Comentarii: 72, forum ACTIV
Strasnic raport ULTRASECRET
"Strategia Minciunii " - raportul colonelului (r) V. Alexe.
Hmm... De data asta se pare ca europenii sant cam ingrijoratzi, dar de ce sa raporteze Alexe asa o chestiune minora care ii strica teoria?
Si alte evenimente ii strica lui tov Alexe teoria:
1) parazile militare iraniene cu rachete de zeci de metri pe care scrie "Satanului cel mare" (America) sau "Satanului cel Mic" (Israel).
2) Declaratziile nebunului Ahmadinajad ca va sterge de pe harta Israelul
3) Fatwa mulelor ca este permisa folosirea de arme nucleare?
... ca sa enumerez numai o parte din ele.
Nebuni sau comunisti
Ori esti nebun ori comunist inrait sa poti crede asta.
Rapoartele despre programul nuclear iranian curg din toate partile, inclusiv de la iranieni.
Ramine sa decideti in ce categorie e Alexei.
Adio Ahmajinhead, adio bai!
Ei, hai ca si asa prea ati sarit peste camila, ce sa mai vorbim?!
Patronii lui Alexe la treaba.......................................(1)
Russia gave Iraq intelligence: Pentagon report
By Will Dunham
Fri Mar 24, 5:07 PM ET
Russia's ambassador in Baghdad gave intelligence on U.S. military movements to Iraq's government in the opening days of the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, a Pentagon report stated on Friday, quoting from captured Iraqi documents.
The unclassified 210-page report by the U.S. military's Joint Forces Command cited an April 2, 2003, document from the Iraqi minister of foreign affairs to President Saddam Hussein as stating the Russian ambassador to Baghdad had funneled strategic intelligence on U.S. plans to Saddam's government.
The document was written about two weeks after the invasion but before U.S. soldiers and Marines entered the capital.
Another Iraqi document, dated March 24, 2003, referred to Russian "sources" inside the U.S. military's Central Command headquarters in Qatar.
The allegations about the actions of Russia were based on captured documents from an Iraqi government on the verge of being toppled, and the report did not present any further documentation of the allegations.
The intelligence provided by the ambassador, the report stated, was that U.S. forces were moving to cut off Baghdad from the south, east and north, and the heaviest concentration of troops -- 12,000 of them, plus 1,000 vehicles -- was near Kerbala, 68 miles southwest of the capital.
The ambassador also told the Iraqis that "the Americans were going to concentrate on bombing in and around Baghdad, cutting the road to Syria and Jordan and creating 'chaos and confusion' to force the residents of Baghdad to flee," the report stated.
It said the U.S. assault on Baghdad would not begin before the arrival of the Army's 4th Infantry Division -- which Turkey had barred from entering Iraq from the north via Turkish territory -- around April 15. In fact, Baghdad fell about a week before that date.
"Significantly, the regime was also receiving intelligence from the Russians that fed suspicions that the attack out of Kuwait was merely a diversion," the report stated, citing the March 24 document.
OIL BEHIND RUSSIAN MOVES?
The purpose of the report was to assess the Iraqi view of events from March to May 2003, based on interviews with senior Iraqi officials and numerous documents.
Army Brig. Gen. Anthony Cucolo of U.S. Joint Forces Command told a briefing he viewed Russia's actions as "driven by economic interests." The report noted Russian business interests in Iraqi oil.
Cucolo said the intelligence from Russia "was only a small part of Saddam's calculus on the decisions he should make and the actions he should take."
"It was (Saddam) counting on other members of the international community to assist him in any way that he saw fit to get what he wanted," Cucolo said.
The report said the March 24 document stated, "The information that the Russians have collected from their sources inside the American Central Command in Doha is that the United States is convinced that occupying Iraqi cities are (sic) impossible, and that they have changed their tactic," to avoid entering cities.
The report did not contain allegations reported by The New York Times last month that German intelligence agents in Baghdad obtained a copy of Saddam's plan to defend the Iraqi capital and passed it to U.S. commanders before the invasion.
There is a longer, classified version of the report. Officials said on Friday they could not confirm or deny whether the allegations were contained in that version.
The report painted Saddam as convinced the United States would not launch a ground invasion that would seriously threaten his rule, believing the Americans too squeamish about casualties, and that an internal coup was a bigger threat.
The report also dealt with the issue of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. President George W. Bush cited the threat posed by such weapons as the prime justification for the invasion. No such weapons ever were found.
The report said that for months after the invasion, some senior officials of Saddam's government continued to think it was possible Iraq had a WMD capability hidden away.
It stated that "the public confidence of so many Western governments, especially based on CIA information, made at least one senior (Iraqi) official believe the contention that Iraq possessed such weapons might be true," citing a classified intelligence report.
Russia Spies Operated in Iraq Through 2003
By MIKE ECKEL, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 56 minutes ago
Russia had a military intelligence unit operating in Iraq up through the 2003 U.S. invasion and fall of Baghdad, a Russian analyst said Friday as the Pentagon reported Moscow fed Saddam Hussein's government with intelligence on the American military.
Iraqi documents released as part of the Pentagon report asserted that the Russians relayed information to Saddam through their ambassador in Baghdad during the opening days of the war in late March and early April 2003, including a crucial time before the ground assault on Baghdad.
Pavel Felgenhauer, a respected independent Moscow-based military analyst, told The Associated Press the report was "quite plausible."
He said a unit affiliated with the Defense Ministry's Main Intelligence Department, known by its abbreviation GRU, was actively working in Iraq at the time of the U.S. invasion. The unit apparently was shut down after the fall of Baghdad.
Felgenhauer said at that time, there was an Internet site in Russian called "The Ramzay Files" that caused a stir in Moscow's military and diplomatic community. The site, which also shut down after the invasion, posted striking insights, predictions and analysis into U.S. military activities as well Iraqi military and intelligence activities.
He said former GRU officials told him the type of information that was being posted — both on the Iraqis and on the Americans — appeared to be the kind of that only highly placed Russian intelligence officials in Iraq would have.
It was not immediately clear whether there was any connection between the GRU unit and the Russian sources the Pentagon said were operating inside the American Central Command as it planned and executed the invasion of Iraq.
Felgenhauer said the release of the Pentagon report was coming at an inauspicious time. Given the marked cooling in Russian-US relations of recent months, it could be "the beginning of a real degradation in relations" between Washington and Moscow.
A spokeswoman for Russia's U.N. misson in New York slammed the report, saying its charges are unsupported.
"To my mind, from my understanding it's absolutely nonsense and it's ridiculous," said Maria Zakharova. She said the United States had not shown Russia the evidence cited in the report.
"Somebody wants to say something, and did — and there is no evidence to prove it," she said.
The presence of Russian diplomats in Baghdad as U.S. forces closed in on the city resulted in some testy accusations between Moscow and Washington.
On April 6, 2003, Russian diplomats came under fire as they fled Baghdad, wounding at least four people. Russia's ambassador to Iraq, Vladimir Titorenko, has accused American troops of shooting at his convoy. The U.S. ambassador to Russia, Alexander Vershbow, said the Russians had changed their route from one that American officials had deemed safer.
Three days later, the Russian daily Nezavisimaya Gazeta reported that the convoy might have been carrying secret Iraqi files that U.S. intelligence officers wanted to seize — a report Russian intelligence agencies denied.
