Pukko

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister Frag @ April 19 2002,00:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (barret @ April 19 2002,07:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister Frag @ April 19 2002,00:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (barret @ April 19 2002,07:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><Snip> cessnad us hydraliks though<span id='postcolor'> Which model? None of their single-engine models that I am aware of. The Cessna Caravan maybe, but not the 150/170/210 series....<span id='postcolor'> The Citationz do...........So do the Sky lanes<span id='postcolor'> The Citations are twin-engine jet aircraft, I was talking about single-engine piston-driven aircraft. The Skylane has hydraulic brakes (which are common), but I don't think the control surfaces use hydraulics. I'm not insisting they are not hydraulic, but I would be surprised.<span id='postcolor'> Since I have been working alot with small Cessnas I could add this info if you are interested (it was some years ago though): Standard models of 152, 172, 182 all use fixed landingears. All cessnas from 152-210 (I think even 340 (may use some rods)) use cable operated ailerons/elevator/rudder and of course 'hydraulic brakes'. I think they all use electrical flaps. There is a 172 and 182 RG version with hydraulically retractable landing gears. All 210's have hydraulic L/G. Really simple aicrafts those

Thanks for your answer scout, Respect (btw, it seems like you think of them as extreme left, while they seem to be equally disliked by both right and left for different reasons) </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And from the students in Israel you hear nothing! Basically nothing! Pretty disapointing for a young generation which in other countries suceeded in provoking whole revolutions and kicking out governments! <span id='postcolor'> Also the students seems to be stuck between left and right: "The people upon whom the responsibility for suppressing the uprising has been inflicted are the students of the confusing educational system of "the Greater State of Israel." That system on the one hand preached democracy and condemned discrimination based on racial origin, yet on the other hand drew maps that gave legitimacy to a non-democratic racist regime. Today, hundreds of diligent students who learned the essence of democracy in civics classes are demanding to implement its principles in reality, or at least not to demand that they defend in practice the existence of a non-democratic regime. By this deed they are accused by the right wing of treachery and by the left wing of undermining the principles of a democratic regime (! )"

