Should We Bomb Syria and Iran?

[Kenneth Williams]

President Bush said that in addition to striking terorists directly
that the US would also target those who harbor terrorists.

I think it is clear that both Syria and Iran harbor terrorists and
export terror in the region- especially in Israel, with Hamas and
Islamic Jihad and even in Iraq against our own troops.

Shouldn't we, like our Israeli friends, bomb Syria and Iran in
pre-emptive or retaliatory strikes? I wouldn't like a widening of the
war in the region but under these circumstances won't we eventually be
forced to do something drastic?

What is the general concensus here at RAM?

I personally think Iran is the worst of the two and should be bombed
if Tehran does not cooperate with the nuclear inspectors on its covert
nuclear weapons program. The US can't afford to have a nuclear-armed
Iran sitting right next door when the US is trying to rebuild Iraq and
allowing democracy in that region.

In addition, now we know how Israel feels daily with the US casualties
in Iraq mounting. It is so frustrating to promote peace when you are
constantly under attack by hostiles who want you to fail.

I think Israel is justified with its doctrine of pre-emptive strikes.
The US seems destined to follow under the circumstances.

Kenneth Williams

[tscottme]

I vote yes, but I'll leave the tactical decision to the experts. I
think it's clear that Syria and Iran are on the wrong side of the "with
us or with the terrorist" line. It seems clear that the State Dept has
been a key player, again, in keeping the logical consequences of Syria's
actions from being delivered to Syria.

I hope that in this war on terrorism we don't forget to invade the State
Dept and install a regime that will promote the US interest, rather than
taking as their starting position one half-way between the US and other
governments before their negotiating waters down that position further.

--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm
Kenneth Williams > wrote in message
m...
> President Bush said that in addition to striking terorists directly
> that the US would also target those who harbor terrorists.
>
> I think it is clear that both Syria and Iran harbor terrorists and
> export terror in the region- especially in Israel, with Hamas and
> Islamic Jihad and even in Iraq against our own troops.
>
> Shouldn't we, like our Israeli friends, bomb Syria and Iran in
> pre-emptive or retaliatory strikes? I wouldn't like a widening of the
> war in the region but under these circumstances won't we eventually be
> forced to do something drastic?
>
> What is the general concensus here at RAM?
>
> I personally think Iran is the worst of the two and should be bombed
> if Tehran does not cooperate with the nuclear inspectors on its covert
> nuclear weapons program. The US can't afford to have a nuclear-armed
> Iran sitting right next door when the US is trying to rebuild Iraq and
> allowing democracy in that region.
>
> In addition, now we know how Israel feels daily with the US casualties
> in Iraq mounting. It is so frustrating to promote peace when you are
> constantly under attack by hostiles who want you to fail.
>
> I think Israel is justified with its doctrine of pre-emptive strikes.
> The US seems destined to follow under the circumstances.
>
> Kenneth Williams

[tscottme]

Kenneth Williams > wrote in message
m...
> President Bush said that in addition to striking terorists directly
> that the US would also target those who harbor terrorists.
>

Don't forget to add Saudi Arabia to the list. It seems the case for
punishing them is easier to make than Iran.

--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

[Simon Robbins]

"Kenneth Williams" > wrote in message
m...
> I personally think Iran is the worst of the two and should be bombed
> if Tehran does not cooperate with the nuclear inspectors on its covert
> nuclear weapons program. The US can't afford to have a nuclear-armed
> Iran sitting right next door when the US is trying to rebuild Iraq and
> allowing democracy in that region.

Don't forget Irael isn't cooperating with the Atomic Energy Agency either.

> I think Israel is justified with its doctrine of pre-emptive strikes.
> The US seems destined to follow under the circumstances.

Yeah, (putting aside the machinations of their governments) let's **** off
another few tens of millions of people who already view us and our motives
with suspicion. Go all the way and confirm their worst fears, and give them
a reason to sign up and fight the unholy aggressor...

Si

[Peter Kemp]

On 13 Oct 2003 23:24:51 -0700, (Kenneth
Williams) wrote:

>Shouldn't we, like our Israeli friends, bomb Syria and Iran in
>pre-emptive or retaliatory strikes? I wouldn't like a widening of the
>war in the region but under these circumstances won't we eventually be
>forced to do something drastic?
>
>What is the general concensus here at RAM?

Confusion. You're suggesting that the US should bomb these two
countries.....

> It is so frustrating to promote peace when you are
>constantly under attack by hostiles who want you to fail.

In the name of helping the US promote peace? You didn't used to be SAC
did you?

Personally, I believe pressure should be brought to bear on both Syria
and Iran for their support of terrorists, not their WMD - IIRC Syria
hasn't even signed the CWC and yet is being lambasted for having
chemical weapons.

Use the processes in place - including sanctions, and don't do an
IRAQ2 and go off in a storm of outrage (and cruise missiles) if the
UNSC doesn't immediately fall into line.

>I think Israel is justified with its doctrine of pre-emptive strikes.
>The US seems destined to follow under the circumstances.

I disagree. Israel is a poor example to follow. For example at one
point they were blowing the hell out of every Palestinian Authority
facility, including police stations, while complaining the police and
PA were ineffective!

Personally I'd find it a little difficult to do any work with
Hellfires coming in the window.

One other thing to remember is that Syria allegedly has large numbers
of chemical tipped SCUDs. Push them too far or attack them, and they
could be heading both towards Israel, and towards US bases in Iraq.
Israel would then retaliate and things would go to hell in a hand
basket.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

[Alan Minyard]

On 13 Oct 2003 23:24:51 -0700, (Kenneth
Williams) wrote:

>President Bush said that in addition to striking terorists directly
>that the US would also target those who harbor terrorists.
>
>I think it is clear that both Syria and Iran harbor terrorists and
>export terror in the region- especially in Israel, with Hamas and
>Islamic Jihad and even in Iraq against our own troops.
>
>Shouldn't we, like our Israeli friends, bomb Syria and Iran in
>pre-emptive or retaliatory strikes? I wouldn't like a widening of the
>war in the region but under these circumstances won't we eventually be
>forced to do something drastic?
>
>What is the general concensus here at RAM?
>
>I personally think Iran is the worst of the two and should be bombed
>if Tehran does not cooperate with the nuclear inspectors on its covert
>nuclear weapons program. The US can't afford to have a nuclear-armed
>Iran sitting right next door when the US is trying to rebuild Iraq and
>allowing democracy in that region.
>
>In addition, now we know how Israel feels daily with the US casualties
>in Iraq mounting. It is so frustrating to promote peace when you are
>constantly under attack by hostiles who want you to fail.
>
>I think Israel is justified with its doctrine of pre-emptive strikes.
>The US seems destined to follow under the circumstances.
>
>Kenneth Williams

Israel is just as guilty as the Palestinians when it comes to the
causes of terrorism. When will they learn that killing teenage girls
and bulldozing homes is not conducive to peace?

Al Minyard

[Yama]

"Peter Kemp" <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom> wrote in message
...
> Personally, I believe pressure should be brought to bear on both Syria
> and Iran for their support of terrorists, not their WMD - IIRC Syria
> hasn't even signed the CWC and yet is being lambasted for having
> chemical weapons.

The fun thing is, Syrians have actually provided USA some intel about Al
Qaida: Al Qaida is ideological enemy of more-or-less socialist and secular
Arab governments, like Syria (and Iraq...).

"Axis of evil" is a product of imagination, countries generally associated
to it tend to have little or no common interests and goals and in some
cases, they were/are downright enemies. Each of them is a separate case.
Hence the question is not "should USA bomb Syria and Iran" but "what USA
should do to persuade Iranians" and "what USA should do to persuade Syrians"
[to see US point of view].

And it's fairly certain that "bomb them" is pretty down on the list...

[Bill Silvey]

"Yama" > wrote in message

> "Axis of evil" is a product of imagination, countries generally
> associated to it tend to have little or no common interests and goals
> and in some cases, they were/are downright enemies. Each of them is a
> separate case. Hence the question is not "should USA bomb Syria and
> Iran" but "what USA should do to persuade Iranians" and "what USA
> should do to persuade Syrians" [to see US point of view].
>
> And it's fairly certain that "bomb them" is pretty down on the list...

Indeed. I'd much rather see Iran as a U.S. ally than not. The current
Iranian "Generation-X" pretty much despises the Mullahs that run the
country, and as often as they can (and in private) embrace western values.

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

[Chad Irby]

"Simon Robbins" > wrote:

> Don't forget Irael isn't cooperating with the Atomic Energy Agency
> either.

Israel never signed the Nonproliferation Treaty.

Iran is in violation of the treaty, Israel is not.

You might also note that while Iran has publicly threatened to use nukes
(whenever they get them) several times, Israel has not.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Alan Minyard > wrote:

> Israel is just as guilty as the Palestinians when it comes to the
> causes of terrorism. When will they learn that killing teenage girls
> and bulldozing homes is not conducive to peace?

