shoulderblades. As a member of the aforementioned force, of course.

I have absolutely no doubt that you would kick somebody in the back for expressing an opinion, ESPECIALLY as a member of the afore mentioned force.

Ironic that the US helped rid the world of Nazi fascism 60 years ago, only to decend into it now.

All fall in line you little star-spangled-eyed, flag waving, Bush Jugend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Break away from the UN platform of bobbing heads and shaking fists and let your own brainstem do the bulk of the thinking!

Then ehy the hell is TBA asking for UN's help? If someone can't remember what TBA's position was just before the IRaq war, here's what it was: We don't need UN, we can do it ourselves.

then that changed to "we, the allies..."

and then they finally decied to "lead the UN in fight against terror"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Calling the US military incompetent is a trite and unbecoming opinion that gives me the urge to kick you between the shoulderblades. As a member of the aforementioned force, of course.

I have absolutely no doubt that you would kick somebody in the back for expressing an opinion, ESPECIALLY as a member of the afore mentioned force.

Ironic that the US helped rid the world of Nazi fascism 60 years ago, only to decend into it now.

All fall in line you little star-spangled-eyed, flag waving, Bush Jugend.

well it's not really facism is it?

It's not like they are doing it for territorial gain like invading canada or mexico.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Apollo:

I see you're point. but there is always two or more sides of a coin. besides, it's impossible to destroy AQ. take a look at history:

1) KKK

2) Nazis

3) Communism

all three of them listed is still in the world today, but the major thing is that they arn't a major threat (with the exception of #3, i'll tell you why in later).

@Breaker:

well said, but i would hang them first

@all:

i'll be back... i need food  whistle.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok... were did i leave off... oh!

@Bernadotte:

Don't assume, it makes you look stupid if you're wrong... like now. Did i post "OBL was the person who thought out 9/11" no, i can even find a hint were i ever come close to it.

you're assumption puzzles me  huh.gif

@denoir:

I've never herd of that either, but i don't know anything about the French  rofl.gif.

Quote[/b] ]I consider both London and Madrid as "my neck of the woods" - the EU. And thank you very much, but I'd much rather be without your "help" as it does far more damage than it helps.

I'd say that the US has a LOT more influence than you think. not only do we protect our soil, but we are REQUIRED to come to your aid because of a well known treaty that made up NATO. Some EU countries even send thier troops to the US to get some trianing too. Look at it this way, what would happen if the US, the worlds only superpower, turns its power on the EU? would you be scared or amused? now think of that answer don't go off and say "thats funny" because i asure you if i had a poll 8/10 would say that they would be scared as hell if that would happen. the US isn't a country to just erase off a paper.. no... the US has proven time after time that it is a country that is just more that a hunk of land. just think, how many times has the US gov been changed? none! because our founding fathers has built a strong nation under God. Unlike many other nations that has fallen, the US has been the same constant, POWERFUL, country for more than 200 years. everything has fallen before it, and everything has risen beside it. I really get pissed when someone says something like that, you whant to know why? because you stupid-ass-faggot-fuckbreath-bastards have now idea on how the US would be in less than 3 years, who knows, later in life Europe might be in another fight, and its a strong possibility that it would be amongst yourselves.

@Balschoiw:

About the US being at fault... you're so-called "strong ally" on the WOT has failed to be reliable in their agreement to help. point being: We DID try to plan all avalable scenarios but the speed of the events could not have permited them to cover all exit routes. It takes time to move to point-A to point-B when all you see is desert and no fuel stations. Are you still denying the possibility that Pakistani Troops "looked the other way" while OBL crossed the boarder?

Also, you have the information but you didn't connect them. i'm surprised that you managed to retrive information so quickly so you'll have to excuse my suspition of false reports. The information shown is also unreliable fort the situations on hand.

2) Saudi Arabia has been put under observation and is expected to have a civil war break out when Iraq is converted to the full (source unnamed at this time)

3) i did't see anywere that might suggest that the incident was a victory for the US against more Terrorist attacks in Yemen

4) point: Bush is the best pres of the lineup

5) Too late on the enemy #1 deal, we already have treated China as the Soviet Union more than once with recon flights and military probing units  confused_o.gif .