Vershbow later said in a newspaper interview that Washington had been aware of contacts between Russian and Iraqi spy agencies, but the United States needed to gather more facts before coming to a definite conclusion on the subject.
Russian intelligence officials repeatedly denied having any links with Iraqi spy services. But several recent British and U.S. newspaper reports cited documents found at the office of the Iraqi spy service, Mukhabarat, that showed Iraq was receiving intelligence assistance from Russia.
Ce zici Tov. Alexe?
Russia’s Double Game
By Kenneth R. Timmerman
March 23, 2006
The talks at the United Nations over Iran’s nuclear weapons program have stalled, and the culprit is clear: the Russian government of ex-KGB officer Vladmir Putin.
Russia has chosen to help the Islamic Republic of Iran buy more time to complete its nuclear weapons programs, turning down repeated U.S. and European offers to soften a UN Security Council statement during yet another round of negotiations in New York on Wednesday.
"Why anybody in Moscow thinks it's in their interest to have a nuclear-capable ballistic missile-equipped Iran near their southern border is a mystery to me," U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said last week.
And yet, that’s precisely what the Russians are doing.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the problem was that the draft UN statement "includes points that effectively lay the groundwork for sanctions against Iran."
So for the Russians, it’s okay to "summon" or "admonish" or "suggest" that Iran changes its behavior. It’s just not okay to do anything about it.
Mr. Lavrov wants to defer yet again to the International Atomic Energy Agency, and keep the Security Council out of it. But the IAEA by its very statute is not the competent authority for putting pressure on Iran. It can gather information, inspect, place seals on Iranian facilities – until the Iranians remove them. But it has no enforcement powers.
Russia is clearly playing a double game. On the one hand, Lavrov and Putin do not want to create undue tension between Moscow and Washington, so they maintain the ploy of civil negotiations. On the other, they want to ensure that Iran has enough time to complete its nuclear weapons plans.
How do we know this? Because the Iranians themselves make no bones about their strategy. Former Iranian nuclear negotiators Hassan Rouhani and Hosein Musavian have both said publicly that the three years Iran gained through its negotiations with the IAEA since late 2002 have allowed it to complete a key uranium conversion plant and to build hundreds of enrichment centrifuges in secret.
Iran announced earlier this month plans to install 3,000 enrichment centrifuges at its plant in Natanz this fall. Just this week, reports surfaced that a pilot enrichment cascade of 164 centrifuges was now up and running, giving Iran a "live" uranium enrichment capability where it can test technology for use in other, clandestine plants.
So why are the Russians so intent on helping Iran go nuclear?
The key can be found in a 1995 document, prepared for the official think tank of the General Staff of Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, which I obtained from Congressman Curt Weldon. I published key portions of the document in the appendix of Countdown to Crisis: the Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran.
The broad-ranging study proposed a new strategy for countering the "main external threats" to the Russian Federation. Despite the end of the Cold War, the study identified the United States as "the main external force potentially capable of creating a threat to Russian Federation military security and to Russia’s economic and political interests."
Most importantly, the document urged Russian leaders to form a strategic alliance with Iraq and Iran, as a means of countering U.S. advances in the oil-rich Caspian region.
In addition to selling "military nuclear and missile technologies to countries such as Iraq and Iran," the study advised that Russia could enter into "direct military alliance… above all with Iran, within the framework of which a Russian troop contingent and tactical nuclear weapons could be stationed on the shores of the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz."
In January, Jane’s Defense Weekly reported that Middle East intelligence sources had confirmed a story appearing in the German newspaper Bild on Dec. 16, 2005, alleging that Iran had acquired Russian-made nuclear warheads through North Korea.
The warheads had equipped SS-N-6 submarine-launched missiles. U.S. intelligence sources privately confirmed these reports to me.
This and other intelligence on Russia’s nuclear and missile ties to Iran provides a troubling backdrop to Russia’s stonewall diplomacy at the UN.
Ce zici Tov. Alexe (2)
? In December, Russia agreed to sell Iran $1 billion worth of weapons to Iran, including state-of-the-art Tor-M1 air defense missile systems, despite vigorous U.S. protests that Russia abandon the sale. These Patriot-plus missile systems are capable of simultaneously identifying and tracking up to 48 targets. Each launcher can fire at two targets simultaneously. Moscow has also agreed to supply S-300 anti-missile missiles, and to upgrade Iran’s fleet of MiG-29 fighters.
? On October 27, 2005, Russia launched Iran’s first spy satellite, the Sina-1, from the Polstesk space base in Murmansk province. Iran has integrated the Sina-1 in its latest contingency plans for waging a massive naval campaign against the United State in the Persian Gulf.
? Iran continues to send Revolutionary Guards Air Force officers to Russia for "scientific training" in ballistics and other missile-related areas. In late 2005, a group of 15 Rev. Guards officers were training at the Faculty of Aircraft Engineering of the Samara State Aerospace University under cover of Iran’s Ministry of Culture and Higher Education.
Russia military intelligence teams travel regularly to Tehran for consultations with Iran’s Revolutionary Guards. The latest of these delegations arrived in Tehran on March 7 and stayed for two days. According to Iranian sources, they were advising Iran on how to prepare for the eventual imposition of international sanctions on Iran.
Russia will earn billions of dollars from Iran should current plans to build six additional nuclear power plants go through. Billions more are being generated from direct arms sales. And every time war scares increase the price of oil, Vladimir Putin’s bankers go ka-ching as windfall profits from Russia’s own oil exports result.
But the Moscow-Tehran axis goes beyond just money. It is strategic. And this is where the Bush administration needs to focus its efforts.
Over the past two weeks, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns has seized control of the negotiations at the United Nations, virtually sidelining ambassador John Bolton.
As the lead U.S. negotiator, designated by Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, Burns reminded reporters yesterday of his negotiating principles.
"All sides need to be flexible… I don’t know how long it’s going to take… But eventually, I think that these countries are going to agree to a presidential statement."
A "presidential statement" from the UN Security Council is a very weak document. Essentially, it’s a bare statement of principles that will include nothing objectionable to any of the 15 members of the Council (the Permanent Five plus 10 rotating members.). In other words, it means negotiating down to the least common denominator.
This month, the Council is chaired by Argentina, which rarely votes with us on key issues. Also among the rotating members are Chile, Ghana, Congo and Greece.
Much more potent would be a UN Security Council resolution, which must come to a vote and requires approval by a majority of Council members, not unanimity.
Despite protests and abstentions, the Security Council approved seventeen such resolutions demanding that Saddam Hussein comply with UN disarmament demands. A single resolution demanding that Iran do the same is the bare minimum we should expect from the Council – and from the Bush administration.
If Russia wants to play a double game on Iran, so be it. It’s time to put Russia’s intentions to the test. Allowing Putin and his team to buy more time for Iran to complete its nuclear facilities is not an acceptable alternative.
Te astept de aproape o saptamina cu continuarea dezvaluirilor lui Milosevici la procesul de la Haga. Alea cu epurarea etnica in Bosnia facuta pe banii americanilor, mai tii minte? Data trecuta, cind ai publicat zguduitoarea stenograma a unei emisiuni de televiziune asa ai zis: "vom prezenta pentru inceput". Unde-i restul? L-ai facut pierdut? Hai, ca lumea-i nerabdatoare, abia asteapta, n-o lasa cu ochii in soare, da-l dracu' de Iran acuma, o sa ai tu timp de el mai incolo!