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (scout @ April 17 2002,17:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the talk in about evacing 90% of the territory. did i say Arafat objects this move fiercly?<span id='postcolor'> What about the other 10%? Could there be any reason for the Pals to want/need that area too? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the pals wont agree to have settlers in their territory and i wont leave em to the mercy of the PA. the palestinians just want us to pull out all the way back to europe and the US. thats all. it seems you are all thinking in too western terms ppl. if no one understood it, the idea is to kick us outa here, if not why didnt they accept Baraks proposal? he gave em literally all they wanted! <span id='postcolor'> This quote could be added to the one above, but it also makes me remember what the IDF refusenik Assaf Oron wrote in his letter posted by RedRogue on page 30 of this thread: "..The general theme is the tribal theme. A very very loud voice (and in Israel nowadays, it is the only voice that is allowed to be fully heard) keeps shouting that we are in the midst of a war between two tribes: a tribe of human beings, of pure good - the Israelis - and a tribe of sub-human beings, of pure evil - the Palestinians. This voice is so loud, that it has found its way even to the op-ed pages of the New York Times (William Safire, March 24 or 25). To those who find this black-and-white picture a bit hard to believe, the same voice shouts that this is a war of life and death. Only one tribe will survive, and so even if we are not purely good, we must lay morality and conscience to sleep, shut up and fight to kill - or else, the Palestinians will throw us into the sea. Does this ring a bell to you? It does to me. As a little child growing up in Israel under Golda Meir and Moshe Dayan, all I heard was that the Arabs are inhuman monsters who want to throw us into the sea, they understand only force, and since our wonderful IDF has won the Six Day War they know not to mess with us anymore - or else. And of course, we must keep the Liberated Territories to ourselves, because there's no one to talk with. Then came the Yom Kippur war, and for a child of 7 it was the perfect proof that indeed the Arabs want to throw us into the sea, and what a great opportunity it was for our glorious IDF to teach them a lesson. I prayed for the war to continue to its natural and final end - the complete surrender of all Arab armies. I was too small to evaluate, then, how the war really ended; all these cease-fires and talks were too complicated and boring, much more boring than a war. And it seemed humiliating that WE should withdraw in these cease-fires; I remember that the re-opening of the Suez Canal was portrayed in our mass media as a kind of defeat. A few years passed and a funny thing happened: those throw-us-into-the-sea Arabs came to talk with us, and in exchange for all of Sinai they would sign a full peace. The IDF chief of staff (the late Motte Gur, later a Labor Party minister) shouted that it is a hoax, that we should not believe Saadat, but the politicians had to sign. Already a teenager, I went and protested against the withdrawal from Sinai. It seemed strange to me that most of the demonstrators were orthodox Jews. After all, it was a purely logical issue: the Arabs are not to be trusted, that's what we've learned from day one. Well, lucky for the country, the government and the majority of the people employed a different logic, and the peace with Egypt was not missed. But the throw-us-into-the-sea paradigm immediately found new fields for play. There was an inconvenient reality on the Northern border, and even though the forces on the other side (Palestinians! Phew! had strictly adhered to a secret cease-fire for about a year, they were Arabs and therefore could not be trusted..." </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">in palestinian school books there is no Israel, its all mentioned as palestine<span id='postcolor'> To this it could also be added what the refusenik Tamir Sorek writes: "...Palestinian Arabs (upon whose confiscated land the new residents settled), who were denied all civil rights, including the right to immigrate to the civil part of the state. At the schools of those with rights they continued to teach that discrimination on the basis of racial, ethnic, national or religious background is a horrible thing against which human beings must struggle. In that context many hours were devoted to studying the racism that was aimed at the Jews in Europe, yet no classes were devoted to discuss the condition of the non-citizens of the state, residents of the West Bank and Gaza Strip." </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">no! the golan heights were syrian, there were no pals there. the only ppl that were there are Druze who are respected part of our country now, and i had the honor to serve with quite a few. they are bunch of decent ppl and fierce fighters. <span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Contrary to what Scout says, the Golan Druze are very anti-Israel and are very pro-Syrian. This is in major contrast to the remaining Druze in Israel who are exemplary citizens to whom Israel does not pay sufficient grattitude to, IMO. <span id='postcolor'> These 2 quotes by you scout and you Avon shows that the Druze people, living in the 'occupied' area of Golan heights, actually were integrated in the Israeli society (or maybe you Avon means that they were not integrated?); in contrast to the Palestinians living in the other still 'occupied' areas from the six day war. How comes that? Now please dont take this post as an effort from me to flame/silence you, but I'm really interested in your view about these 'details'

Alexander the Great: The only one who has ever conqured Afganistan

Alexander the Great: The only one who has ever conqured Afganistan

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 16 2002,21:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Pukko @ April 16 2002,18:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You know after ejecting the pilot takes with him most of the 'rocket chair' except the metal 'chassi', that contains parachute, lifeboat, a gun I think and most certainly some stuff to survive a short while (maybe some Swedish 'snus' )<span id='postcolor'> Really? I didn't know that. I always thought they jettisoned the chair before opening the parachute.<span id='postcolor'> Maybe I wrote it bad: The pilot keeps being strapped to the 'seat' (sitt & rygg dynor, the harness is fitted into them) while the metallic chassi separates after being ejected and before opening the parachute. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But hey - the food was better and my work was very laid back so even if I was dissapointed at first, it turned out quite well. After my time was up, they wanted me to go to the military academy, but I asked them politely to fuck off <span id='postcolor'> Sounds good to get away from the maybe boring but heavy service left from there . Dont know if you have been to Frösön in Östersund, but the view over 'Oviksfjällen' is one of the most beautiful in Sweden. And F4 is placed right on first bench there, its visible from our quarters, restaurant, aircraft platform etc. clearly making it a better time to be there. The food was probably good, but certainly tasted better with that view </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Longinius Posted on April 16 2002,21:43 I worked for a while at F 10 (Swedish Airforce). Came in contact with pilots often enough. During peacetime, they dont have any special survival gear. Its not really needed in Sweden cause where ever they go down, help is to be found fairly close by (or will arrive soon enough). So they will not have to bother with extended survival. They have gear for surviving at sea though (lifejacket and raft). <span id='postcolor'> Maybe they got some more stuff in wartime. One of our 'fiasco excesises' were to F10 Ängelholm - we flew Hercules down on monday, went out and got drunk in the evening, and back on tuesday morning