6) getting pressure from the US to not sell anything to Syria and to not loose any Nukes!!! since most of the Nukes is retained by Russia and the US and whats left is like 38 something-or-ruther

7) ITS NOT BASH THE FRENCH!!! the French goverment did not support us because they are going through some changes at this time.

9) that wasn't funny at all, i just pissed me off. don't joke around about that. but you're right about the trade part. were just hopeing to get some influence in the region.

10) don't forget the planes we sold as a gift

11) ...or if they get "rotten news" that makes them go off on a power stuggle. the puble that shown at washington during the Veitnam was a miniroty. keep that in mind. it's whoever is fastes to the draw that gets heard.

12) a set-up of an AQ base, after the overthrow of Afghanistan they had to move elswere.

@chops:

You put yourself out there for that one. how would you feel if we said "We hate all you Japanies-Bashito-Bastards and critisize all your that you have done in the past 200 years", i'd imagine you would be pissed off. am i right? Its not facisim either! the US is more complex than just one man calling the shots! We have (3) differant branches to which none is more powerfull than the other. so if its our dicision... then we must really hate the poor bastards  rofl.gif

@RalphWiggum:

Though i cant remember the first respose from Bush to the UN i can provide the reason of the US changing its attitude:

The US pocket is only yea deep. we had no way of knowing the market econimy going down contuning to plummit. even as we speak our pocket contunies to worsen. fact being: we need money to faund the war just as the terr get their own outside faunding.

@all:

this is starting to get a little hot, watch you're steps you never know what you might run into. but enough with the serious talk... i need to go over to the humor pages for a good laugh.

don't forget you all: two shakes and you're playing with yourself  rofl.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh...great I wasted a lot of time for that response ? crazy_o.gif

Maybe you should try it the usual way by quoting your sources.

All that answers from my side were indepth and correct.

If you can´t read, or don´t want to read you´re nothing but an ignorant teenie with a low-self esteem problem and flawed knowledge on events YOU asked me about.

Maybe the indepth answers were too complicated. Dunno...

In detail:

Quote[/b] ]About the US being at fault... you're so-called "strong ally" on the WOT has failed to be reliable in their agreement to help. point being: We DID try to plan all avalable scenarios but the speed of the events could not have permited them to cover all exit routes. It takes time to move to point-A to point-B when all you see is desert and no fuel stations. Are you still denying the possibility that Pakistani Troops "looked the other way" while OBL crossed the boarder?

Nonsense. The posted timeline is accurate and detailed. I don´t know where you get your ideas from but certainly not from reality. It´s not my "so called strong ally". Ask your president. He is the one who uses this phrase over and over.

Quote[/b] ]i'm surprised that you managed to retrive information so quickly so you'll have to excuse my suspition of false reports.

Maybe I´m into that things a lot longer than you and therefore do know a bit more than you ?

You´re suspition is nothing but bull and winding. Check the sources.

Quote[/b] ]2) Saudi Arabia has been put under observation and is expected to have a civil war break out when Iraq is converted to the full (source unnamed at this time)

Haha !

Great !

Well I doubt that I will see full democracy in Iraq during my lifetime, so the Saudis don´t really have much to worry about.

Where do you get those shit from ? huh.gif

Quote[/b] ]3) i did't see anywere that might suggest that the incident was a victory for the US against more Terrorist attacks in Yemen

Oh ! You didn´t see ?

Let´s make it simple: The fact that the attack happened in Yemen made it very easy to get Yemen to fully cooperate with the US.

Again, read.

Quote[/b] ]

4) point: Bush is the best pres of the lineup

Poor USA. If you got nothing better to offer than a religious weirdo with a cocain carreer and the cleanest military record ever who likes to start wars just for the sake of it, you´re doomed. As I said earlier: He got voted, so conclusions on the population of the USA have to be drawn.