When the teenage girls stop wearing suicide bombs and when the homes
don't conceal tunnels used to smugle weapons and drugs.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[phil hunt]

On 13 Oct 2003 23:24:51 -0700, Kenneth Williams > wrote:
>President Bush said that in addition to striking terorists directly
>that the US would also target those who harbor terrorists.
>
>I think it is clear that both Syria and Iran harbor terrorists and
>export terror in the region- especially in Israel, with Hamas and
>Islamic Jihad and even in Iraq against our own troops.
>
>Shouldn't we, like our Israeli friends, bomb Syria and Iran in
>pre-emptive or retaliatory strikes? I wouldn't like a widening of the
>war in the region but under these circumstances won't we eventually be
>forced to do something drastic?
>
>What is the general concensus here at RAM?

I think we should bomb your house, and then nuke you until you are
radioactive cinders.

>I personally think Iran is the worst of the two and should be bombed
>if Tehran does not cooperate with the nuclear inspectors on its covert
>nuclear weapons program. The US can't afford to have a nuclear-armed
>Iran sitting right next door when the US is trying to rebuild Iraq and
>allowing democracy in that region.

Ha ha ha. And if the majority of the people in rebuilt Iraq wanted
to have nuclear weapons, would the USA let them? No of course not,
the only people in the middle east to be allowed nukes are Israel
and not the racially inferior (according to the USA) Arabs. And if
you support that policy, then you are a filthy contemptable racist
too.

On the subject of democracy, Iran's president is the guy who got the
most votes, something that can't be said for the USA. But I suppose
thatc doesn't fit in with Bush's idea of democracy, which seems more
about subservience to US corporate interests.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[phil hunt]

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 22:49:36 GMT, Bill Silvey > wrote:
>"Yama" > wrote in message
>
>Indeed. I'd much rather see Iran as a U.S. ally than not. The current
>Iranian "Generation-X" pretty much despises the Mullahs that run the
>country, and as often as they can (and in private) embrace western values.

There's a lot of truth in this. Unfortunately aggressive US action
against Iran would tend to reduce it.

Perha[ps the weest could play "good cop, bad cop" with Iran: USA and
Israel threaten to attack, Europe offers to sell (or give) them
modern weapons if they liberalise.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[phil hunt]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 01:37:37 +0200, Emmanuel Gustin > wrote:
>
>The problem with a 'retaliatory' strike is that, even if you
>could bring on incriminating documents by trainloads,
>the credibility of the USA has now sunk so low that nobody
>is even going to bother to read them,

I think there's some trith in this. Last year, I was certain that
Iraq had WMD. It turned out they didn't, and the British and
American dossiers were seriously at odds with the truth.

Now the USA says Iran is building nuclear weapons. Last year, I
would have beleived them. Now I place no trust in their words.

>> I personally think Iran is the worst of the two and should be bombed
>> if Tehran does not cooperate with the nuclear inspectors on its covert
>> nuclear weapons program.
>
>You can't rationally threaten people with bombs and expect
>them to disarm... Non-Americans have pride too. The Iranians
>are least likely of all to cave in to that sort of pressure; and it
>gives them the best motive they could ever have to develop
>a WMD capability ASAP.

Indeed. Gaining nuclear weapons would be a rational thing for Iran
to do now, for the same reason that Britain and France had them
during the cold war.

>> The US can't afford to have a nuclear-armed Iran sitting right next
>> door when the US is trying to rebuild Iraq and allowing democracy
>> in that region.
>
>Why not? During the Cold War many successful democratic
>nations had the enemy on their doorstep. Of all problems the
>problems facing the American efforts Iraq right now, Iran
>seems very low down on the list. The real danger is that Iraq
>will follow the road of Iran -- that an American-imposed
>'friendly' regime will ultimately be rejected by the people and
>replaced by a hostile fundamentalist regime.

Yep.

>An Iraq governed
>by an ayatollah would be an ironic outcome of this war, but
>at the moment it looks like the most likely one to me.

I don't know about "most likely", but it's certainly a possibility,
and the US govmt seems by their behaviour to be almost blind to that
possibility.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[Dav1936531]

>From: (phil hunt)
>

>>Emmanuel Gustin wrote:
>>The problem with a 'retaliatory' strike is that, even if you could bring on
incriminating documents by trainloads, the credibility of the USA has now sunk
so low that nobody is even going to bother to read them,<<

>I think there's some trith in this. Last year, I was certain that Iraq had
WMD. It turned out they didn't, and the British and American dossiers were
seriously at odds with the truth.
>
>Now the USA says Iran is building nuclear weapons. Last year, I
>would have beleived them. Now I place no trust in their words.

We (the US) have fallen into an extremely serious credibility trap laid out by
Saddam. A guerilla war trapping tactic designed to defeat the ability to win
"the hearts and minds" of the Arab world and to divide (and then to conquer)
the countries of the Western alliances. Remember the "Mother of all Battles"
phrase Saddam coined? Well, debasing the credibility of the US with both the
Arab world and the US's allies is just the next step in the war plan of a guy
who considers himself to be the next "Saladin". A crafty manuever if ever the
world has seen one.

Saddam has been sucsessful in this goal. It is extremely important that he be
found and, either killed, or brought to trial.

The plan of the "one true way" Islamic religious fanatics is to economically
strangle the West by gaining control of the oil reserves of the Middle East.
They even refer to oil as "the sword of Islam". These fanatics believe that
"Allah" has "blessed" these countries with these oil resources so that the
final vicory of Islam over the "infidel" religions can be assured. Oil MUST be
used as a weapon. The jihad against the infidels requires it.

Now that Saddam's tactic of debasing the credibility of the US and dividing its
alliances has worked, it becomes perfectly obvious to the Muslim masses that
now is the time for the "Mother of all battles" against the
"infidels"......they are ALL liars afterall (lying is a characteristic of those
who are infidels to Islam).

Rise up!! Unite, brother Muslims!!! We will be victorious in the final jihad to
transform the entire world into a glorious Islamic paradise under the guiding
light of Sharia law!!!! Oh glory be to Allah and his one true prophet Muhammad
for giving us the resources we need to carry out Allah's will on this
Earth!!!!!

The only problem with the aspirations of this Islamic dream of a utopian one
world government is that there are alot of people here in the West that have no
desire to give up their current religions at the point of a sword and have
enough nuclear weapons to really slap the entire Islamic world into rethinking
the whole idea of jihad.

In the mean time, the jihadis operate carefully hidden amongst the civilian
populations until such time as their war plan becomes obvious and gains
strength amongst the Islamic masses......and debasing the credibility of the US
is only an attempt to speed that gain of strength.

Still think WWIII hasn't begun? I think it has, and Osama lit the fuse.
Dave

[Bill Silvey]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message


> On the subject of democracy, Iran's president is the guy who got the
> most votes, something that can't be said for the USA. But I suppose
> thatc doesn't fit in with Bush's idea of democracy, which seems more
> about subservience to US corporate interests.

Incorrect. Also, the United States is a representative republic, not a
"democracy". They are very similar but not the same at all.

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

[Rob van Riel]

"Bill Silvey" > wrote in message >...
> Indeed. I'd much rather see Iran as a U.S. ally than not. The current
> Iranian "Generation-X" pretty much despises the Mullahs that run the
> country, and as often as they can (and in private) embrace western values.

I might be delusional about all this, but my feeling is that if we all
leave Iran in peace, in something like 20 years it could turn into a
thoughroughly modern state. Still predominantly islamic, but the way
many Western nations are predominantly christian, rather than the
fundamantalist islam of the ayatollahs. Much as I dislike what
happened there in the past, Iran might be our best hope of introducing
a stable factor in the region, compatible with the Western way of
doing things.

Rob

[tscottme]

Simon Robbins > wrote in message
...

>
> Yeah, (putting aside the machinations of their governments) let's ****
off
> another few tens of millions of people who already view us and our
motives
> with suspicion. Go all the way and confirm their worst fears, and give
them
> a reason to sign up and fight the unholy aggressor...
>
> Si

You must be an serious medication if you think the Arabs are waiting to
make that decision. Time to do what is necessary and forget if they
like it when we do it.

--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

[tscottme]

Yama > wrote in message
...
>
> "Peter Kemp" <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom> wrote in message
> ...
> > Personally, I believe pressure should be brought to bear on both
Syria
> > and Iran for their support of terrorists, not their WMD - IIRC Syria
> > hasn't even signed the CWC and yet is being lambasted for having
> > chemical weapons.
>
> The fun thing is, Syrians have actually provided USA some intel about
Al
> Qaida: Al Qaida is ideological enemy of more-or-less socialist and
secular
> Arab governments, like Syria (and Iraq...).
>

Syria also houses the headquarters for organizations that have killed
more Americans than anyone else, prior to Sept 11. Time to punish Syria
for what is doing and hasn't done. I haven't even brought up the few
billion dollars of "super notes" that they counterfeit each year.

As for Axis of Evil, the phrase wasn't used to convey that the three
members were working in league, but that they have a common purpose.
And they do.