EDIT: No comment

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 16 2002,13:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Don't they have som form of survival gear, attached to their flightsuits?<span id='postcolor'> Thanks for the info denoir, most interesting. Regarding pilots survival equipment, I'm not all to sure. I can tell you that they do not carry anything visible on their suit. But in the ejection seat (or whats it called in eng) they have some stuff to survive until rescued by the 'ytbärgare' (who is also a 'värnpliktig' ). We had many speciallised 'värnpliktiga' guys around. The majority were Aircraft/Weapons mechanics like me, but also component, towing, material guys etc. The one guy working closest to the pilots were the - damn! I cant remember what he was called - guy who took care of the pilots helmets, suits and equipment. Such a guy should know about thier eq, but I'm quite sure that they do not carry anything essential to survival on their suit. You know after ejecting the pilot takes with him most of the 'rocket chair' except the metal 'chassi', that contains parachute, lifeboat, a gun I think and most certainly some stuff to survive a short while (maybe some Swedish 'snus' ) My military service was quite lame when it comes to ordinary infantry stuff as you can guess. Of the whole 11 months (at 1:st division, F4-Frösön), six weeks was basic training (gröntjänst) and two weeks of Squad leader training (the SL training came as late as after 6 months, and was never practised at all!!!! ). The rest was kind of a relaxed ordinary work. About 3 mechanics (and one tecnician) were assigned one aircraft per day (most of the time 4 or 5 planes per division were active each day), and the pilots flew 4 times from about 8 in the morning to 4 p.m. During the time they flew, we mostly sat in our coffe room doing most unnecessary things, and then runned all that we could to the service line to take care of our assigned aircraft when we missed its landing . Then we had 3 'fiasco exercises' around Sweden that eventually were cancelled because of bad weather, and one succesful 'slutövning' (final exercise). I have never been called in for 'rep övning' since '94.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 16 2002,00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Unfortunately, I don't have many pictures of the diving gear, since we weren't allowed to photograph it (the design is classified).<span id='postcolor'> Scary picture above on you 'attack dykare' guys Is most of your diving gear Swedish made, or do SEAL (if they are your US equivalent) and others use similar stuff (maybe a stupid question considering you wrote that the gear is classified, and therefore unique)? Also, I dont see any god old 'k-pist' on the picture which I have heard that you use since it works good under water. Now I made my military service as a 'Viggen' mechanic in the Swedish airforce (using k-pist only) and therefore dont know much about general Swedish assault rifles (AK4, AK5?) and machineguns (KSP 58, 90?), but I suppose that the guys on that picture carries some of those. Can you fire, or even bring them unprotected, under water? Or do you use some kind of waterproof protection for them on missions where you are supposed to engage at land? Instead of asking more specified questions; what, and how, do you bring other kinds of 'land euipment' when on short respective long time land missions, inserted by diving? I dont think I have much equipment info myself (except maybe our mobile 'klargörings' (aircraft rearm, refuel etc) equipment), but could tell you some what JA37 Viggen pilots can bring with them. Well not exactly what, but how . A short distance behind the nose gear there is a little space where one can strap a small briefcase on top of a removable plate (takes some time to do it though), and thats about it! They dont have much need of field equipment though A mobile 'klargöring' (rearm & refuel etc.) takes about 7 minutes and can be perfomed on quite ordinary roadstrips.