Faptul ca Pentagonul se ocupa cu spalari de creier si propaganda platita in ziarele din Middle East. Chiar si Rumsvelt a recunoscut acest program. Sunt de rasul curcilor acesti calareti ai apocalipsei din casa alba.
Alexe, bun articol!
Re: Nebuni sau comunisti
Bostane, cum curg? Ca si WMD-urile din Irak? Las ca mai scrasneste Dick printre dinti niste minciuni si manipulari, asa cum stie el mai bine.
La 2006-03-25 01:08:52, Dan Bostan a scris:
> Ori esti nebun ori comunist inrait sa poti crede asta.
> Rapoartele despre programul nuclear iranian curg din toate partile,
> inclusiv de la iranieni.
> Ramine sa decideti in ce categorie e Alexei.
Re: Ce zici Tov. Alexe?
Grigore, nu ai niste autori mai putin neocon? Cunoastem ura ce ii macina pe acesti luptatori pentru libertate in lume ...
La 2006-03-25 04:23:10, Mos Grigore a scris:
> Russia’s Double Game
> By Kenneth R. Timmerman
> March 23, 2006
> The talks at the United Nations over Iran’s nuclear weapons
> program have stalled, and the culprit is clear: the Russian
> government of ex-KGB officer Vladmir Putin.
> Russia has chosen to help the Islamic Republic of Iran buy more time
> to complete its nuclear weapons programs, turning down repeated U.S.
> and European offers to soften a UN Security Council statement during
> yet another round of negotiations in New York on Wednesday.
> "Why anybody in Moscow thinks it's in their interest to have
> a nuclear-capable ballistic missile-equipped Iran near their southern
> border is a mystery to me," U.S. ambassador to the United
> Nations John Bolton said last week.
> And yet, that’s precisely what the Russians are doing.
> Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the problem was that the
> draft UN statement "includes points that effectively lay
> the groundwork for sanctions against Iran."
> So for the Russians, it’s okay to
> "summon" or "admonish" or
> "suggest" that Iran changes its behavior.
> It’s just not okay to do anything about it.
> Mr. Lavrov wants to defer yet again to the International Atomic Energy
> Agency, and keep the Security Council out of it. But the IAEA by its
> very statute is not the competent authority for putting pressure on
> Iran. It can gather information, inspect, place seals on Iranian
> facilities – until the Iranians remove them. But it has no
> enforcement powers.
> Russia is clearly playing a double game. On the one hand, Lavrov and
> Putin do not want to create undue tension between Moscow and
> Washington, so they maintain the ploy of civil negotiations. On the
> other, they want to ensure that Iran has enough time to complete its
> nuclear weapons plans.
> How do we know this? Because the Iranians themselves make no bones
> about their strategy. Former Iranian nuclear negotiators Hassan
> Rouhani and Hosein Musavian have both said publicly that the three
> years Iran gained through its negotiations with the IAEA since late
> 2002 have allowed it to complete a key uranium conversion plant and
> to build hundreds of enrichment centrifuges in secret.
> Iran announced earlier this month plans to install 3,000 enrichment
> centrifuges at its plant in Natanz this fall. Just this week, reports
> surfaced that a pilot enrichment cascade of 164 centrifuges was now up
> and running, giving Iran a "live" uranium
> enrichment capability where it can test technology for use in other,
> clandestine plants.
> So why are the Russians so intent on helping Iran go nuclear?
> The key can be found in a 1995 document, prepared for the official
> think tank of the General Staff of Armed Forces of the Russian
> Federation, which I obtained from Congressman Curt Weldon. I
> published key portions of the document in the appendix of Countdown
> to Crisis: the Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran.
> The broad-ranging study proposed a new strategy for countering the
> "main external threats" to the Russian
> Federation. Despite the end of the Cold War, the study identified the
> United States as "the main external force potentially
> capable of creating a threat to Russian Federation military security
> and to Russia’s economic and political
> Most importantly, the document urged Russian leaders to form a
> strategic alliance with Iraq and Iran, as a means of countering U.S.
> advances in the oil-rich Caspian region.
> In addition to selling "military nuclear and missile
> technologies to countries such as Iraq and Iran," the study
> advised that Russia could enter into "direct military
> alliance… above all with Iran, within the framework of
> which a Russian troop contingent and tactical nuclear weapons could
> be stationed on the shores of the Persian Gulf and the Strait of
> In January, Jane’s Defense Weekly reported that Middle East
> intelligence sources had confirmed a story appearing in the German
> newspaper Bild on Dec. 16, 2005, alleging that Iran had acquired
> Russian-made nuclear warheads through North Korea.
> The warheads had equipped SS-N-6 submarine-launched missiles. U.S.
> intelligence sources privately confirmed these reports to me.
> This and other intelligence on Russia’s nuclear and missile
> ties to Iran provides a troubling backdrop to Russia’s
> stonewall diplomacy at the UN.
Recomandam ieri pe forum cartea ta: "Trustul Banilor: De la Imperiul Rothschild la
> Imperiul American, istoria secreta a noii ordini mondiale". Aseara am vazut Syriana...Doamne cita monstruozitate poate exista in cirdasia aceasta criminala intre BAN si politica! Szriana se ocupa tocmai de aceasta pregatire a razboiului impotriva Iranului. Vai de noi ce o sa ne astepte in viitor! Cita minciuna, si cita crima poate incapea in mintile acestor conducatori de destine umane de la un colt al altuia al globului. La un moment dat un personaj spune: "Corruption is our protection. Corruption keeps us safe and warm. Corruption is why we win" si cita dreptate are. Daca ai stii ce reactii de repulsie si indignare auzeam din toate partile in sala de cinematograf portughez in care ma aflam. La un moment dat se vor trezi toti oamenii!!!!
Bravo d-le Alexe !!!
BY ROGER EBERT / December 9, 2005
Cast & Credits
Robert Barnes: George Clooney
Bryan Woodman: Matt Damon
Julie Woodman: Amanda Peet
Jimmy Pope: Chris Cooper
Dean Whiting: Christopher Plummer
Robby Baer: Max Minghella
Bennett Holiday: Jeffrey Wright
Warner Brothers Pictures presents a film directed and written by Stephen Gaghan. Based on the book by Robert Baer. Running time: 126 minutes. Rated R (for violence and language).
- - - -
A memorable moment from "Syriana":
Some trust fund prosecutor,
(beat) ...Corruption charges. Corruption? Corruption ain’t nothing more than government intrusion into market efficiencies in the form of regulation. That’s Milton Friedman. He got a goddamn Nobel prize. We have laws against it precisely so we can get away with it. Corruption is our protection. Corruption is what keeps us safe and warm. Corruption is why you and I are prancing around here instead offighting each other for scraps of meat out in the streets. (beat)
Corruption... is how we win.
"Syriana" is an endlessly fascinating movie about oil and money, America and China, traders and spies, the Gulf States and Texas, reform and revenge, bribery and betrayal. Its interlocking stories come down to one thing: There is less oil than the world requires, and that will make some people rich and others dead. The movie seems to take sides, but take a step back and look again. It finds all of the players in the oil game corrupt and compromised, and even provides a brilliant speech in defense of corruption, by a Texas oilman (Tim Blake Nelson). This isn't about Left and Right but about Have and Have Not.