--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

[tscottme]

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htmRob van Riel
> wrote in message
om...
> "Bill Silvey" > wrote in message
>...
> > Indeed. I'd much rather see Iran as a U.S. ally than not. The
current
> > Iranian "Generation-X" pretty much despises the Mullahs that run the
> > country, and as often as they can (and in private) embrace western
values.
>
> I might be delusional about all this, but my feeling is that if we all
> leave Iran in peace, in something like 20 years it could turn into a
> thoughroughly modern state. Still predominantly islamic, but the way
> many Western nations are predominantly christian, rather than the
> fundamantalist islam of the ayatollahs. Much as I dislike what
> happened there in the past, Iran might be our best hope of introducing
> a stable factor in the region, compatible with the Western way of
> doing things.
>
> Rob

Iran is a wonderful example, or it could be, to some of the Muslims.
It's had virtually no Western influence in decades and still failed as a
Muslim state. All the other miserable ****-holes can always claim their
failure is due to a Burger King or Coca-Cola stand on the corner
somewhere. The Iranians have no excuse but their own dysfunction. It's
a shame they are Shia Death Cult members rather than
Sunni/Wahabbi/Salafi Death Cult members, otherwise the lesson would be
perfect for them. Oh well they aren't living 500 years in the past by
accident.

Too bad Iran is actively trying to get nukes and spreading terrorism in
the meantime. Maybe we can reach an agreement with the mullahs where
the Iranians only attack Europeans while Americans go back to ignoring
the world.

--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter

[tscottme]

There are numerous examples of Israel pulling back or helping the
"palestinians" only to have that be taken as a sign of weakness and
increased terrorism followed. For Pete's sake the Israelis equipped the
PA police, they pulled out of Lebanon behind UN mandated lines, left the
West Bank until attacks forced them to return.

Israel is only further along the same path the US has just started on
fighting terrorism.

There already is a palestinian state, it's called Jordan. The
Hashemites should pick up their toys and return to the Arabian
peninsula.

--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm
Alan Minyard > wrote in message
...
> On 13 Oct 2003 23:24:51 -0700, (Kenneth
> Williams) wrote:
>
> >President Bush said that in addition to striking terorists directly
> >that the US would also target those who harbor terrorists.
> >
> >I think it is clear that both Syria and Iran harbor terrorists and
> >export terror in the region- especially in Israel, with Hamas and
> >Islamic Jihad and even in Iraq against our own troops.
> >
> >Shouldn't we, like our Israeli friends, bomb Syria and Iran in
> >pre-emptive or retaliatory strikes? I wouldn't like a widening of the
> >war in the region but under these circumstances won't we eventually
be
> >forced to do something drastic?
> >
> >What is the general concensus here at RAM?
> >
> >I personally think Iran is the worst of the two and should be bombed
> >if Tehran does not cooperate with the nuclear inspectors on its
covert
> >nuclear weapons program. The US can't afford to have a nuclear-armed
> >Iran sitting right next door when the US is trying to rebuild Iraq
and
> >allowing democracy in that region.
> >
> >In addition, now we know how Israel feels daily with the US
casualties
> >in Iraq mounting. It is so frustrating to promote peace when you are
> >constantly under attack by hostiles who want you to fail.
> >
> >I think Israel is justified with its doctrine of pre-emptive strikes.
> >The US seems destined to follow under the circumstances.
> >
> >Kenneth Williams
>
> Israel is just as guilty as the Palestinians when it comes to the
> causes of terrorism. When will they learn that killing teenage girls
> and bulldozing homes is not conducive to peace?
>
> Al Minyard

[John S. Shinal]

(Rob van Riel) wrote:

>"Bill Silvey"
>> Indeed. I'd much rather see Iran as a U.S. ally than not. The current
>> Iranian "Generation-X" pretty much despises the Mullahs that run the
>> country, and as often as they can (and in private) embrace western values.
>
>I might be delusional about all this, but my feeling is that if we all
>leave Iran in peace, in something like 20 years it could turn into a
>thoughroughly modern state. Still predominantly islamic, but the way
>many Western nations are predominantly christian, rather than the
>fundamantalist islam of the ayatollahs. Much as I dislike what
>happened there in the past, Iran might be our best hope of introducing
>a stable factor in the region, compatible with the Western way of
>doing things.

And especially next to a (hopefully) stable Iraq. Saudi Arabia
is about to hold elections, and I think it's safe to say their
government is going to wobble around some as they move away from a
tightly controlled monarchy. A developing Iran, a rebuilding Iraq
could make Syria a little more likely to negotiate and be peaceable
when they see their neighbors doing well.

At this point I have precious little faith in the State Dept
being able to do anything in this regard, though.



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[phil hunt]

On 15 Oct 2003 04:15:44 -0700, Rob van Riel > wrote:
>"Bill Silvey" > wrote in message >...
>> Indeed. I'd much rather see Iran as a U.S. ally than not. The current
>> Iranian "Generation-X" pretty much despises the Mullahs that run the
>> country, and as often as they can (and in private) embrace western values.
>
>I might be delusional about all this, but my feeling is that if we all
>leave Iran in peace, in something like 20 years it could turn into a
>thoughroughly modern state.

I think you're probably right here.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[phil hunt]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 08:02:55 -0500, tscottme > wrote:
>
>Syria also houses the headquarters for organizations that have killed
>more Americans than anyone else, prior to Sept 11. Time to punish Syria
>for what is doing and hasn't done. I haven't even brought up the few
>billion dollars of "super notes" that they counterfeit each year.

What are "super notes"? US currency?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[Alan Minyard]

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 22:51:34 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>In article >,
> Alan Minyard > wrote:
>
>> Israel is just as guilty as the Palestinians when it comes to the
>> causes of terrorism. When will they learn that killing teenage girls
>> and bulldozing homes is not conducive to peace?
>
>When the teenage girls stop wearing suicide bombs and when the homes
>don't conceal tunnels used to smugle weapons and drugs.

Condemning an entire race because of the misdeeds of a few is a recipe
for disaster.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 08:16:18 -0500, "tscottme" >
wrote:

>There are numerous examples of Israel pulling back or helping the
>"palestinians" only to have that be taken as a sign of weakness and
>increased terrorism followed. For Pete's sake the Israelis equipped the
>PA police, they pulled out of Lebanon behind UN mandated lines, left the
>West Bank until attacks forced them to return.
>
>Israel is only further along the same path the US has just started on
>fighting terrorism.
>
>There already is a palestinian state, it's called Jordan. The
>Hashemites should pick up their toys and return to the Arabian
>peninsula.

Israel is not a proponent of peace. They, like the Palestinians, seek
the utter destruction of their "enemies". The settlements in
Palestinian territory illustrate this. "Let he who is without sin cast
the first stone".

Al Minyard

[Simon Robbins]

"tscottme" > wrote in message
...
> You must be an serious medication if you think the Arabs are waiting to
> make that decision. Time to do what is necessary and forget if they
> like it when we do it.

And your "what is necessary" will likely earn yourself and your descendants
a hundred years of justifiable hatred and payback by people who largely
couldn't give a damn at present. Any idea that the entire Muslim world is
ready to pick up arms against America at the first chance is simply a
product of your Department of Homeland Insecurity. We're still talking
about a tiny minority that view us all with anything more than a mild
suspicion.

Si

[Rob van Riel]

"tscottme" > wrote in message >...
> perfect for them. Oh well they aren't living 500 years in the past by
> accident.

You do realise you're talking about a nation that is building its own
jet powered fighters, don't you. If that's their version of 1500 AD,
I'd really like to see how advanced they'll be when they catch up with
the rest of the world chronologically.


> Too bad Iran is actively trying to get nukes and spreading terrorism in
> the meantime.

Good idea, trying to get their own nukes, as there are several nuclear
tipped nations making nasty threats against them. We'll talk about the
terrorism bit after you dig up some some reliable (that is, in this
case, not US government sponsored) evidence of that.


> Maybe we can reach an agreement with the mullahs where
> the Iranians only attack Europeans while Americans go back to ignoring
> the world.

I can't recall hearing any mullah screaming for my blood recently. Or
that of Americans, for that matter.
On the other hand, I've heard plenty of Americans screaming for
theirs. I'm sure there's a conclusion in those observations, but I'll
ignore it for now.

Rob

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Alan Minyard > wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 22:51:34 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > Alan Minyard > wrote:
> >
> >> Israel is just as guilty as the Palestinians when it comes to the
> >> causes of terrorism. When will they learn that killing teenage girls
> >> and bulldozing homes is not conducive to peace?
> >
> >When the teenage girls stop wearing suicide bombs and when the homes
> >don't conceal tunnels used to smugle weapons and drugs.
>
> Condemning an entire race because of the misdeeds of a few is a recipe
> for disaster.

But condemning political organizations like the Palestinian ones for
continual support of that terror is certainly not.

If the Palestinians want to be known for something other than insane
murdering suicide attacks, they have to *stop* doing so, and the regular
people in the street have to stop *supporting* those organizations.