0--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IceFire @ April 13 2002,200)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">PLEASE TELL ME THAT YOU CAN ACTUALY BUY THE FIGURES!!!!!<span id='postcolor'> Naaaaah, I'm sceptical No physical adress, and this: So you want to buy a T-shirt? It's so easy! Please email your order to the Store at: executiveheadoftshirts@jesuschristsuperstore.net Please don't send cash Each t-shirt is individually made to ensure the quality you have come to expect from the Store. They cost Å25 UK Sterling (or equivalent) and you should allow at least 3 weeks for delivery. Don't send cash. Please don't. Oh go on then . . . send cash if you want to

As far as i know the latest post she has made was a reply to my first post in the Mid East thread (page 45, it was Posted: April 07 2002,20:43 CET), she ended the reply with: "I must continue this tomorrow maybe but I'll start with saying that Israel itself, under international pressure and the Arabs themselves did not allow Israeli law to be imposed in Judea, Samaria and Gaza after the six day war. That is the start of the quagmire of different rights for different folks in these areas. History is so dull! More tomorrow, if I can." I would really like to hear the continuation of that....

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 12 2002,17:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think that the following must happen to ensure permanent peace in the region: 1] The killing must stop (I have no clue of how to achieve this) 2] One or two generations must pass so that the killing and hatered is forgotten. 3] Make deal over the territory.<span id='postcolor'> I was just about ot post a similar post, seing other posts like: "More importantly, if the Palestinians got a nation of their own but continued to bomb, then Israel would without a doubt have the full support of Europe and the US." I thought of it basically in the reversed order from what you wrote. 1. Firstly force the recognition of a Palestinian state. The suicide bombings will most certainly not stop because of this. 2. Send in massively amounts of profesional 'aid workers' (not quite the correct term), like psycologists and other people; that can hurry up the destruction of current ideologies, grown stronger during generations, amongst particulary the younger Palestinians (the new suicide bomer recruits). Give the young Palestinians visions of chanses to a decent life. 3. The killing will then most certainly stop in the time of a few years. But hey, I'm just an amateur about these things, but wanted to share my vision

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hilandor @ April 11 2002,20:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">yes this topic deserves pinning for its sheer size, and lack of flaming<span id='postcolor'> Yep, and since Sharon has announced that the Israeli offensive will continue for 3 more (I heard this on the news earlier today, but has not heared it again) weeks it will probably continue to be used well.... BTW Please fix the search engine.

Ya, its just a play with words i guess: shoot to kill or shoot to wound. "They'd rather club the person to the ground" That really sounds both legally and situation based more dangerous. Doubt I would ever risk beating someone down - I might kill the person or he/she might kill me.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ April 11 2002,15:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"About police and armed sentry: I wrote they have right to shoot anybody that doesn't obey their call. (by call I mean : "Drop your weapon !" or "Police ! Stop or I'll shoot !" ->something like that) If you obey call you are safe." No, they dont have the right to shoot just because you refuse to obey. They can only shoot, legally, if you threaten their or anyone elses life.<span id='postcolor'> You are Swedish, but have not made military service with 'skyddsvakts utbildning'? During the examination in the 'skyddsvakts prov' one was supposed to do like (I think it was like this, it was 8 years ago): 1. Call 'Halt'. 2. Call 'Halt or I will shoot sharp'. 3. Fire warning shot. 4. Fire one shot in one of the trespassers legs. If after shooting at the leg he becomes violent one will have the right to self defence, and also maybe fire in the other leg if he/she continues to the guarded object I suppose (there were not real rules called for after the 4 above).

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Major Fubar @ April 11 2002,03:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Funny, from what I know of attack dog training, dogs are trained to go for specific body areas...one for the ass, one for the penis? What the heck are the cops teacing these dogs?<span id='postcolor'> And even more interesting: HOW do they train them to be good penis biters?

If you are interested in the entire convention, you can read it here: Full text of the Convention Its not at all as long as one could think, just 54 short articles. The rest of the 10 pound book that is the real convetion is about implemenation of the convention and stuff.