The movie begins with one of the Gulf states signing a deal to supply its oil to China. This comes as a strategic defeat for Connex, a Texas-based oil company. At the same time, an obscure oil company named Killen signs a deal to drill for oil in Kazakhstan. Connex announces a merger with Killen, to get its hands on the oil, but the merger inspires a Justice Department investigation, and --
Let's stop right there. The movie's plot is so complex we're not really supposed to follow it, we're supposed to be surrounded by it. Since none of the characters understand the whole picture, why should we? If the movie shook down into good guys and bad guys, we'd be the good guys, of course. Or if it was a critique of American policy, we might be the bad guys. But what if everybody is a bad guy, because good guys don't even suit up to play this game?What if a CIA agent brings about two assassinations and tries to prevent another one, and is never sure precisely whose policies he is really carrying out?
What if -- well, here's a possibility the movie doesn't make explicit, but let me try it out on you. There is a moment when a veteran Washington oil analyst points out that while Kazakhstan has a lot of oil, none of it is where Killen has drilling rights. Yet Killen is undoubtedly shipping oil. Is it possible the Chinese are buying oil in the Gulf, shipping it to Kazakhstan, and selling it to the United States through Killen?
I bring up that possibility because I want to suggest the movie's amoral complexity without spoiling its surprises. "Syriana" is a movie that suggests Congress can hold endless hearings about oil company profits and never discover the answer to anything, because the real story is so labyrinthine that no one -- not oil company executives, not Arab princes, not CIA spies, not traders in Geneva, understands the whole picture.
I think "Syriana" is a great film. I am unable to make my reasons clear without resorting to meaningless generalizations. Individual scenes have fierce focus and power, but the film's overall drift stands apart from them. It seems to imply that these sorts of scenes occur, and always have and always will. The movie explains the politics of oil by telling us to stop seeking an explanation. Just look at the behavior. In the short run, you can see who wants oil and how they're trying to get it. In the long run, we're out of oil.
Crima este a aceluia care pregateste si executa un atac asupra altuia semianind distrugere de viata si proprietate in jur. Cel care prepara victima se afla de partea morala a balantei. As vrea sa stiu unde plaseaza acesti suporteri ai macelului si crimelor ajutorul dat de guvernul american si Irakului si Iranului in timpul acelui razboi instigat tot de America. Rusia cel putin nu ajuta ambele parti. Mergeti sa vedeti Syriana si fiti atent la reactiile publicului. In sala unde am fost eu, oameni batrini ieseau ingroziti si clocotind de ura in ei, oameni carora nu ar mai trebui sa le pese ce se intimpla in lume. Cind veti vedea cita miselie sta la baza tuturor deciziilor politice, cita dezumanizare si cruzime si cit de aproape suntem de a ne reintoarce la sclavagism, o ordine mondiala dupa urma careia stramosii criminalilor de azi au profitat si o ordine aplaudata si atunci de cei de pe bara care scuipa numai venin in jur asa cum fac astazi, pentru a mentine un sistem bestial de imbogatitul celor putini si dsitrugerea morala, si fizica la nevoie a celor multi. De ce oare vedeam eu printre tortionarii personajului lui Clooney, si printre jandarmii care bateau protestantii ce-si pierdusera munca, cite un personaj care scrie pe acest forum?
La 2006-03-25 10:30:40, anonymous a scris:
> Grigore, nu ai niste autori mai putin neocon? Cunoastem ura ce ii
> macina pe acesti luptatori pentru libertate in lume ...
> La 2006-03-25 04:23:10, Mos Grigore a scris:
> > Russia’s Double Game
> > By Kenneth R. Timmerman
> > March 23, 2006
> > The talks at the United Nations over Iran’s nuclear weapons
> > program have stalled, and the culprit is clear: the Russian
> > government of ex-KGB officer Vladmir Putin.
> > Russia has chosen to help the Islamic Republic of Iran buy more time
> > to complete its nuclear weapons programs, turning down repeated U.S.
> > and European offers to soften a UN Security Council statement during
> > yet another round of negotiations in New York on Wednesday.
> > "Why anybody in Moscow thinks it's in their interest to have
> > a nuclear-capable ballistic missile-equipped Iran near their southern
> > border is a mystery to me," U.S. ambassador to the United
> > Nations John Bolton said last week.
> > And yet, that’s precisely what the Russians are doing.
> > Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the problem was that the
> > draft UN statement "includes points that effectively lay
> > the groundwork for sanctions against Iran."
> > So for the Russians, it’s okay to
> > "summon" or "admonish" or
> > "suggest" that Iran changes its behavior.
> > It’s just not okay to do anything about it.
> > Mr. Lavrov wants to defer yet again to the International Atomic Energy
> > Agency, and keep the Security Council out of it. But the IAEA by its
> > very statute is not the competent authority for putting pressure on
> > Iran. It can gather information, inspect, place seals on Iranian
> > facilities – until the Iranians remove them. But it has no
> > enforcement powers.
> > Russia is clearly playing a double game. On the one hand, Lavrov and
> > Putin do not want to create undue tension between Moscow and
> > Washington, so they maintain the ploy of civil negotiations. On the
> > other, they want to ensure that Iran has enough time to complete its
> > nuclear weapons plans.
> > How do we know this? Because the Iranians themselves make no bones
> > about their strategy. Former Iranian nuclear negotiators Hassan
> > Rouhani and Hosein Musavian have both said publicly that the three
> > years Iran gained through its negotiations with the IAEA since late
> > 2002 have allowed it to complete a key uranium conversion plant and
> > to build hundreds of enrichment centrifuges in secret.
> > Iran announced earlier this month plans to install 3,000 enrichment
> > centrifuges at its plant in Natanz this fall. Just this week, reports
> > surfaced that a pilot enrichment cascade of 164 centrifuges was now up
> > and running, giving Iran a "live" uranium
> > enrichment capability where it can test technology for use in other,
> > clandestine plants.
> > So why are the Russians so intent on helping Iran go nuclear?
> > The key can be found in a 1995 document, prepared for the official
> > think tank of the General Staff of Armed Forces of the Russian
> > Federation, which I obtained from Congressman Curt Weldon. I
> > published key portions of the document in the appendix of Countdown
> > to Crisis: the Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran.
> > The broad-ranging study proposed a new strategy for countering the
> > "main external threats" to the Russian
> > Federation. Despite the end of the Cold War, the study identified the
> > United States as "the main external force potentially
> > capable of creating a threat to Russian Federation military security
> > and to Russia’s economic and political
> > interests."
> > Most importantly, the document urged Russian leaders to form a
> > strategic alliance with Iraq and Iran, as a means of countering U.S.
> > advances in the oil-rich Caspian region.
> > In addition to selling "military nuclear and missile
> > technologies to countries such as Iraq and Iran," the study
> > advised that Russia could enter into "direct military
> > alliance… above all with Iran, within the framework of
> > which a Russian troop contingent and tactical nuclear weapons could
> > be stationed on the shores of the Persian Gulf and the Strait of
> > Hormuz."
> > In January, Jane’s Defense Weekly reported that Middle East
> > intelligence sources had confirmed a story appearing in the German
> > newspaper Bild on Dec. 16, 2005, alleging that Iran had acquired
> > Russian-made nuclear warheads through North Korea.
> > The warheads had equipped SS-N-6 submarine-launched missiles. U.S.
> > intelligence sources privately confirmed these reports to me.
> > This and other intelligence on Russia’s nuclear and missile
> > ties to Iran provides a troubling backdrop to Russia’s
> > stonewall diplomacy at the UN.
Americanii la razboi :
Putina inteligenta mosule, putina inteligenta .....