As things stand now, your "a few" comment is just plain silly.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Alan Minyard > wrote:

> Israel is not a proponent of peace. They, like the Palestinians, seek
> the utter destruction of their "enemies".

You can tell this by the way the Israelis tend to target terrorist
leaders and support systems, while the Palestinians tend to target buses
and restaurants...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(phil hunt) wrote:

> What are "super notes"? US currency?

Yep. The top end of counterfeit US currency, of such quality that they
could only be made by someone with the resources and cash of a country.

The new multicolor $20 bills are coming out in direct response to such
notes.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[phil hunt]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 23:15:18 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>In article >,
> (phil hunt) wrote:
>
>> What are "super notes"? US currency?
>
>Yep. The top end of counterfeit US currency, of such quality that they
>could only be made by someone with the resources and cash of a country.
>
>The new multicolor $20 bills are coming out in direct response to such
>notes.

In that case, I don't think the Syrians are acting outside their
natural rights. The way I see it, every country has a right to
decide for itself what sorts of written material it shall be legal
to print in that country.

I expect the US govmt forges Syrian documents, from time to time.

If you think the Syrian govmt are in the wrong here, how would you
feel aboutr a govmty that makes it legal to counterfeit computer
encryption schemes -- presumably the principle is the same as
counterfeiting a currancy. If, for example, the EU passed a law
making it legal to circumvent DRM schemes to ensure interoperability
(e.g. so people don't have to pay over the odds for printer
cartridges or DVD players), do you think the USA would be acting
morally if it bombved Europe for doing this? The principle, as I see
it, is the same.

Or, if the Amerrican NSA cracked an encryption scheme used by a
Chinese bank, would China be within its rights to attack the USA?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[Tom Cooper]

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
...
> "Dav1936531" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > We (the US) have fallen into an extremely serious credibility trap laid
> out by
> > Saddam.
>
> Occam's razor. It is entirely superfluous to presuppose a prepared
> trap by Saddam. This set of conditions would have occurred
> regardless of his presence and fate. It is an entirely predictable
> consequence of the larger political framework in the Middle East
> and the conflicts in Iraqi society. For anything else to happen would
> have been near-miraculous.

Indeed; if anybody set any kind of a "credibility trap" to anybody there in
Iraq, then the US admin. Why construct "information" about something for
which there was no firm evidence? Why not clearly and honestly say what it
was all about?

Remove a crazy dictator that was terrorizing everybody - including his
closest relatives, was responsible for three wars, for deaths of hundreds of
thousands (foremost Arabs and Iraqis), for disturbing the peace and
spreading the hatred, for disturbing prosperity and the development of the
whole region, and negative influence on the world economy, and somebody that
is responsible for Iraq - a prosperous country at the time he rose to
power - laying in ruins now. There couldn't have been a better "excuse" for
a war against it, and such an open "confession" couldn't have been misused
by the Arab media either.

In the way the whole matter was "constructed" the US admin damaged its own
reputation as first, and caused itself immense problems. What is that good
for I don't know.

> Saddam is probably hiding in some basement; lying awake at night
> wondering just when his few remaining followers will realize that
> he is more a liability than an asset. In the interest of justice, it is
very
> important to arrest him and bring him to court. But as far as security
> is considered, it won't make much of a difference. Terrorists do not
> need something to fight for, only something to fight against.

In fact - if still alive (which I doubt) - he's not even in "control" of
anything but 15-20 closest body-guards, and few poor people they terrorise
in order to ascertain his safety.

On the contrary, I'm convinced that since May this year Iraq is not any more
a battlefied between the US and British troops and the former Iraqi regime,
but a battlefield in the "War on Terror", where the matters of the "other
side" are massively run by the foreigners - not by Iraqis, and certainly not
by Saddam. Of course, parts of the former security system are still
functioning, and supporting the foreigners with hideouts, weapons, and
supplies. Due to the failure of the US military to really destroy this
system (they, of course, blew all there was on intel and security forces HQs
early during the waar, but started targeting the really operating and
functioning elements of the scurity system only at a much later stage during
the war, in the week before Baghdad fell), this is now therefore likely to
become a longer, costly and very bloody conflict, and the longer it takes
the more problems the USA are about to encounter there. Given the wrong
"excuse" used for starting this conflict, of course, the whole situation is
meanwhile seen by the public under more than a very bad light.

Worst of all, there are now two large battlefields where the fighting is
likely to continue for years: Afghanistan and Iraq. Given how overstretched
the US resources already now are, this is nothing like a pleasant situation,
especially due to the fact that additional emergencies elsewhere are likely
too.

But hell, as the situation in which the US admin has put itself by now is,
there is neitehr a solution for the actual backgrounds of the problems at
hand (Pakistan and Saudi Arabia), nor can one put all the 3 millions of
"former" Ba'ath Party members in Iraq in a front of a wall and shoot them in
order to make it impossible they to support the foreign idiots that come to
Iraq - and so end at least the war there.

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

[Tom Cooper]

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
...
> "Tom Cooper" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Remove a crazy dictator that was terrorizing everybody - including his
> > closest relatives, was responsible for three wars, for deaths of
hundreds
> of
> > thousands (foremost Arabs and Iraqis), for disturbing the peace and
> > spreading the hatred, for disturbing prosperity and the development of
the
> > whole region, and negative influence on the world economy, and somebody
> that
> > is responsible for Iraq - a prosperous country at the time he rose to
> > power - laying in ruins now. There couldn't have been a better "excuse"
> for
> > a war against it, and such an open "confession" couldn't have been
misused
> > by the Arab media either.
>
> Any American president has to justify sending troops abroad and into
> combat by referring to the defense of US interests. None of your points
> above, except the vague "negative influence on the world economy",
> matches that criterion. It is extremely difficult, borderline impossible,
> for an US president to argue that he has to send troops abroad on a
> moral crusade to save people from evil leaders who are oppressing
> them. And for a /Republican/ president, to do so while he has declared
> the "War on Terrorism", would be political suicide.

I must admit your commentary surprises me pretty much. Namely, exactly this
was very much possible in 1995 and 1999, just for example: there was no oil
nor WMDs on Kosovo and Serbia...

So, to keep it short, I completely disagree with the theory that "rethoric
about the evil Sadam" would have "not be enough" to get the USA involved
against Iraq. It functioned already several times and it would function once
again, and the US public was "conditioned" on the war with Iraq already
since 10 years, so many would rather expect this nonsence finally to find an
end.

And, I would always prefer it to the "theory of WMDs", which I can't 100%
support by available evidence.

Then, the fact is this: the US admin couldn't show 100% confirmed facts
about the WMDs either before or after the invasion of Iraq. If I'm to ask,
they'll sometimes even find the last remaining caches of the Iraqi WMDs -
so, in 10, 15, or 20 years. But, this will not matter any more. They don't
have them right now - when they need them the most. However, there was
plenty of evidence for Saddam's brutality: one could, just like in 1995, and
in 1999, have shown the photos and videos of these - of which there were
realy plenty. And, once in Iraq one could - just like this was done - have
also shown all the evidence for massacres and atrocities. THAT would have
also be a powerful card in the US hands (which was _never_ really played: in
fact, only very few networks have reported about all the mass graveyards
found there in Iraq so far etc.): in such case one could drag such people
like those from al-Jazeera and say, "we went in for this purpose, and we
found the purpose, you can take a nice and in-depth look..."

The only "unpleasant" remarks one would get in response to such
argumentation would be, "and, why don't we do it somewhere else too?", to
which one could then easily respond, "but we do", and show the evidence.

> Not sure about that. Foreign muslim fighters are certainly there,
> and those have guerilla warfare or urban terrorism experience
> acquired in Afghanistan or Chechnia would have a natural leadership
> of any Iraqi recruits, even if the latter have served in the regular army.

Emanuel, I've meanwhile had even a few chats with those that returned back
home - pretty desillusioned, btw. As one of them said - the guy originally
went to Iraq to "fight the US infidels and defend the Iraqi Arabs" - as soon
as they arrived, the local "Mukhbarat" (designating one of the Iraqi secret
services) operationals has put them under their command and were forcing
them to all the time declare they're "fighting for Saddam" etc. He did not
want to fight for Saddam but for Iraqis, so he disliked this, and was pretty
glad to suddenly find out there were "other Arabs fighting Americans" there
too. He joined them and remained with that group for the next few months
before returning back home - once he realized the matter is a lost one, as
not even the Iraqis wanted to support them...

> But many Iraqis will regard the USA as the country that has starved
> and bombed them regularly since 1991, has now invaded and
> occupied the country, and is violating the rights of Arabs and
> muslims at every step. I think there are sufficient Iraqi recruits
> to keep these organisations running for a long time, even if they
> are (and they can hardly be more) only a tiny fraction of the
> population.

The "many Iraqis" here are foremost the Ba'athists: as said, one just can't
put all of 3 millions of them in front of a wall. Nevertheless, this does
not mean that there are "many recruits" there any more (to actively
participate in the fighting): on the contrary, from what I hear there are
hardly any.