I´'m not really sure about the prison law I mentioned. Found this in the FAQ though: "Q: Who has not ratified and why not? A: The Convention on the Rights of the Child is the most widely and rapidly ratified human rights treaty in history. Only two countries, Somalia and the United States, have not ratified this celebrated agreement. Somalia is currently unable to proceed to ratification as it has no recognized government. By signing the Convention, the United States has signalled its intention to ratify – but has yet to do so. As in many other nations, the United States undertakes an extensive examination and scrutiny of treaties before proceeding to ratify. This examination, which includes an evaluation of the degree of compliance with existing law and practice in the country at state and federal levels, can take several years – or even longer if the treaty is portrayed as being controversial or if the process is politicized. For example, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide took more than 30 years to be ratified in the United States and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, which was signed by the United States 17 years ago, still has not been ratified. Moreover, the US Government typically will consider only one human rights treaty at a time. Currently, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women is cited as the nation's top priority among human rights treaties. "

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ April 11 2002,02:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The United States, which has signalled its intention to ratify by formally signing the Convention, now stands as the only industrialized country in the world and one of only two United Nations member States yet to make this legal commitment to children<span id='postcolor'> where did you find that text? Quite strange if USA has joined some parts of the convention, but not the whole. I think I have heard that the USA have some problems with a priison policy of kids that they would be forced to change if they joined the convetion.

Regarding children. I recently read a report about 'Child politics and the rights of the child' by Kristina Bartley at Gothenburg University. In that one can read that by the spring 1998 191 countries had entered into the United Nations treaty 'Convention on the Rights of the Child'. Only two countries, the USA and Somalia, had at that time not ratified the convention. I looked at the UN website but could not verify wether USA had joined in the conventiion yet or not. The convention was established in 1989 and is a paralell to the convention on Human Rights, taking into consideration special needs for humans below 18 years. Including the use of children for military purposes. Do you know if USA have entered it yet? Look on this site for more info: Child rights - Unicef

I found a realplayer clip of it at the program 'Mediemagasinet' homepage at the SVT webbsite. Its mostly in Swedish though: Click on modem or bredband (broadband) on the 'Historien om en bild' line, 3:rd from top in the right column The celebrating womans name is Fatma Hussein. She were selling vegetables when the reporters arrived. The news agencies were Reuter and AP standing shoulder to shoulder taking the pictures.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ex-RoNiN @ April 10 2002,21:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">where doctors reattached the suspect's penis.<span id='postcolor'> LOL With a banjo fitting?

A Swedish 'media criticism' TV program showed the following in september regarding the celebrating Palestinians: The celebrations by those Palestinians seen on 9/11 were taken the same day, but by a camera team asking (after driving around failing to find any celebrations) some palestinians in a bar and on the street to celebrate in front of the camera someting completely else than the WTC collapsing (I think what they said was related to USA in some way though). The woman in black seen celbreating waving her arms and making this 'indian shout' was interviewed in this program. She had no TV of her own, but when she saw in what context the pictures on her celebrating was used in media at some friends she felt sick, she said. She had no idea what had happened in the USA when the pictures was taken and was used by media in an awful way.

I heard the other day that the war in Afganistan is far from over. Have any of you any idea how much there is left to do before its 'finished'?

To me its no doubt there will be a united global community in the long run (talking centuries). I will make an, not in anyway special, example of Sweden; a geographical area where I live without being proud of it. 1. Before the nation Sweden was born there was regional divisions and conflicts. Probably the views on the different regions had much in common with todays global views; like 'those bastards only deserve to die, and no we will never be able to live in peace with them'. Well obviously they could. I think its there lies much in what RalphWiggum said earlier - tecnhology helps us to expand our views. In the mideval time people might have known as much about an area 100 km away as we today know about an area on the other side of planet Tellus. Humans are not by nature hostile to each other, and will eventually choose to live together, when we see that our differances dont mean nothing. Damn, in our time mankind is still very primitive, we do not need a common enemy to unite us... 2. Areas known for violence does change in time. The Scandinavian countries have as many of you know a bloody history. Once Sweden was amongst the most military succesful nations in Europe. And before that we had the not so peaceful vikings. Now Scandinavia is known for a peaceful nature, and Sweden has not been to war for soon 200 years (nothing to be proud of indeed, especially since we let down Norway in WW 2). Why it has become like this is not easy to explain, its just human nature. There is a need for a nation to develop a national identity, just like humans develop identity. Some do it by violence, some not - but evetually we calm down and becomes open to others, probably when we see through the illusion of differances...