Quote[/b] ]5) Too late on the enemy #1 deal

You´re wrong. Check your military analyst papers. They somehow disagree with you 100 percent.

Quote[/b] ]6) getting pressure from the US to not sell anything to Syria and to not loose any Nukes!!! since most of the Nukes is retained by Russia and the US and whats left is like 38 something-or-ruther

What the hell are you talking about ? huh.gif

Quote[/b] ]7) ITS NOT BASH THE FRENCH!!! the French goverment did not support us because they are going through some changes at this time.

Huh ? Changes ? What nonsense is that ?

Quote[/b] ]9) that wasn't funny at all, i just pissed me off.

Sorry that you wetted your pants.

Quote[/b] ]10) don't forget the planes we sold as a gift

As I recall a gift is free. Why do they have to pay them if they are a gift ?

Quote[/b] ]...or if they get "rotten news" that makes them go off on a power stuggle.

Yeah I know, all that made up stuff about Abu Ghraib and the civillian deathtoll. I know. All made up and so on. In my opinion they only should see parades and flowers from Baghdad on TV. Damn commies. They have taken over media... rofl.gif

Quote[/b] ]12) a set-up of an AQ base, after the overthrow of Afghanistan they had to move elswere.

You´re a funny guy. I guess you can find an AQ camp in almost every civil-war shaken country on this planet. Oh wait, you can´t, that´s the problem. Maybe an AQ camp is just right next to your door ? Who knows.

Somalia is a really bad location for AQ. There are so many kath-weirdos there who even kill their relatives by accident.

Why not go to one of the safe Yemen areas ? At least one of OBL´s wifes is located there *hint*

I´m still waiting to get my pat´s on the back.

I thought I would discuss with an informed guy. Well, I won´t waste my time debating "feelings" and "opinions" with a guy who has just got into international matters and lacks a lot of knowledge.

Get your facts straight.

Edit:

Quote[/b] ]this is starting to get a little hot, watch you're steps you never know what you might run into.

OMG wow_o.gif

We are shivering in terror !

Hey dude, the only thing that getting hot is the air coming from your direction.

It´s nothing else, hot air... goodnight.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd say that the US has a LOT more influence than you think. not only do we protect our soil, but we are REQUIRED to come to your aid because of a well known treaty that made up NATO.

Yeah, as are we. Guess who is running the show in Afghanistan these days?

Quote[/b] ]Look at it this way, what would happen if the US, the worlds only superpower, turns its power on the EU? would you be scared or amused?

Very amused. France and Britain have more than enough nukes to turn the US into a parking lot several times over. And vice-versa of course, so it's quite a silly notion.

Quote[/b] ]because our founding fathers has built a strong nation under God.

Yeah, just like Iran. Do you have a point besides claiming that you are religious nuts?

Quote[/b] ]

Unlike many other nations that has fallen, the US has been the same constant, POWERFUL, country for more than 200 years.

..or in your case, very ignorant as well. The US has been powerful since after WW2 (as unlike Europe, you weren't bombed to pieces during the war) and that is fading very fast. Economically, you are no longer the largest economy and market. And militarily..well, I mean you can't even handle a bunch of rag-tag insurgents armed with 40+ year old weapons. It is probably the most pathetic display since.. well.. since the British lost against you in your little insurgency.

Quote[/b] ]

everything has fallen before it, and everything has risen beside it.

Are you sniffing glue or something or is this again a display of complete ignorance? 200 years is nothing, nil. America is a very, very young nation. Unfortunately you are apparently not learning from Europe's experience - you are just repeating the mistakes that we did once upon a time.

Don't take me wrong, there are great things about America, but you shouldn't overestimate your country in a historical context.

Quote[/b] ]I really get pissed when someone says something like that, you whant to know why? because you stupid-ass-faggot-fuckbreath-bastards have now idea on how the US would be in less than 3 years, who knows, later in life Europe might be in another fight, and its a strong possibility that it would be amongst yourselves.