> As for the role of Ba'ath and security force remnants, they will be
> there, but not in a dominating role; probably quite small because
> discredited in the eyes of muslim radicals or Arab nationalists.
> Looking at precedents, it is logical to assume that the Iraqi armed
> opposition is hugely varied in its composition, with deep hostility
> between different groups; if the USA would leave the country they
> would at once start to fight among each other.

The role of the former security system is that it is/was so elaborate, so
huge, and so "secret", that most of it was still not dismantled. In fact,
the bases used right now to fight the US and other troops in Iraq were not
even touched by 13 years of bombardments. That means that there are still
plenty of weapons caches, safe houses, hidden supply depots etc., and that
there are still enough guides, which are being used to support the current
war of terror on the occupators. Regardless of them being completely
discredited in the eyes of the local population, this local population has
learned in the past 40 years not to take them lightly: consequently, they
can also always count with support due to sheer fear they cause.

And so, we're back on the "hearts & minds" topic: unless the Iraqis can be
ascertained that the the US troops will not left them alone to tackle with
their former butchers (something the USA so far COMPLETELY failed to make
clear to the Iraqi public) - which remind them every night that they are
still very much present - there will be no widespread open support for
foreign actions inside Iraq.

Then, the actual mistake of the White House's strategy in this one was that
it fought the IIIPGW the way it thought it should have fought the IIPGW,
and - as we've seen so many times in the past - this just can't function.

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

[tscottme]

Simon Robbins > wrote in message
...
>
> And your "what is necessary" will likely earn yourself and your
descendants
> a hundred years of justifiable hatred and payback by people who
largely
> couldn't give a damn at present. Any idea that the entire Muslim
world is
> ready to pick up arms against America at the first chance is simply a
> product of your Department of Homeland Insecurity. We're still
talking
> about a tiny minority that view us all with anything more than a mild
> suspicion.
>

Isn't 1% of 1.6 billion people is still larger than the Russian and
Chinese Armies. Unlike the coddled Europeans, I'm under no illusion
that it is possible to have the people with whom you are at war like
you. I see no benefit to listening to the people that always complain
as if their complaints could just as easily have been compliments were
the facts different. When the Arabs say they are shocked that the US
seems to favor Israel over them, when they launch car bombs every 30
minutes, I have to wonder why anyone listens to their hallucinations.

The Wahhabis/Salafis know this is a fight to the death, that won't
change simply because we hope it is not. When I see massive
demonstrations by "peaceful Muslims" protesting the hijacking of Islam,
I will reconsider my suspicion of all of them. When I see them respect
Christian human rights I might consider them civilized. When I see them
protest slavery in various Muslim states I might consider they have an
interest in justice and humane treatment. It matters not at all if
their dysfunctional condition is due to their religion, their ignorance,
their tribalism, or their delusion. When they use "civilians" to
attack, that's reason enough to consider their civilians as soldiers.
When they come after my country, I could care less if they are offended.

--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

[tscottme]

Rob van Riel > wrote in message
om...
> "tscottme" > wrote in message
>...
> > perfect for them. Oh well they aren't living 500 years in the past
by
> > accident.
>
> You do realise you're talking about a nation that is building its own
> jet powered fighters, don't you. If that's their version of 1500 AD,
> I'd really like to see how advanced they'll be when they catch up with
> the rest of the world chronologically.
>
>
> > Too bad Iran is actively trying to get nukes and spreading terrorism
in
> > the meantime.
>
> Good idea, trying to get their own nukes, as there are several nuclear
> tipped nations making nasty threats against them. We'll talk about the
> terrorism bit after you dig up some some reliable (that is, in this
> case, not US government sponsored) evidence of that.
>
>
> > Maybe we can reach an agreement with the mullahs where
> > the Iranians only attack Europeans while Americans go back to
ignoring
> > the world.
>
> I can't recall hearing any mullah screaming for my blood recently. Or
> that of Americans, for that matter.
> On the other hand, I've heard plenty of Americans screaming for
> theirs. I'm sure there's a conclusion in those observations, but I'll
> ignore it for now.
>
> Rob

Do you know anyone that disputes Iranian support for Hizbollah? You
remember Hizbollah, the organization that had killed more Americans than
any other terrorist group prior to Sept 11.

Simply being ignorant of the rantings of the Iranian mullahs is not
exactly the same as they not making the threats.


--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

[tscottme]

phil hunt > wrote in message
. ..
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 23:15:18 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
> >In article >,
> > (phil hunt) wrote:
> >
> >> What are "super notes"? US currency?
> >
> >Yep. The top end of counterfeit US currency, of such quality that
they
> >could only be made by someone with the resources and cash of a
country.
> >
> >The new multicolor $20 bills are coming out in direct response to
such
> >notes.
>
> In that case, I don't think the Syrians are acting outside their
> natural rights. The way I see it, every country has a right to
> decide for itself what sorts of written material it shall be legal
> to print in that country.
>

Proving that you will excuse any action by non-Americans and criticize
any American action. You didn't know what super notes were but in a
couple of hours you've rationalized sophisticated counterfeiting. Thank
G-d they don't embrace bestiality, officially.

--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

[tscottme]

Alan Minyard > wrote in message
...
>
> Condemning an entire race because of the misdeeds of a few is a recipe
> for disaster.
>
> Al Minyard

When they use civilians as soldiers, I consider their civilians as
soldiers. When their leaders push *all* Muslims to action, I suspect
all Muslims until proven loyal. If they think this unfair, they should
stop. When I see massive marches of "peaceful" Muslims taking back
their religion from the Wahhabis/Salafis I'll narrow my suspicions.
Many of the politically correct czars have no guilt in suspecting
Christians after a couple of anti-abortion murders strike, yet they
aren't sure that thousands dead from Islamists is reason to suspect
them.

--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

[tscottme]

Alan Minyard > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 08:16:18 -0500, "tscottme" >
> wrote:
>
> >There are numerous examples of Israel pulling back or helping the
> >"palestinians" only to have that be taken as a sign of weakness and
> >increased terrorism followed. For Pete's sake the Israelis equipped
the
> >PA police, they pulled out of Lebanon behind UN mandated lines, left
the
> >West Bank until attacks forced them to return.
> >
> >Israel is only further along the same path the US has just started on
> >fighting terrorism.
> >
> >There already is a palestinian state, it's called Jordan. The
> >Hashemites should pick up their toys and return to the Arabian
> >peninsula.
>
> Israel is not a proponent of peace. They, like the Palestinians, seek
> the utter destruction of their "enemies". The settlements in
> Palestinian territory illustrate this. "Let he who is without sin cast
> the first stone".
>
> Al Minyard

Is that why Israel left Lebanon, behind a UN approved border, equipped
the Palestinian Authority, due to Oslo, and fenced and remained out of
Gaza because they are seeking to destroy the people that murder them?
Israel offered a very large proportion of the land the "palestinians"
demanded and the response was not a counter-offer, not an argument, but
another war. Why the "palestinians" haven't been expelled to Jordan
where they belong is funny. Jordan is 70+ percent of Palestine, it's
populated by 60+ percent "palestinians" and the Hashemites are an
occupying Arabian tribe, yet they only want the land of the Jews. Look
at the map of Palestine that Arafat's group wants, it's all of the area,
except for Jordan, since Jordan kicked their ass and doesn't wilt to
charges of "bias".

You don't know what you are talking about and assume that issuing equal
blame for both sides makes you sound fair and impartial.

--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

[Simon Robbins]

"tscottme" > wrote in message
...
> Isn't 1% of 1.6 billion people is still larger than the Russian and
> Chinese Armies.

1% would equate to 16 million Muslims craving the chance to pick up arms
against Americans. Where are they? 16 million people should be creating
hell on a much larger scale than we're seeing today if that were the case.

> The Wahhabis/Salafis know this is a fight to the death, that won't
> change simply because we hope it is not. When I see massive
> demonstrations by "peaceful Muslims" protesting the hijacking of Islam,
> I will reconsider my suspicion of all of them.

If an extremist Christian group started killing people, would you expect to
see massive demonstrations of conventional Christians protesting? If the
media and popular culture actively demonised all Christians because of the
extremist policies of a few would you expect them not to take offence? How
many people really ever protest anything? It's always going to be easier to
organise an anti-American/Abortion/War/Cabbage protest than an anti- one.
It's the nature of humanity. Those in the majority mainstream seem to feel
the cause is diluted enough not to bother.

> When I see them respect
> Christian human rights I might consider them civilized.

There are few Muslim countries where Christianity is not tolerated, and many
where they exist side by side. Ironically those with the extremist views
seem to be our closest allies.

> When I see them
> protest slavery in various Muslim states I might consider they have an
> interest in justice and humane treatment.

There are plenty of places on the planet where justice and humane treatment
are severely lacking, and Islamic religion is a not a deciding factor. Some
we choose to go to war against, others we make favored trading partners.
When we start considering liberty and justice over commerce and dollars then
we can lecture on that one.

> It matters not at all if
> their dysfunctional condition is due to their religion, their ignorance,
> their tribalism, or their delusion. When they use "civilians" to
> attack, that's reason enough to consider their civilians as soldiers.
> When they come after my country, I could care less if they are offended.