Asa cum in Jugo. , rusii au doborit "mindria" tehnicii militare americane, avionul "invizibil" (stiu, americanii pretind ca a fost accident) asa si acum.
Isi verifica "mizeriile" militare asupra "tehnologiei " de virf americane. Si deodata, bravii strategi americanii inicep sa urle ca posibilul adversar a pus mina pe o "bita" sa le buseasca tancurile si avioanele, hahahaha
Cit de americani, trebuie sa invete ca in razboi se moare, de ambele parti, nu doar "ceilalti". Uite in Irak: au murit 2000 americani, sub 1% din soldati si natiunea se gindeste deja ca ar fi mai bine sa-i aduca acasa. Daca era asta in "43, Hitler era viu si sprintar acum. V-ati lenevit, huzurit, si ati devenit comozi. Razboiul asta nu e la x-Box !!!!
Re: Patronii lui Alexe la treaba.......................................(1)
Re: cristiana io n-am vazut filmu
Si nici nu cred ca o sa-l vad ca am trecut de virsta povestilor... da ... nu cumva noi astia moralii, pacifistii, intelsctualii dam dovada de morala dubla?
Nu ne umflem in pene ce mari intelectuali suntem noi, cum avem noi cunostiinte de historie, literatura siii.. nu suntem multumiti si chiar mindrii, ca ne putem permite sa cumparam benzina ieftina, sa avem case mari si frumoase, sa facem dus de zece ori pe zi, uita-te la Miruna la articolu cu auru, combate tare da sunt aproape sigur ca devine palida cind vede o bratara de aur cu diamante.
Te-ai gindit oare vrodata ca pt. ca noi sa facem pe simandicosii, oameni fini, unii trebe sa faca munca murdara de care vor profita iei in primu rind, nu ie nici o indoiala, da PROFITAM si noi.
Iesti dispusa sa renunti la un dus pe zi? De abia atunci va incepe sa fie lumea mai buna.
Re: (2) Si care e concluzia ta !!!!
off topic dar cu Teheran
Ce inseamna politicianismul: alataieri un lider Likud, Steinitz parca, declara ca o eventuala victorie a lui Olmert in alegerile din Israel va face ca oamenii sa iasa in strada de bucurie in Gaza si la TEHERAN. Are haz.....
Bush's April 2006 Speech:
I am not a speechwriter. Still, I feel compelled to help the president out, to make my small contribution to the New World Order. Here is what President Bush will announce to the nation and the world in early April 2006:
* Iran has flouted the international community and continues in its determined path to manufacture nucular weapons.
* Iran has announced that it will destroy Israel, and once it has a nucular weapon it will do so.
* Iran is the prime sponsor of terrorism, and once it has nucular weapons it will give them to terrorists to detonate in New York, London, and Tel Aviv. It will also put nucular weapons on missiles aimed at Europe and the U.S.
* I have said that I will not remain idle while dangers gather. Nevertheless, I am mindful of those that say that there is still time to pursue diplomatic action, however unlikely it is to succeed. But I am here to announce that we no longer have that luxury.
* Thousands of Iranian birds will begin their journey along their migratory pathways in the next few days. Their routes will bring them to Europe and the United States. This is a fact, and nobody can accuse the United States of making it up. [smirk]
* Intelligence gathered by the U.S. and British governments shows that Iranian scientists have developed a mutated strain of the H5N1 virus that can be transmitted from human to human. World health agencies and experts have warned that such a virus will lead to a bird-flu pandemic that can potentially kill 150 million human beings. Iranian birds have already infected and killed innocent birds of our allies in Europe.
* Even a single bird carrying the mutated strain can transmit it to countless other birds and humans, causing a nightmare of unimaginable proportions.
* I demand that the Iranian government immediately destroy all strains of the mutated virus and provide to the international community incontrovertible proof that it has done so.
* While we are at it, I demand that the Iranian government immediately destroy all its dual-use nuclear facilities, as well as all the knowledge it has about nucular weapons, including all physics books written after September 27, 1905.
* I demand that the Iranian government immediately open up all its military, industrial, scientific, health care, and agricultural facilities for full and unconstrained international inspections.
* I demand that the Iranian government immediately and verifiably destroy the wetlands at Gilan, Khuzestan, and Hamoon that breed the deadly birds that will attack us.
* The Iranian government has 24 hours to comply with these just demands. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing.
An Unnecessary Crisis - Setting the Record Straight About Iran's Nuclear Program
(Author: Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United
Nations - 622 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017)
In a region already suffering from upheaval and uncertainty, a crisis is
being manufactured in which there will be no winners. Worse yet, the hysteria
about the dangers of an alleged Iran nuclear weapons program rest solely and
intentionally on misperceptions and outright lies. In the avalanche of anti-Iran
media commentaries, conspicuously absent is any reference to important facts,
coupled with a twisted representation of the developments over the past 25
years. Before the international community is led to another "crisis of choice",
it is imperative that the public knows all the facts and is empowered to make an
informed and sober decision about an impending catastrophe.
1. Systematic pattern of Denial of Iran's Rights and its Impact on
Since early 1980s, Iran's peaceful nuclear program and its inalienable right
to nuclear technology have been the subject of the most extensive and intensive
campaign of denial, obstruction, intervention and misinformation.
* Valid and binding contracts to build nuclear power plants were
* Nuclear material rightfully purchased and owned by Iran was illegally
* Exercise of Iran's right as a shareholder in several national and
multinational nuclear power corporations was obstructed;
* Unjustified and coercive interventions were routinely made in order to
undermine, impede and delay the implementation of Iran's nuclear agreements
with third parties; and
* Unfounded accusations against Iran's exclusively peaceful nuclear program
were systematically publicized.
As a result, and merely in order to
prevent further illegal and illegitimate restrictions on its ability to procure
its needed materials and equipment, Iran had been left with no option but to be
discrete in its perfectly legal and exclusively peaceful activities. In doing
so, Iran broke no laws nor diverted its peaceful program to military activities.
It only refrained from disclosing the details of its programs. In nearly all
cases, it was not even obliged to disclose these programs under its safeguards
agreement with the IAEA.
Therefore, while Iran's rights under the NPT continued to be grossly and systematically
violated, and while major state parties to the Treaty persisted in their noncompliance
with many of their obligations under Articles I, IV and VI of the Treaty in
general, and under paragraph 2 of article IV vis-à-vis Iran in particular,
Iran nevertheless continued to diligently comply with all its obligations under
2. Nuclear Technology OR Nuclear Weapons?
A vicious cycle of restrictions on Iran's nuclear program and attempts by Iran
to circumvent them through concealment and black market acquisitions have fueled
mutual suspicions. In this self-perpetuating atmosphere, the conclusion is already
drawn that Iran's declared peaceful nuclear program is just a cover for developing
atomic weapons But this conclusion is based on two erroneous assumptions, which
have been repeated often enough to become conventional wisdom.
2.1. Iran Needs Nuclear Energy
2.1.1, Nuclear Energy for an Oil-Rich Country
The first is that Iran has vast oil and gas resources and therefore does not
need nuclear energy. Although it is true that Iran is rich in oil and gas, these
resources are finite and, given the pace of Iran's economic development, they
will be depleted within two to five decades. With a territory of 1,648,000 km2
and a population of about 70 million, projected to be more than 105 million
in 2050, Iran has no choice but to seek access to more diversified and secure
sources of energy. Availability of electricity to 46,000 villages now, compared
to 4400 twenty five years ago, just as an example, demonstrates the fast growing
demand for more energy. And the youthfulness of the Iranian population, with
around 70% under 30, doesn't allow complacency when it comes to energy policy.