Well, I see that your geopolitical knowledge is as good as your knowledge of history. If you haven't noticed we "stupid-ass-faggot-fuckbreath-bastards" are uniting, while you are more and more polarized. Chances are far higher that you'll have another civil war (not that I think it will happen) than for an intra-EU military conflict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Economically, you are no longer the largest economy and market.

Don't mean to spoil the fun, but what do you mean by that? Are you referring to collective economies (eg. EU) being larger?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see you're point. but there is always two or more sides of a coin. besides, it's impossible to destroy AQ. take a look at history:

3) Communism

all three of them listed is still in the world today, but the major thing is that they arn't a major threat (with the exception of #3, i'll tell you why in later).

No please, tell us now!

I'd love to know why communism is still a major threat......

Or is it merely a major phobia? rofl.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Bush is the best pres
Quote[/b] ]...everything has fallen before it, and everything has risen beside it.
Quote[/b] ]because you stupid-ass-faggot-fuckbreath-bastards
Quote[/b] ]watch you're steps you never know what you might run into

While it is sad that Balschoiw had to waste his time answering every delusional point this comical figure made I am still rolling over the floor laughing rofl.gif

Flaming,cyber death threats,religious fevour, I am really wondering how representitive is Sophion Black for the USA population.A while ago I would have expected such ravings only from the village idiot but there seems to be a consistent flood on the internet of ignorance,Euro phobia and blindlessly rallying behind Bush all mighty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Economically, you are no longer the largest economy and market.

Don't mean to spoil the fun, but what do you mean by that? Are you referring to collective economies (eg. EU) being larger?

The eurozone GPD went ahead after the dollar started plummeting. Now wonder why that might be. whistle.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]I'd love to know why communism is still a major threat......
Two words my friend wink_o.gif:

Vladimir Putin.

Imagine what if OBL was smarter and had an entire, non-democratic, country at his disposal.

And besides:

communism is the only one of theese three that claims to be the saviour of entire humanity. It's an tempting ideology for young, pseudo-intelectual assholes. Plus it's legal (no idea why?) and makes a "democratic imprassion". Some people might get fooled... again.

Anyways why europe needs US? So that we don't have to speak russian. The old, cold-war logics are returning, esspecially as Russia feels threaten by democratic movement in Ukraine and begins political manouvers to ensure the EU will leave eastern europe out of their influences.

That's offtopic, yet answers a question.

[edit]@crazysheep: Hmm. Yeah. I'd rather categorise him under nationalists. Have you herd that he formed his own hitleryuggen recently? A scouting organisation loyal to Kreml, which will "teach the young the patriotism that tooday's Russia misses so much" or something like that. However we do not know who will come after Putin. Bielarus is in fact the last enclave of c. in europe, with strong russian support.

What about China? Communism had to give in to market (oh, irony), but we do not know what will future bring. Ok, that was a little digression, which should propably go to other thread, so I won't mention it any further.

As a sidenote: don't You think that islamism is fashionable in europe just as communism was? I mean on the same principle.

Young people search for meaning in life and the idea of revolution is tempting.

And an interesting fact:

Before the 9/11 there were 2-5 persons each year that decided to convert to Islam each year in Poland. After 9/11 the number jumped rapidly to 20-30.

It's still small, yet I wonder what would be similar results in other countries. And I wonder who are that 15-25 additional converts and what will become of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@ Aug. 17 2005,12:29)]
Quote[/b] ]I'd love to know why communism is still a major threat......
Two words my friend wink_o.gif:

Vladimir Putin.

Imagine what if OBL was smarter and had an entire, non-democratic, country at his disposal.

I don't think Putin is a communist. He is just a totalitarian, and has no communist political views. I think Russia is destined to become totalitarian again, simply because, culturally, it likes to have strong leaders; liberal leaders are scorned and I don't know of any that have been accepted by Russians.

If you're looking for communism as still a threat, however, you've got Chavez in Venezuela who is slowly reforming Venezuela to look like Cuba. If there was a communist threat it would come from Latin America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, I remember something called "liberation theology". Jesus Christ painted as a communist and a crazy ideology of radical crysto-catholic communism. They even shouted at pope when they didn't like what he was saying. crazy_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×