I spent occasional periods of my forces-brat childhood being told to remain
in the house while my father checked under the car before starting the
engine with the door open, yet never did I believe that all the Irish were
out to get us. Yet you use the term "they" to tar a billion people with the
sins of their worst.

Si

[phil hunt]

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 09:04:21 -0500, tscottme > wrote:
>phil hunt > wrote in message
. ..
>>
>> In that case, I don't think the Syrians are acting outside their
>> natural rights. The way I see it, every country has a right to
>> decide for itself what sorts of written material it shall be legal
>> to print in that country.
>
>Proving that you will excuse any action by non-Americans and criticize
>any American action.

I suggest you go back and read my post again, since you obviously
didn't understand it. I was making an argument that countries have a
right to do (within pretty broad limits) what they like in their own
countries; my argument applies equally to Syria, the USA, and every
other couintry in the world. Are you too stupid to understand that?
Or os it just that anything that you disagree with brings up the
automatic knee-jerk response, "Anit-American"?

>You didn't know what super notes were but in a
>couple of hours you've rationalized sophisticated counterfeiting.

Are you saying counterfeiting is inherently wrong, then?

>Thank
>G-d they don't embrace bestiality, officially.

If they did, it would be their own business. I'd have no problem
with a country making sex acts between humans and animals legal;
indeed in the country I live in, some such acts are legal.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[Alan Minyard]

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 09:11:49 -0500, "tscottme" >
wrote:

>Alan Minyard > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Condemning an entire race because of the misdeeds of a few is a recipe
>> for disaster.
>>
>> Al Minyard
>
>When they use civilians as soldiers, I consider their civilians as
>soldiers. When their leaders push *all* Muslims to action, I suspect
>all Muslims until proven loyal. If they think this unfair, they should
>stop. When I see massive marches of "peaceful" Muslims taking back
>their religion from the Wahhabis/Salafis I'll narrow my suspicions.
>Many of the politically correct czars have no guilt in suspecting
>Christians after a couple of anti-abortion murders strike, yet they
>aren't sure that thousands dead from Islamists is reason to suspect
>them.

I agree fully that theocracies and terrorists are bad, but there are
quite a few Arab-Americans who have nothing to do with either.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 09:20:24 -0500, "tscottme" >
wrote:

>Alan Minyard > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 08:16:18 -0500, "tscottme" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >There are numerous examples of Israel pulling back or helping the
>> >"palestinians" only to have that be taken as a sign of weakness and
>> >increased terrorism followed. For Pete's sake the Israelis equipped
>the
>> >PA police, they pulled out of Lebanon behind UN mandated lines, left
>the
>> >West Bank until attacks forced them to return.
>> >
>> >Israel is only further along the same path the US has just started on
>> >fighting terrorism.
>> >
>> >There already is a palestinian state, it's called Jordan. The
>> >Hashemites should pick up their toys and return to the Arabian
>> >peninsula.
>>
>> Israel is not a proponent of peace. They, like the Palestinians, seek
>> the utter destruction of their "enemies". The settlements in
>> Palestinian territory illustrate this. "Let he who is without sin cast
>> the first stone".
>>
>> Al Minyard
>
>Is that why Israel left Lebanon, behind a UN approved border, equipped
>the Palestinian Authority, due to Oslo, and fenced and remained out of
>Gaza because they are seeking to destroy the people that murder them?
>Israel offered a very large proportion of the land the "palestinians"
>demanded and the response was not a counter-offer, not an argument, but
>another war. Why the "palestinians" haven't been expelled to Jordan
>where they belong is funny. Jordan is 70+ percent of Palestine, it's
>populated by 60+ percent "palestinians" and the Hashemites are an
>occupying Arabian tribe, yet they only want the land of the Jews. Look
>at the map of Palestine that Arafat's group wants, it's all of the area,
>except for Jordan, since Jordan kicked their ass and doesn't wilt to
>charges of "bias".
>
>You don't know what you are talking about and assume that issuing equal
>blame for both sides makes you sound fair and impartial.

I know quite well what I am talking about. Theocracies are evil,
always have been, always will be.

Al Minyard

[Evan Brennan]

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message >...
> Terrorism is very much a local phenomenon with branch offices in
> nations that allow it


You are living in the past.

Terrorism is a local phenomenon only if all the funding, weapons,
training, personnel and other forms of support are "centralized
locally". A modern terrorist group cannot hope to survive if it's
structured like an octopus. That model is vulnerable and obsolete.


> the credibility of the USA has now sunk so low


Compared to who...France and Germany? : )


>that nobody is even going to bother to read them, so it would be
>regarded almost universally as agression pure and simple


Dismantling or dispersing militant groups in the Middle East is
more important than targeting single individuals like Osama
Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. During World War II, the Germans
and the British proved that chasing one guy all over the place
was a complete waste of time, money and lives.

The Nazis expended enormous resources making futile attempts to
take out just one man. For example, the Germans committed a huge
raiding force including a mountain division and a battalion of
800 SS paratroopers in a bid to get Tito at his headquarters. The
German parachute battalion was nearly wiped out as they suffered
600 casualties in the assault. Tito escaped. The Germans came away
empty-handed...again.

The British made a similar but smaller scale attempt to kill Rommel
at a misidentified headquarters in the Middle East. Another dismal
failure with heavy losses for the British Commandos.

In other words, it's not wise to focus too much effort on one person.
Amazing how quickly the egghead critics have forgotten it, particularly
German critics who would rather not discuss their own embarrassing
adventures at that game.

[David Nicholls]

>
> I know quite well what I am talking about. Theocracies are evil,
> always have been, always will be.
>
> Al Minyard

I fully agree, and the Israeli Gov't definition of that any person of the
Jewish religion has a right of settlement in Israel, but someone of another
religion who was originally born (or whose parents were born) inside the
geographical state of Israel does not have the right of return makes Israel
a theocracy.

David Nicholls

[robert arndt]

lives.
>
> The Nazis expended enormous resources making futile attempts to
> take out just one man. For example, the Germans committed a huge
> raiding force including a mountain division and a battalion of
> 800 SS paratroopers in a bid to get Tito at his headquarters. The
> German parachute battalion was nearly wiped out as they suffered
> 600 casualties in the assault. Tito escaped. The Germans came away
> empty-handed...again.
>
> The British made a similar but smaller scale attempt to kill Rommel
> at a misidentified headquarters in the Middle East. Another dismal
> failure with heavy losses for the British Commandos.
>
> In other words, it's not wise to focus too much effort on one person.
> Amazing how quickly the egghead critics have forgotten it, particularly
> German critics who would rather not discuss their own embarrassing
> adventures at that game.

The German Tito raid was carried out by the SS Parachute Battalion 500
which was mostly a low morale penal unit. Yugoslavia with its rugged
mountails and poor rail & communications structure also made it an
excellent partisan stronghold. You fail to mention that a large number
of Tito's partisans were killed in the assault and that Tito himself
was almost caught- barely escaping with his life.
And BTW, the Germans DID rescue/recapture Mussolini from Gran Sasso...

Rob

[Evan Brennan]

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message >...
> "Evan Brennan" > wrote in message
> m...
>
> > Terrorism is a local phenomenon only if all the funding, weapons,
> > training, personnel and other forms of support are "centralized
> > locally". A modern terrorist group cannot hope to survive if it's
> > structured like an octopus. That model is vulnerable and obsolete.
>
> That model has never been obsolete, precisely because it
> is the least vulnerable model.


You've got it backwards. That model is not used by global terrorist
groups because it is obsolete. Al Qaeda has no centralized system
of supply and support. They rely on multiple sources.



> Groups like al Quaeda are not big monolithic corporations;

Exactly. But that statement conflicts with your previous one.



> > > the credibility of the USA has now sunk so low
> >
> > Compared to who...France and Germany? : )
>
> Yes, and Russia, the UN, and even the UK...

The UK government may have been making the same errors as
> the US government, by British institutions are still widely
> regarded as robust and independent, and quite capable
> of making politicians who misbehave pay the price for it.


Heath and Thatcher constantly misbehaved, and got away with it too.
Blair appears to be on our payroll.


> Besides, Blair has the advantage over Bush in that he
> sounds like a vicar, not a snake-oil salesman...


Tony Blair is the biggest arse-kisser of America, because he knows
the USA underwrites the security of the United Kingdom. That makes
him far more intelligent than the average Brit.


> > Dismantling or dispersing militant groups in the Middle East is
> > more important than targeting single individuals like Osama
> > Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. During World War II, the Germans
> > and the British proved that chasing one guy all over the place
> > was a complete waste of time, money and lives.
>
> I entirely agree with that. That is why I don't believe that the
> "decapitation" strategy the US is pursuing in Iraq will have
> much impact. Arresting or killing Saddam won't solve the
> problems at all.


Only in your fantasies. We aren't pursuing a decapititaion strategy
because there are very many heads on the beast. It was better to start
with little fish like Iraq, before applying more pressure on Iran and
Saudi Arabia.