To satisfy such growing demands, Iran can't rely exclusively on fossil energy.
Since Iranian national economy is still dependent on oil revenue, it can't allow
the ever increasing domestic demand affect the oil revenues from the oil export.
2.1.2 US Support for Iranian Nuclear Program
Iran's quest for nuclear energy picked momentum following a study in 1974
carried out by the prestigious US-based Stanford Research Institute, which
predicted Iran's need for nuclear energy and recommended the building of nuclear
plants capable of generating 20,000 megawatts of electricity before 1994. Now,
30 years, later, Iran aims at reaching that level by 2020, which may save Iran
190 million barrels of crude oil or $10 billion per year in today's prices.
Therefore, Iran's nuclear program is neither ambitious nor economically
unjustifiable. Diversification - including the development of nuclear energy -
is the only sound and responsible energy strategy for Iran.
Even the US State Department was convinced of this in 1978 when it stated in
a memo that the U.S. was encouraged by Iran's efforts to expand its non-oil
energy base and was hopeful that the U.S.-Iran Nuclear Energy Agreement would be
concluded soon and that U.S. companies would be able to play a role in Iran's
nuclear energy projects.
2.1.3 Nuclear Fuel Cycle
Producing fuel for its nuclear power plants is an integral part of Iran's
nuclear energy policy. While domestic production of fuel for this number of
nuclear power plants makes perfect economic sense, Iran's decision should not be
judged solely on economic grounds. Having been a victim of a pattern of
deprivation from peaceful nuclear material and technology, Iran cannot solely
rely on procurement of fuel from outside sources. Such dependence would in
effect hold Iran's multi-billion dollar investment in power plants hostage to
the political whims of suppliers in a tightly controlled market. Furthermore, it
is self evident that the time-consuming efforts to gain the necessary technology
and develop the capability for fuel production must proceed simultaneously with
the acquisition and construction of nuclear power plants. Otherwise constructed
plans may become obsolete in case of denial of fuel without a contingency
capacity to produce it domestically.
Re: cristiana io n-am vazut filmu
Re: Putina inteligenta mosule, putina inteligenta .....
An Unnecessary Crisis - part 2
2.2 Iran Does Not Need Nuclear Weapons for Its Security
The second false assumption is that because Iran is surrounded by nuclear
weapons in all directions - the U.S., Russia, Pakistan and Israel- any sound
Iranian strategists must be seeking to develop a nuclear deterrent capability
for Iran as well.
It is true that Iran has neighbors with abundant nuclear weapons, but this
does not mean that Iran must follow suit. In fact, the predominant view among
Iranian decision-makers is that development, acquisition or possession of
nuclear weapons would only undermine Iranian security. Viable security for Iran
can be attained only through inclusion and regional and global engagement.
Iran's history is the perfect illustration of its geo-strategic outlook. Over
the past 250 years, Iran has not waged a single war of aggression against its
neighbors, nor has it initiated any hostilities.
Iran today is the strongest country in its immediate neighborhood. It does
not need nuclear weapons to protect its regional interests. In fact, to augment
Iranian influence in the region, it has been necessary for Iran to win the confidence
of its neighbors, who have historically been concerned with size and power disparities.
On the other hand, Iran, with its current state of technological development
and military capability, cannot reasonably rely on nuclear deterrence against
its adversaries in the international arena or in the wider region of the Middle
East. Moreover, such an unrealistic option would be prohibitively expensive,
draining the limited economic resources of the country. In sum, a costly
nuclear-weapon option would reduce Iran's regional influence and increase its
global vulnerabilities without providing any credible deterrence.
There is also a fundamental ideological objection to weapons of mass
destruction, including a religious decree issued by the leader of the Islamic
Republic of Iran prohibiting the development, stockpiling or use of nuclear
3. Negotiations with UK, France and Germany (EU3)
3.1. Iran's Transparency and Confidence-Building Measures
In October 2003, Iran entered into an understanding with France, Germany and
the United Kingdom with the explicit expectation to open a new chapter of full
transparency, cooperation and access to nuclear and other advanced technologies.
Iran agreed to a number of important transparency and voluntary confidence
building measures and immediately and fully implemented them.
* It signed and immediately began full implementation of the Additional
* It opened its doors to one of the most expansive and intrusive IAEA
* It provided a detailed account of its peaceful nuclear activities, all of
which had been carried out in full conformity with its rights and obligations
under the NPT;
* It began and has continuously maintained for the past 2 years a
voluntarily suspension of its rightful enrichment of Uranium as a confidence
* It further expanded its voluntary suspension in February and November
2004, following agreements with EU3 in Brussels and Paris respectively, to
incorporate activities which go well beyond the original IAEA's definition of
"enrichment" and even "enrichment-related" activities.
3.1.1. Resolution of Outstanding Issues
Iran has worked closely with the IAEA, during the course of the last two
years, to deal with the issues and questions raised about its peaceful nuclear
program. All significant issues, particularly those related to the sources of
HEU (Highly Enriched Uranium) have now been resolved. Indeed, except for few
mostly speculative questions, nothing more remains to close this Chapter.
3.1.2. No indication of Non-Peaceful Activity
The Agency's thorough inspections of Iran have repeatedly confirmed Iran's
assertion that no amount of inspection and scrutiny will ever show the slightest
diversion into military activity. The Director-General confirmed in Paragraph
52 of his November 2003 report that "to date, there is no evidence that the
previously undeclared nuclear material and activities referred to above were
related to a nuclear weapons program." After one more year and over a thousand
person-days of the most rigorous inspections, the Director-General again confirmed
in Paragraph 112 of his November 2004 report that "all the declared nuclear
material in Iran has been accounted for, and therefore such material is not
diverted to prohibited activities". This conclusion has been repeatedly reaffirmed
in every statement by responsible authorities of the IAEA.
Re: Hei, Alexe...He,He,He, aia s-a racit; acu e Iranul bataia pestelui!
Re: cristiana io n-am vazut filmu. Ma intreb ce o fi zicind Santana despre APA? Dar Marx?
Re: Americanii la razboi : Iar vii cu prostiile alea? Inca n-ai invatat o limba internationala?
Re: Bravo d-le Alexe !!!
Consecintele unui Stat agresor
Consequences of a War State
* European American News
by Charley Reese
War consists of killing people and destroying property. That’s all there is to war. Any honest soldier will tell you the same thing: His job is to kill people and destroy property. That’s true of all branches of the service.
The difficult question is, When is a nation justified in making the decision to kill other people and destroy their property? I think the rule is the same as it is for individuals. You are justified in killing only in defense of your own life or the lives of others for whom you are responsible.
By that definition, the U.S. has fought only one justified war in this and the past century. That was World War II. Putting aside the fact that the U.S. government provoked Japan into attacking, attack it did, and the U.S. had a right to respond. We were not attacked, however, in Korea, Vietnam, Libya, Lebanon, Panama, Grenada, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan or Iraq.
In Korea and Vietnam, we intervened in a civil war as two sides of a divided country fought for supremacy. We bombed Libya in a reprisal raid for a terrorist attack in Germany. Reprisals, in World War II, were considered war crimes. We weren’t attacked by Lebanon. In Panama, we attacked to change the government. I don’t really know why we attacked Grenada. The pretense was that it was building an airport that could handle Soviet airplanes. I suspect it was really a political ploy designed for domestic consumption.
I don’t know why we decided to bomb Yugoslavia. That, again, was a civil war that should not have concerned us. The now-late Slobodan Milosevic was only trying to do what Abraham Lincoln did – prevent the secession of states from Yugoslavia.
Our problem in Afghanistan was not the Taliban government. It was al-Qaeda. We overthrew the Taliban government but failed to destroy al-Qaeda. Only God and George Bush know why we attacked Iraq. That was clearly a war of aggression, no different from the German invasion of Poland in the 1930s.
It’s ironic that the president likes to claim to be promoting peace, when we are the most warlike nation on Earth and the one with the largest war-department budget. We are also the biggest arms peddler in the world. It seems there is no country on Earth that’s immune to U.S. officials telling it how to run its internal affairs.
The problem is that war, except in self-defense, is a total waste. Human lives are wasted. Accumulated wealth is wasted. The results of war are debt, taxation, human sorrow and human bitterness. The billions of dollars we spend killing other people and destroying their property are billions that can’t be spent on improving education, America’s infrastructure, the health of our people and preserving our land, water and air.
Wars also destroy truth and trust with their secrecy and propaganda. Instead of patriotism, which is a love of the land and the people, the war state substitutes jingoism, which is a love of the government and support of war. In America today, both liberals and neoconservatives have been corrupted by the imperialist war state. The liberals are too cowardly to oppose unjustified wars, and the neoconservatives instigate and applaud them.
It is a triumph of imperial war-state propaganda that people are afraid they will be called unpatriotic if they oppose their government’s foreign wars and their domestic consequences.
Un exemplu de legatura Saddam-teroristi
The Weekly Standard
What we've learned about Iraq's terrorist training camps.
by Stephen F. Hayes
04/03/2006, Volume 011, Issue 27
REPRESENTATIVE John Murtha, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, appeared on NBC's Meet the Press on Sunday, March 19, to evaluate the war in Iraq on its third anniversary. Murtha, a decorated veteran and longtime hawk, has become a leading spokesman for his party on the war. And on the show, he spoke of what "probably worries me the most" about the U.S. effort in Iraq. The war, said Murtha, is a diversion from the global war on terror.
"There was no terrorism in Iraq before we went there," said Murtha. "None. There was no connection with al Qaeda, there was no connection with, with terrorism in Iraq itself." This is now the conventional wisdom on Iraq and terrorism. It is wrong.
A new study from the Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia, paints quite a different picture. According to captured documents cited in the study and first reported in THE WEEKLY STANDARD in January, the former Iraqi regime was training non-Iraqi Arabs in terrorist techniques.
Beginning in 1994, the Fedayeen Saddam opened its own paramilitary training camps for volunteers, graduating more than 7,200 "good men racing full with courage and enthusiasm" in the first year. Beginning in 1998, these camps began hosting "Arab volunteers from Egypt, Palestine, Jordan, 'the Gulf,' and Syria." It is not clear from available evidence where all of these non-Iraqi volunteers who were "sacrificing for the cause" went to ply their newfound skills. Before the summer of 2002, most volunteers went home upon the completion of training. But these camps were humming with frenzied activity in the months immediately prior to the war. As late as January 2003, the volunteers participated in a special training event called the "Heroes Attack." This training event was designed in part to prepare regional Fedayeen Saddam commands to "obstruct the enemy from achieving his goal and to support keeping peace and stability in the province."
Some of this training came under the auspices of the Iraqi Intelligence Service's "Division 27," which, according to the study, "supplied the Fedayeen Saddam with silencers, equipment for booby-trapping vehicles, [and] special training on the use of certain explosive timers. The only apparent use for all of this Division 27 equipment was to conduct commando or terrorist operations."
The publication of the Joint Forces Command study, called the "Iraqi Perspectives Project," coincides with the release by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence of several hundred documents captured in postwar Iraq. There are many more to come. Some of the documents used to complete the study have been made public as part of the ODNI effort; others have not.
It is early, but the emerging picture suggests that the U.S. intelligence community underestimated Saddam Hussein's interest in terrorism. One U.S. intelligence official, identified only as an "IC analyst" in the Senate Select Intelligence Committee report on Iraq, summarized the intelligence community's view on Iraq and terrorism with disarming candor: "I don't think we were really focused on the CT [counterterrorism] side, because we weren't concerned about the IIS [Iraqi Intelligence Service] going out and proactively conducting terrorist attacks. It wasn't until we realized that there was the possibility of going to war that we had to get a handle on that."
A report produced by the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, signed by all members of the Intelligence Committee, Democrats and Republicans, offered this withering assessment of the intelligence community's work on Iraq and terrorism:
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) did not have a focused human intelligence (HUMINT) collection strategy targeting Iraq's links to terrorism until 2002. The CIA had no [redacted] sources on the ground in Iraq reporting specifically on terrorism.
It wasn't just Iraq. "The CIA had no [redacted] credible reporting on the leadership of either the Iraqi regime or al Qaeda, which would have enabled it to better define a cooperative relationship, if any did in fact exist."
One document posted on the Internet by the government last week, after it was excerpted in the most recent issue of THE WEEKLY STANDARD, sheds additional light on the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. The internal Iraqi Intelligence memo was written at some point after January 1997 and described the efforts by the IIS to strengthen its relationships with four Saudi opposition groups. One of those groups was the "Reform and Advice Committee," run by Osama bin Laden. The New York Times reported that a Pentagon task force that studied the document concluded that it "appeared authentic." Last week, the investigative unit of ABC News summarized the document in a report.
A newly released prewar Iraqi document indicates that an official representative of Saddam Hussein's government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995, after receiving approval from Saddam Hussein. Bin Laden asked that Iraq broadcast the lectures of Suleiman al Ouda, a radical Saudi preacher, and suggested "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. According to the document, Saddam's presidency was informed of the details of the meeting on March 4, 1995, and Saddam agreed to dedicate a program for them on the radio. The document states that further "development of the relationship and cooperation between the two parties to be left according to what's open [in the future] based on dialogue and agreement on other ways of cooperation." The Sudanese were informed about the agreement to dedicate the program on the radio.
The report then states that "Saudi opposition figure" bin Laden had to leave Sudan in July 1996 after it was accused of harboring terrorists. It says information indicated he was in Afghanistan. "The relationship with him is still through the Sudanese. We're currently working on activating this relationship through a new channel in light of his current location," it states.
The summary was followed by an "Editor's Note" assessing the contents and meaning of the document.
This document is handwritten and has no official seal. Although contacts between bin Laden and the Iraqis have been reported in the 9/11 Commission report and elsewhere (e.g., the 9/11 report states "Bin Laden himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995) this document indicates the contacts were approved personally by Saddam Hussein.
It also indicates the discussions were substantive, in particular that bin Laden was proposing an operational relationship, and that the Iraqis were, at a minimum, interested in exploring a potential relationship and prepared to show good faith by broadcasting the speeches of al Ouda, the radical cleric who was also a bin Laden mentor.
Stephen F. Hayes is a senior writer at The Weekly Standard.
© Copyright 2005, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.
Amestec Iranian in Iraq (Terorism Iranian pe romaneste)
Khalilzad Accuses Iran Of Duplicity on Iraq
Jonathan Finer and Ellen Knickmeyer, The Washington Post:
Iran is publicly professing its support for Iraq's stalemated political process while its military and intelligence services back outlawed militias and insurgent groups, U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said Thursday.
Iranian agents train and arm Shiite Muslim militias such as the Mahdi Army, linked to one of Iraq's most powerful clerics, Khalilzad said, and also work closely with Sunni Arab-led insurgent forces including Ansar al-Sunna, blamed for dozens of deadly attacks on Iraqi and American soldiers and Shiite civilians.
"Our judgment is that training and supplying, direct or indirect, takes place, and that there is also provision of financial resources to people, to militias, and that there is presence of people associated with Revolutionary Guard and with MOIS," the Afghan-born Khalilzad said, referring to Iran's main military force and its Ministry of Intelligence and Security. READ MORE
Khalilzad's comments, made in an interview in his spacious office in Baghdad's fortified Green Zone, came as the United States and Iran -- two feuding foreign powers with dominant roles in Iraqi affairs -- have expressed willingness to hold talks aimed at stabilizing the beleaguered country. Iran, which borders Iraq to the east and whose theocratic government retains close ties with Iraq's Shiite political leaders, has repeatedly denied American accusations that it is a force for instability in Iraq. Instead, it has blamed the United States for the unrest.
The calls for dialogue over Iraq coincided with deliberations by the U.N. Security Council, of which the United States is a permanent member, over possible actions against Iran for its controversial nuclear program. Asked if any discussions had begun, Khalilzad said, "There is nothing new on that."
Khalilzad's remarks also coincided with stalled negotiations over the formation of Iraq's next government. Sunni Arab parties, pushing for more prominent ministerial posts from the Shiite religious parties that hold the largest share of the seats in parliament, have accused Iran of complicity in recent attacks on Sunnis by Shiite militias that have pushed the country toward civil war.
"The militias haven't been focused on decisively yet. . . . That will be tough," Khalilzad said. "More Iraqis in Baghdad are dying -- if you look at the recent period of two, three weeks -- from the militia attacks than from the terrorist car bombings."
Khalilzad expressed particular concern over Iran's ties to the Mahdi Army, an armed group loyal to the outspoken Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr that the ambassador said was responsible for many of the recent killings, despite Sadr's public pleas for calm.
Sadr, who was charged by the former U.S. occupation authority with involvement in the killing of a rival religious leader soon after the U.S. invasion three years ago, has recently plunged into politics after waging two armed uprisings against U.S. forces in 2004.
But Khalilzad said the United States has had no face-to-face contact with the cleric, in his early thirties, whose followers hold more than 30 seats in the new parliament. "No, I don't talk to him, because we don't meet with Moqtada Sadr, but I have sent him messages publicly. . . . We engage him whatever way we can," said Khalilzad, who added that he and other embassy officials did meet with Sadr's political allies. "I think that our people advise me against it because there is an indictment against him."
An aide to Sadr, one of the most outspoken critics of the U.S. military presence in Iraq, said Thursday that the cleric would not meet with American officials until foreign troops are withdrawn from Iraq.
With negotiations to form a government deadlocked three months after the Dec. 15 legislative elections and Iraqis growing increasingly impatient, Khalilzad said he was stressing to Iraqi leaders that new authority is needed to quell instability.
"I am the one who's saying, 'The country is bleeding, you need to move,' " he said, adding that recent sessions with political leaders from various sides have brought at least one encouraging sign: The groups are now more willing to directly address each other's concerns without using Americans as intermediaries.
"I have been reduced -- and I am not complaining -- to an observer, which is a good thing," he said, dismissing the widely held belief that he is still the driving force for unity, cajoling rival groups to negotiate. "I think now I say that they are really politically moving toward a self-reliance."
Still, he said, a deep gulf remains between the country's Shiite and Sunni factions.
"Sunnis are concerned about having a say in the decision-making, while the Shia concern is that having a say in the decision-making should not obviate the results of the elections and should not create a situation in which decisions are so difficult to make that nothing happens because everyone needs to speak to everyone before anything is done," he said.
Sunnis and others have called on Shiites to reconsider their choice -- backed by Sadr -- of the transitional prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jafari, to lead the new government. They also want the Shiites to ensure that the country's security ministries are not put in the hands of politicians tied to militias. The Shiite bloc has so far resisted both demands.
Asked if Shiites, who fell short of winning a parliamentary majority, would ever be willing to share enough power to allow a unified government to be formed, Khalilzad pointed to constitutional provisions that require a two-thirds vote for many of the functions of government to be carried out.
The Shiites "have no alternative" but to compromise, he said.
Vad ca esti usor impresionabila, dece nu te tzii de Capre cu Trei Iezi, ca o sa fii mereu FERICITA!
Re: Americanii la razboi :
Tu nu citesti ce scrii ?
Sursa este foarte credibila !
Re: Consecintele unui Stat agresor
Re: Bush's April 2006 Speech:
haha ! Trala-la-la 1
Re: cristiana io n-am vazut filmu. Ma intreb ce o fi zicind Santana despre APA? Dar Marx?
Marx ar fi zis " Bautori de apa din toate tarile, uniti-va !
Aici e pagina de rugaciuni ? De scris dorinte ?
Ce adunatura de lunatici !
Voi luati , cum ia cristiana-Luna, un film drept realitate ?
Filmul e doar umbre pe perete. Asa sint si desenele animate.
Dupa capul vostru, rechinii ar trebui sa manice alge, lupii sa se lase de mincat oi si sa pasca iarba alaturi de oi, in armonie, pisicile sa nu mai fuga dupa soareci.
Hollywood mai are trecere numai la batrinii care au pierdut sensul realitatii.
Alexe e gata sa salveze Omenirea, ca in filmele cu Superboy !
Re: Amestec Iranian in Iraq (Terorism Iranian pe romaneste)
Gogoneaua mea, ce fel de istoric esti tu
daca nu stii nici macar ca Irakul era parte
din Iran inainte sa vina occidentalii acolo ???
Iar apoi , de ce nu le-ar plati acum iranienii atitudinea
americanilor din razboiul iraniano-irakian ???
La 2006-03-25 19:10:01, Dan Bostan a scris:
IN DARNICIA LOR EXAGERATA, americanii s-au oferit sa platesca 15% la COSCIUGUL LUI THEO PETER, numai ca
economia americana este cam dezechilibrata dupa risipa gigantica de 1 milion care a fost dat Romaniei ca ajutor militar.
BUSH este ca un fel de ILIESCU, o sa-i feseneze pe iranieni de nu se vad
Pai nu ne-a tras noua clapa cu ajutorul militar?
Zvonurile ca RADARELE AMERICANE SUNT CANCERIGENE pe 100 km sunt partial exgerate, iar DOBROGEA E DEJA CAM PREA POPULATA
asa ca pana nu se dovedeste 100%, nu stiu daca trebuie sa ne speriem prea tare
Acesta PLEASCA NEMAIVAZUTA ca sa avem armata romana in Afganistan, face toti banii, doarece cu milionul ajutor putem sa
Acesta PLEASCA NEMAIVAZUTA ca sa avem armata in Afganistan, face toti banii, doarece cu milionul primit ca ajutor militar american putem sa le cumparam scobitori si deci or sa poata sa manance seminte prajite fara pericolul ca niste cateva coji acolo sa le ramana intre dinti, fapt ce ar diminua considerabil puterea de lupta.
« Sumar articole
Pentru a putea posta un comentariu trebuie sa va autentificati.