> The American administration has the habit of selecting easy
> targets, instead of real targets.


False. We need Iraq's oil to pay for the invasion and disbandment
of Hussein's government.

But I applaud the President for denying it publicly. That is the
politics we learned from the liars and has-beens of Europe and
the United Kingdom. ; )

[Evan Brennan]

(robert arndt) wrote in message >...

> The German Tito raid was carried out by the SS Parachute Battalion 500
> which was mostly a low morale penal unit. Yugoslavia with its rugged
> mountails and poor rail & communications structure also made it an
> excellent partisan stronghold.

>You fail to mention that a large number of Tito's partisans were
>killed in the assault

That is a myth invented by the Germans. Tito's partisans suffered
light casualties. The slow-witted SS paratroops had plenty of help
from a mountain division and other Nazi units, but they were no match
for the partisans.

In general, the Germans were not very good at counterguerrilla warfare.



> Tito himself was almost caught.


Almost doesn't count.

If you want to see a job done better, look at the US special forces
operation against the guerrilla chief Che Guevera. They assisted the
Bolivian patrol who killed the bugger. Intended as a slap in the face
to Castro.


> the Germans DID rescue/recapture Mussolini from Gran Sasso...


Only because there was no significant opposition.

If there was, you would see a repeat of the slaughter that visited
German troops and their stooges around Tito's headquarters.

[Kenneth Williams]

(Evan Brennan) wrote in message >...
> (robert arndt) wrote in message >...
>
> > The German Tito raid was carried out by the SS Parachute Battalion 500
> > which was mostly a low morale penal unit. Yugoslavia with its rugged
> > mountails and poor rail & communications structure also made it an
> > excellent partisan stronghold.
>
> >You fail to mention that a large number of Tito's partisans were
> >killed in the assault
>
> That is a myth invented by the Germans. Tito's partisans suffered
> light casualties. The slow-witted SS paratroops had plenty of help
> from a mountain division and other Nazi units, but they were no match
> for the partisans.
>
> In general, the Germans were not very good at counterguerrilla warfare.
>
>
>
> > Tito himself was almost caught.
>
>
> Almost doesn't count.
>
> If you want to see a job done better, look at the US special forces
> operation against the guerrilla chief Che Guevera. They assisted the
> Bolivian patrol who killed the bugger. Intended as a slap in the face
> to Castro.
>
>
> > the Germans DID rescue/recapture Mussolini from Gran Sasso...
>
>
> Only because there was no significant opposition.
>
> If there was, you would see a repeat of the slaughter that visited
> German troops and their stooges around Tito's headquarters.

Here is a site that tells about the battle

http://www.eliteforces.freewire.co.uk/Waffen%20SS%20Text+Images/FAL_500.htm

Most of my history books on WW2 say that Marshall Tito barely escaped
with his life, so IMO the Germans didn't do any worse than the current
US Special Forces that were searching for Osama Bin Laden or Saddam
Hussein. Same situtation in both Afghanistan and Iraq with resistance.

I would also have to agree that the terrain in Yugoslavia favored the
defenders as the Germans didn't control most of the countryside
anyway. However, the Germans did kill many partisans in constant
reprisal raids even though they were tied down in the country.

Kenneth Williams

[John Mullen]

"Evan Brennan" > wrote in message
m...
> "Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Evan Brennan" > wrote in message
> > m...
> >
> > > Terrorism is a local phenomenon only if all the funding, weapons,
> > > training, personnel and other forms of support are "centralized
> > > locally". A modern terrorist group cannot hope to survive if it's
> > > structured like an octopus. That model is vulnerable and obsolete.
> >
> > That model has never been obsolete, precisely because it
> > is the least vulnerable model.
>
>
> You've got it backwards. That model is not used by global terrorist
> groups because it is obsolete. Al Qaeda has no centralized system
> of supply and support. They rely on multiple sources.

Hence the octopus analogy.

> > Groups like al Quaeda are not big monolithic corporations;
>
> Exactly. But that statement conflicts with your previous one.

Tip: always *read* the post you're replying to. I know it wastes time you
could be spending on building Airfix models, but you may avoid looking like
a t**t.

>
> > > > the credibility of the USA has now sunk so low
> > >
> > > Compared to who...France and Germany? : )
> >
> > Yes, and Russia, the UN, and even the UK...
>
> The UK government may have been making the same errors as
> > the US government, by British institutions are still widely
> > regarded as robust and independent, and quite capable
> > of making politicians who misbehave pay the price for it.

(snip low-grade troll-fodder)

John

[Rob van Riel]

"tscottme" > wrote in message >...
> Rob van Riel > wrote in message
> om...
> > I can't recall hearing any mullah screaming for my blood recently. Or
> > that of Americans, for that matter.
> > On the other hand, I've heard plenty of Americans screaming for
> > theirs. I'm sure there's a conclusion in those observations, but I'll
> > ignore it for now.
>
> Do you know anyone that disputes Iranian support for Hizbollah? You
> remember Hizbollah, the organization that had killed more Americans than
> any other terrorist group prior to Sept 11.
>
> Simply being ignorant of the rantings of the Iranian mullahs is not
> exactly the same as they not making the threats.

I never said they appreciated the existence of Israel, or that they
didn't support groups dedicated to fighting Israel by unsavoury means.
Nor am I ignorant of the fact that Hizbollah caused considerable US
casualties. What do you expect them to do? Not follow the "supporters
of my enemy are my enemies" doctrine? The US seems to have no problem
with that reasoning.

None of this has any relevance to the fact that in recent years, there
have been no calls for the destruction of the US.

Rob

[PosterBoy]

"Rob van Riel" > wrote in message
om...
> > om...

> > > I can't recall hearing any mullah screaming for my blood recently. Or
> > > that of Americans, for that matter.

And, then:

> None of this has any relevance to the fact that in recent years, there
> have been no calls for the destruction of the US.
>
> Rob

I don't think you have been *listening*, Rob. For instance, in
'91...Afghani Mulla (and a Taleban leader) Mohammad Omar
chatted with the BBC. Among other things, he said:

"You (the BBC) and American puppet radios have created concern. But the
current situation in Afghanistan is related to a bigger cause - that is the
destruction of America."

And:

"This is not a matter of weapons. We are hopeful for God's help. The real
matter is the extinction of America. And, God willing, it [America] will
fall to the ground."


Cheers.

[Evan Brennan]

"John Mullen" > wrote in message >...
> "Evan Brennan" > wrote in message
> m...
> > "Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Evan Brennan" > wrote in message
> > > m...
> > >
> > > > Terrorism is a local phenomenon only if all the funding, weapons,
> > > > training, personnel and other forms of support are "centralized
> > > > locally". A modern terrorist group cannot hope to survive if it's
> > > > structured like an octopus. That model is vulnerable and obsolete.
> > >
> > > That model has never been obsolete, precisely because it
> > > is the least vulnerable model.
> >
> >
> > You've got it backwards. That model is not used by global terrorist
> > groups because it is obsolete. Al Qaeda has no centralized system
> > of supply and support. They rely on multiple sources.
>
> Hence the octopus analogy.


The tentacles of an octopus branch out from one, very centralized head.
Hence the lunacy of your response.



> > > Groups like al Quaeda are not big monolithic corporations;
> >
> > Exactly. But that statement conflicts with your previous one.
>
> Tip: always *read* the post you're replying to I know it wastes time you
> could be spending on building Airfix models, but you may avoid looking like
> a t**t.


Obviously, you and Gustin cannot even count to one.
Must be a British and European thing. : )

[Evan Brennan]

(Kenneth Williams) wrote in message >...
>
> IMO the Germans didn't do any worse than the current
> US Special Forces that were searching for Osama Bin Laden or Saddam
> Hussein. Same situtation in both Afghanistan and Iraq with resistance.


The current British , Australian and German special forces didn't have any
luck finding Bin Laden either.


> I would also have to agree that the terrain in Yugoslavia favored the
> defenders as the Germans didn't control most of the countryside
> anyway. However, the Germans did kill many partisans in constant
> reprisal raids even though they were tied down in the country.


The Germans were losing the war against partisans all along. The
Nazis and their Allies suffered enormous casualties and were no
closer to winning when they bugged out.

[Peter Kemp]

On or about 20 Oct 2003 12:45:01 -0700,
(Evan Brennan) allegedly uttered:

(Kenneth Williams) wrote in message >...
>>
>> IMO the Germans didn't do any worse than the current
>> US Special Forces that were searching for Osama Bin Laden or Saddam
>> Hussein. Same situtation in both Afghanistan and Iraq with resistance.
>
>
>The current British , Australian and German special forces didn't have any
>luck finding Bin Laden either.

Probably because they were not tasked with it. IIRC they were deployed
on counter-Taliban tasking in Afghanistan, and the tales from Iraq
have not yet emerged excepting the role the Aussies played in securing
some stuff out West, not the kind of high value target search you're
talking about.


---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

[John Mullen]

"Evan Brennan" > wrote in message
m...
> "John Mullen" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Evan Brennan" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > > "Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > "Evan Brennan" > wrote in message
> > > > m...
> > > >
> > > > > Terrorism is a local phenomenon only if all the funding, weapons,
> > > > > training, personnel and other forms of support are "centralized
> > > > > locally". A modern terrorist group cannot hope to survive if it's
> > > > > structured like an octopus. That model is vulnerable and obsolete.
> > > >
> > > > That model has never been obsolete, precisely because it
> > > > is the least vulnerable model.
> > >
> > >
> > > You've got it backwards. That model is not used by global terrorist
> > > groups because it is obsolete. Al Qaeda has no centralized system
> > > of supply and support. They rely on multiple sources.
> >
> > Hence the octopus analogy.
>
>
> The tentacles of an octopus branch out from one, very centralized head.
> Hence the lunacy of your response.

I see what you mean. I read the octopus analogy as meaning that it has many
tentacles, and that even cutting off one or two doesn't guarantee you kill
it. Perhaps that's what Emmanuel meant as well. I think I agree with you
both, now that I properly undersatnad what you were actually trying to say.

I would count that as misunderstanding rather than lunacy.

> > > > Groups like al Quaeda are not big monolithic corporations;
> > >
> > > Exactly. But that statement conflicts with your previous one.
> >
> > Tip: always *read* the post you're replying to I know it wastes time you
> > could be spending on building Airfix models, but you may avoid looking
like
> > a t**t.

This was unnecessarily rude and I apologise.

> Obviously, you and Gustin cannot even count to one.
> Must be a British and European thing. : )

One I can usually manage ;)

John

[robert arndt]

Peter Kemp <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@> wrote in message >...
> On or about 20 Oct 2003 12:45:01 -0700,
> (Evan Brennan) allegedly uttered:
>
> (Kenneth Williams) wrote in message >...
> >>
> >> IMO the Germans didn't do any worse than the current
> >> US Special Forces that were searching for Osama Bin Laden or Saddam
> >> Hussein. Same situtation in both Afghanistan and Iraq with resistance.
> >
> >
> >The current British , Australian and German special forces didn't have any
> >luck finding Bin Laden either.
>
> Probably because they were not tasked with it. IIRC they were deployed
> on counter-Taliban tasking in Afghanistan, and the tales from Iraq
> have not yet emerged excepting the role the Aussies played in securing
> some stuff out West, not the kind of high value target search you're
> talking about.
>
>
> ---
> Peter Kemp
>
> Life is short - Drink Faster

Close to 200 German KSK were operating with US Special Forces in
covert cross border raids into Pakistan, hunting the Taliban. This is
one of the things Schroeder was opposed to. Since the KSK were under
US command, neither Schroeder nor his defense minister were kept
up-to-date with where the KSK was operating or what they were doing.
This had to influence Schroeder's decision not to send German troops
to Iraq and break his vow of support to President Bush.

Rob

[Rob van Riel]

"PosterBoy" > wrote in message news:<AMOkb.133271$6C4.20947@pd7tw1no>...
> "Rob van Riel" > wrote in message
> om...
> > > om...
>
> > > > I can't recall hearing any mullah screaming for my blood recently. Or
> > > > that of Americans, for that matter.
>
> And, then:
>
> > None of this has any relevance to the fact that in recent years, there
> > have been no calls for the destruction of the US.
> >
> > Rob
>
> I don't think you have been *listening*, Rob. For instance, in
> '91...Afghani Mulla (and a Taleban leader) Mohammad Omar
> chatted with the BBC. Among other things, he said:
< some murederous comments snipped>

That was 12 years ago, and in a different country. Things have changed
since then in Iran. There's little doubt the Iranian religious
establishment dislikes the US, but they have become more reasonable
about it, and about many other things as well.

The Taliban decided to stick to the rabid dog act, but they weren't
the subject of this discussion.

Rob

[PosterBoy]

"Rob van Riel" > wrote in message
om...
> "PosterBoy" > wrote in message
news:<AMOkb.133271$6C4.20947@pd7tw1no>...
> > "Rob van Riel" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > > om...
> >
> > > > > I can't recall hearing any mullah screaming for my blood recently.
Or
> > > > > that of Americans, for that matter.
> >
> > And, then:
> >
> > > None of this has any relevance to the fact that in recent years, there
> > > have been no calls for the destruction of the US.
> > >
> > > Rob
> >
> > I don't think you have been *listening*, Rob. For instance, in
> > '91...Afghani Mulla (and a Taleban leader) Mohammad Omar
> > chatted with the BBC. Among other things, he said:
> < some murederous comments snipped>
>
> That was 12 years ago,

Sorry; my typo, Rob.
It was in November, 2001...not in "'91", as I typed. So definitely "in
recent years." Definitely. And Mullah Krekar is still at it...despite the
Dutch deportation and the Norwegian charges.
Please begin again. (And...you specified no particular country in your
"screaming mullah" remark. I figger when you say "any" you mean "any"...not
some.)

Cheers.

[Declan O'Reilly]

robert arndt wrote:

>
> Close to 200 German KSK were operating with US Special Forces in
> covert cross border raids into Pakistan, hunting the Taliban. This is
> one of the things Schroeder was opposed to. Since the KSK were under
> US command, neither Schroeder nor his defense minister were kept
> up-to-date with where the KSK was operating or what they were doing.
> This had to influence Schroeder's decision not to send German troops
> to Iraq and break his vow of support to President Bush.
>
> Rob

You mean that the german military either omitted information or just
never bothered to tell their own govt, that they were doing cross-borders ?

Man that has to tell you something about the german govt.

Declan O'Reilly

[Rob van Riel]

"PosterBoy" > wrote in message news:<h7klb.140399$9l5.84204@pd7tw2no>...
> Sorry; my typo, Rob.
> It was in November, 2001...not in "'91", as I typed. So definitely "in
> recent years." Definitely. And Mullah Krekar is still at it...despite the
> Dutch deportation and the Norwegian charges.

Like I said, the Taliban never improved their act, and are probably as
bloodthirsty as ever.

> Please begin again. (And...you specified no particular country in your
> "screaming mullah" remark. I figger when you say "any" you mean "any"...not
> some.)

Nope, given the context of the original post I replied to, which was
about Iran, not the muslim world as a whole if such an entity even
exists, my remark meant 'any from the Iranian establishment'. To the
best of my knowledge, that statement is correct, ie. the Iranian
government, including those of religious rank, have over the last
decade become more and more moderate in their relations with the
outside world, and have not been calling for the destruction of the US
or any other nation or group in recent years.

Rob

[Evan Brennan]

Peter Kemp <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@> wrote in message >...
> On or about 20 Oct 2003 12:45:01 -0700,
> (Evan Brennan) allegedly uttered:
>
> (Kenneth Williams) wrote in message >...
> >>
> >> IMO the Germans didn't do any worse than the current
> >> US Special Forces that were searching for Osama Bin Laden or Saddam
> >> Hussein. Same situtation in both Afghanistan and Iraq with resistance.
> >
> >
> >The current British , Australian and German special forces didn't have any
> >luck finding Bin Laden either.
>
> Probably because they were not tasked with it. IIRC they were deployed
> on counter-Taliban tasking in Afghanistan, and the tales from Iraq
> have not yet emerged excepting the role the Aussies played in securing
> some stuff out West, not the kind of high value target search you're
> talking about.


Nice piece of revisionism Kemp. Next you'll tell us the British SAS
wasn't tasked with their now-discredited Scud Hunt in 1991.

For several months the British and Australian SAS were searching caves
in Afghanistan, and specifically looking for al Qaeda members of any rank.

[Peter Kemp]

On or about 21 Nov 2003 06:23:17 -0800,
(Evan Brennan) allegedly uttered:

>Peter Kemp <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@> wrote in message >...
>> On or about 20 Oct 2003 12:45:01 -0700,
>> (Evan Brennan) allegedly uttered:
>>
>> (Kenneth Williams) wrote in message >...
>> >>
>> >> IMO the Germans didn't do any worse than the current
>> >> US Special Forces that were searching for Osama Bin Laden or Saddam
>> >> Hussein. Same situtation in both Afghanistan and Iraq with resistance.
>> >
>> >
>> >The current British , Australian and German special forces didn't have any
>> >luck finding Bin Laden either.
>>
>> Probably because they were not tasked with it. IIRC they were deployed
>> on counter-Taliban tasking in Afghanistan, and the tales from Iraq
>> have not yet emerged excepting the role the Aussies played in securing
>> some stuff out West, not the kind of high value target search you're
>> talking about.
>
>Nice piece of revisionism Kemp. Next you'll tell us the British SAS
>wasn't tasked with their now-discredited Scud Hunt in 1991.

Never claimed anything of the sort, and you may notice the IIRC. If
you have evidence to the contrary, please let us see it.

>For several months the British and Australian SAS were searching caves
>in Afghanistan, and specifically looking for al Qaeda members of any rank.

Wow Evan, you took a month to come up with that? You really are a
giant of intellect aren't you?

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster