Al- Qaeda: The Cutting Edge of Jihadist Movement

Re: # 123
HP: First things first. You have correctly identified the K-129 as a Golf class sub, not a Kilo as I had mistakenly stated. The error stands corrected.

John Pina Craven (former Chief Scientist, USN Special Projects Office) writes in ``The Silent War: The Cold War Battle Under the Sea``:

BEGIN QUOTE:
The so-called Golf-class sub was on the surface when the fatal event took place... Each of its missiles` warheads has a high explosive component - and two of the sub`s nuclear warheads were missing. One was obviously torn from its missile and the other was completely out of sight. ... If ``Blind Man`s Bluff`` is correct ... two warheads were outside the sub and the one that could be seen had suffered violent mechanical damage, probably caused by an explosion.

A highly probable scenario is that the submarine was a rogue ... (T)here existed a possibility, small though it might be, that the skipper of this rogue submarine was attempting to launch or had actually launched a ballistic missile with a live warhead in the direction of Hawaii.
END QUOTE

Let`s look at some points that are certain, or highly probable:
1. The sub was renegade.
2. The US announces that it will retrieve the ill fated Soviet sub, but Brezhnev does not raise hell. (What did he fear that Americans will discover and disclose to the world?)
3. The issue remains shrouded in secrecy by BOTH sides even 35 years later.

These lead one to conclude that it was most likely an attempted nuclear strike by a renegade Soviet sub againt Hawaii.

Tom Dougherty adds in ``Raising the K-129: A Tale of the Cold War``

BEGIN QUOTE
As Craven states, the strategy of the CIA in recovering the submarine would makea good deal of sense if the above scenario were true: ``If you do not play ball, and negotiate steps leading to detente, we will retrieve your submarine and demonstrate to the whole world what it planned to do.`` This might explain why, over 34 years after the photographs were made, not a single one has been declassified.
END QUOTE

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

re: # 127 by Romair
Further to my last post, a lot of commentators in Pak have made much out of India not attacking Pak during Kargil or during the standoff at the border. It may be true that nuclear issue may weigh heavily on the minds of Indian politicians and military planners but a country reacts to a situation in the best possible way to defend itself. I believe India will not attack Pak unless its own security is threatened to an extent that it sees no other option. In that scenario, i believe nuclear issue would become meaningless. This may be another reason India is trying to build a huge naval force to have a second strike capability. Pak`s nuclear status might have acutally forced India to go on expanding its military strength to be able to survive a first strike from Pak.
Anyway, all these are just speculations. Pak did make itself more prone to scrutiny by becoming a nuclear power and then becoming a proliferator through A.Q. Khan and company. Did the nuclear status protect Pak from outside interference? I do not think so. For eg, why was Mushy not able to tell Powell to go to hell when he called him soon after 9/11 with the ``you are with us or against us`` speech. Nuclear technology has limitations and i think Pak rulers are fully aware of this.
Sridhar

re: # 127 by Romair
``Kashmir is a third-party disputed area. It is not a part of India or Pakistan, at the moment.``
Kashmir is a disputed area. That is true. Jammu and Kashmir is not a part of India? That is nonsensical. The state has an elected CM. Disenchantment among the public right now seems to be at an all time low. Tourism is booming again. People living outside Pak probably do not get it. Kashmir is India`s, no matter what happens. However, i think India may be willing to negotiate on maintaining the status quo. This is the best deal Pak can hope to get. As India keeps up its economic engine running at 6-7% growth, Pak will find that India would not be so willing in future. This is the nature of politics.

``Kargil was a large gurriella attack in this area. There was no international border crossed, by any military. For all of India’s threats, it never launched an attack across the actual Pakistani border, i.e. Punjab and Sindh. Why not? Do give me a reason, since India has five times the military budget of Pakistan. Even after piling up all its forces on Punjab a few years ago. It didn’t launch an attack? Why not? Pakistan did not agree to any of India’s twenty or so demands. Yet India still backed off. If it wasn’t nukes what was it?``
We have talked about this extensively in varous forums. As no logic seems to penetrate the minds of some benighted souls here, i will not even attempt to convince them that they are terribly wrong.
It is true that LOC is not I.B but by not crossing the border militarily and yet deploying maximum force in ousting the intruders (most of who were military men plus Mujahideens), India proved that it considers the LOC sacrosanct, no less than an international border.
I can also ask why, if Pak was really so convinced this was just a loose border, did Mushy boy not deploy a full military force openly? Why did he have to resort to subterfuge? Why send military men dressed as Mujahideens? And, why shy away from using PAF when India was coming with full blast dropping those LGBs on targets?
Why did India not attack I.B in Punjab, Sindh etc during Kargil? I can only speculate. I believe by limiting the field of operation to Kargil, India gave a kind of sanctity to LOC. India also keeps referring to LOC as border when it talks of infiltration from ``across the border`` but Mushy boy or his ``coterie`` has not reacted to this. Further more, LOC has now been fenced off. There was not much above verbal protests. So, all this makes one feel that USA is pushing for a solution that would make LOC into I.B.
Why did India not attack Pak when it amassed its Army at the border? Heck, for the simple reason that had it wanted to attack, it would have attacked and not piled up close to a million men near the border. It showed its displeasure at the terrorist attack on its parliament in the strongest term possilbe but starting a war would have been a stupid act (something that dictators do but in India, such a step has to be ratified by parliament). By this show, India linked Pak with the attack on its parliament and the world, i think, took note of that fact.
Sridhar

#133
Ordinary_Muslim

“HP: this is what I wrote; “Secretary Rumsfeld has accepted responsibility for what happened at Abu Ghurayb.”

Here is what Sec rumsfeld said. “Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, in recent days there has been a good deal of discussion about who bears responsibility for the terrible activities that took place at Abu Ghraib. These events occurred on my watch. As secretary of defense, I am accountable for them and I take full responsibility.”
http://www.4law.co.il/rum1.htm
Taking “full” responsibility and “accepting” responsibility are again two different things.

Comparison with any Pakistani general is out of context for this discussion and has no relevance here. First Rumsfeld is not a general and secondly Pakistani Generals are known for their illegal activities such as overthrowing constitutional governments etc.

Anyway, Ojahri was reportedly a work of one intelligence agency. Read Dick Clark’s book ``Against All Enemies: Inside America`s War on Terror``
I am not going to say that what he wrote is the gospel truth. But I do think that Mr. Clark was in a position to have a good idea who was behind the Ojahri blasts.

Laurie Mylroie’s words and book are not enough to indict anybody. Several other imminent writers have discredited her. Nevertheless, the point was that there is no corroborating evidence that Saddam was behind the 9-11 or even 1993 attacks. So far, in almost two years of occupation, the US has failed to provide any document even from the Iraqi archives to make a case against Saddam about 9-11 or 1993 bombing.

I guess you missed my point about reference to Iraq and both WTC-1993 and 9-11.
Yes both attacks were in retaliation of the US attack on Iraq in 1991 but Saddam or Iraq had no connection whatsoever with both acts. Both were apparently masterminded and financed by Al Qaeda. We can say that Saddam was stupid but he was never that stupid to involve his government in any attacks on the US soil.

“How come the first WTC attack took place on Feb. 26 1993,”
This is just one symbol. There are many other dates and images that also have symbolic value in the current war between the Arab terrorists and the US but that is another topic for some other time.

Re: # 123
HP: this is what I wrote; “Secretary Rumsfeld has accepted responsibility for what happened at Abu Ghurayb.”
To which you commented: ``I could not find any thing where Sec. Rumsfeld said anything close to what you are suggesting. ... Feeling terrible and accepting responsibility are two different things.``

Here`s the Secretary`s stance: [The secretary acknowledged that the abuse scandal broke ``on my watch as secretary of defense.``

``I am accountable...I take full responsibility,`` he said.]
Source: http://www.iraqcoalition.org/pressreleases/20040508_rummy_apology.html

BTW, which Pakistani General has accepted responsibility for Ojhri Camp?

---

The First WTC Bombing:
You stated: ``Further, there were plenty of reports about Saddam’s connection to 1994 bombing and 9-11. There has never been any corroborating evidence that can definitely tie Saddam’s hands to both attacks on WTC.

``Iraq and both 1994 and 9-11 have a very plausible and important link but Sadam does not play any role there.``

How come the first WTC attack took place on Feb. 26 1993, exactly three years after the launch of the Ground Offensive? Sheer coincidence, eh?

Listen to what Laurie Mylroie says: ``That, indeed, is the most straightforward explanation of the World Trade Center bombing: that it was an Iraqi intelligence operation, led by Ramzi Yousef, with the local fundamentalists serving first as aides and then as diversionary dupes.``
The link is on the website of The Federation of American Scientists: http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm

[Laurie Mylroie, formerly of Harvard University and the U.S. Naval War College. is currently with the Foreign Policy Research Institute of Philadelphia. She was co-author of the bestseller, Saddam Hussein and the Crisis in the Gulf (Random House 1990), and has just completed a sequel, `Study of Revenge`: Saddam`s Terror Against America, January 1993-??]

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Baghdad Then+800 years= Baghdad Now:
The Mongols & the Shia-Ulema...The Americans & the Ayatullahs.

The Mongols became Muslims, would Americans do the same?
Never in human history have conquerers embraced the creed of those they conquered. Such is the power of Islam.

That had led Iqbal to say: ( to shun land-love or earth-idolatory and instead adopt ideology creed, and belief as nationhood.

``tooo naa mit jaaeygaa, eeraan kay mitt jaanay sey
Nashaa-e mai ko ta`aluuque naheeN paimaanay sey
hai ayaaN yoorUshh-e Tataar kay afsaaney sey
paasbaaN mil gaey Kaa`bay ko sanam khaaney sey``

[You would still be there, if Iran is no more
The intoxication is in the wine & not in the goblet
Look! the Mongols` attack has made it plain & clear
Kaa`ba got its protectors from the temple (keepers).]

There are many similarities in the tragic history of Baghdad when Halaku Khan killed millions and plundered Baghdad, the capital of Mustasam Billah whose grand Vazir Alqami, a Shia taking advantage of the sectarian strife raging between Shias and Sunnis, betrayed the Abbasi Caliph who was a Sunni and approached Halaku Khan, to attack Baghdad.

Saddam Hussein allowed the American and British forces to attack Baghdad knowing fully well that he had no armed might, no weapons of mass destruction, no air power, no disciplined armed forces to fight the might of the allied troops. He lived with his fantasies of grandeur in scores of his most lavish and opulent palaces with hundred of his statues at every nook and corner staring at the people of Iraq. But when the crunch came he handed over Baghdad to Americans on a platter and disappeared. . Like Mustasam Billah, Saddam suppressed and terrorized Iraq`s sixty per cent Shia population, persecuting them and not allowing them to perform their religious rites at Karbala.

After occupying Baghdad, Halaku Khan asked Caliph Mastasam for his great wealth of gold and jewels, which he presented to the Khan immediately with trembling hands, but Halaku sensed the bluff and ordered that the real treasures hidden at the bottom of water ponds should be dugout, which was done. After getting hold of these treasures Halaku massacred millions of people and imprisoned the Caliph in a dungeon where he kept him for weeks without food and water. When the famished Caliph asked for something to eat, he was given a plate full of jewels. History records that when he said, he could not eat jewels, Halaku replied, ``Then why didn`t you spend this wealth to strengthen your armed forces who could have defended your thrown and save your people from the massacre.``

Saddam Hussein too squandered the great wealth of Iraq`s oil on his and his son`s palaces and his statues rather than building a strong army and the air forces, which could save his country from the US onslaught.

Americans are looking for weapons of mass destruction which they claim Saddam Hussein had got buried underground somewhere in Iraq. Eight hundred years ago Halaku too was looking for Mustasam`s great wealth, which he had buried in water ponds. Had Saddam honoured the UN resolutions passed over the last twelve years and had fully cooperated with UN Inspectors in their quest for weapons of mass destruction, the US would not have had an immediate excuse to occupy Iraq.

The Shia majority of Iraq, which was suppressed and persecuted by Saddam Hussein during his 25-year rule, has stormed out of their houses in a frenzy of jubilation. According to an estimate millions of people walked to Karbala on foot to observe the chehlum of Hazrat Imam Hussein (AS), holding portraits of Ayatollah Khomeini in their hands and beating their chests and backs with their fists and chains.

Saddam had not allowed them for a quarter century to perform this religious rite. The Shia factor has now become the most important development in Iraq`s history, which might engulf Iran and Syria subsequently. Shias have already started grandiose agitation against US troops demanding that they should vacate their occupation of Iraq immediately. They are also claiming their affinity with Iran, which might in the long run lead to the division of Iraq into two separate -- Shia and Sunni -- states.

Charged with treason against the Shah, Ayatollah Khomeini was thrown out of Iran in the early sixties. He was first sentenced to death, but his life was saved when the oligarchy of Ayatollahs in Qom elected him Ayatollah who under the constitution of Iran could not be sentenced to death.

Khomeini spent thirteen years in exile in the holy places of Iraq. There is no doubt that Ayatollah Khomeini`s presence in Iraq and subsequently Iraq`s eight years war against Iran at the behest of the US must have also created great hatred against Sunni rule headed by Saddam Hussein. Ayatollah Khomeini, a charismatic personality and an eloquent speaker in the tradition of the Shia ulema, aroused the Iranian people against the Shah`s autocratic and tyrannical rule, gross human rights abuses, massive corruption and the concentration of the nations enormous wealth in the hands of a few privileged elite. His speeches recorded on audiocassettes, which were smuggled secretly in millions to Iranian and Iraqi homes gradually brought about a revolution in the attitudes of the people against the Shah and possibly against the anti-Shia autocratic rule of Saddam Hussein.


The dam has now burst and Shias are demanding Shia rule in Iraq on the Iranian pattern, which might prove the greatest dilemma for the United States in times to come.

Ordinary_Muslim #121: ``“A renegade Soviet Kilo class submarine attempted to launch a nuclear strike against the US.”

I am no expert on Submarines, so my info could be wrong. But there is something that didn’t quite feel correct about the information you had provided. You mentioned a, 1968…..Soviet kilo class submarines….with nuclear strike.

There are two versions of kilo class (636 and 877). India has the 877 version, I believe. The Soviet kilo class submarines became operational in late 70s/early 80s. And they are diesel powered and both the versions are designed for anti-ship warfare. Not to launch nukes. In fact, they don’t even carry nukes.

I checked up and found the following about kilo class subs:

“The Russian Kilo Class submarine first entered service in the early 1980s. It was designed by the Rubin Central Maritime Design Bureau, St Petersburg. Subsequent developments have led to the current production versions, the Type 877EKM and most recently, Type 636…….

The submarine has a launcher for eight Strela-3 or Igla surface-to-air missiles. These missiles are manufactured by the Fakel Design Bureau, Kaliningrad. Strela- 3 (NATO Designation SA-N-8 Gremlin) has a cooled infrared seeker and 2kg warhead. Maximum range is 6km. Igla (NATO designation SA-N-10 Gimlet) is also infrared-guided but heavier, with a maximum range of 5km and speed of Mach 1.65.

The vessels can be fitted with the Novator Club-S (SS-N-27) cruise missile system which fires the 3M-54E1 anti-ship missile. Range is 220km with 450kg high explosive warhead.” http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/kilo/


How could a kilo class sub, launch nuclear missiles in 1968, when it cannot carry nukes and wasn’t put into production till late 70s. Is this a special type of kilo-class that you are talking about, which has been modified? Kindly provide references.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Ordinary_Muslim #121: “Sridhar: ``The logic that a country having WMD does not get attacked was blown to shreds ...``

It was military affairs expert Ayatollah Romair who threw the fatwa that: ``A country that has WMDs never gets attacked. This has held true through history.``

This still holds. By the way, I am not the one who came up with the theory. I am not that intelligent. This is the whole doctrine on which the USA’s defence of Europe was based on. It was and still is called MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). This is why NATO was able to keep a smaller sized Army than USSR, to protect its European border. This is why Pakistan, now, does not have to match India’s rise in defence budgets. Pakistan and India will fight their wars in disputed areas like Kashmir, and Russia and USA may fight it out in Vietnam or Afghanistan. But none of these countries will ever cross each others borders, in a outright military attack…….

The seven on the list are USA, UK, France, Russia, China, Pakistan and India. None of them, after having tested nukes has ever had its international border crossed by another military. Kindly give me one example…..

There will always be skirmishes and guirella warfare amongst countries, with or without nuclear weapons. They will continue to fire mortars etc. into small areas. There is an outright guirella warfare going on against Russia in Chechnya. There is an outright civil war against India in Kashmir,etc. But no country has ever crossed an international border of a nuclear armed country with its forces.

Kashmir is a third-party disputed area. It is not a part of India or Pakistan, at the moment. There are probably Pakistani spies inside Kashmir today, helping out the resistance. However that is not a military attack across an internationally recognized border. Kargil was a large gurriella attack in this area. There was no international border crossed, by any military. For all of India’s threats, it never launched an attack across the actual Pakistani border, i.e. Punjab and Sindh. Why not? Do give me a reason, since India has five times the military budget of Pakistan. Even after piling up all its forces on Punjab a few years ago. It didn’t launch an attack? Why not? Pakistan did not agree to any of India’s twenty or so demands. Yet India still backed off. If it wasn’t nukes what was it?

There is an Indian attack going on in Siachen, as we speak. However, that is also not across an internationally recognized border. USA and Russia will probably battle it out again in some third country. But they will never cross each others’ borders……..China will not attack India across a border today, even though it did so in 1962. It may building its roads in Kashmir, along areas areas that India claims as its own, though………But it will never cross an internationally recognized Indian border with its forces.

Ordinary_Muslim #121: ``Secretary Rumsfeld has accepted responsibility for what happened at Abu Ghurayb.``

This is not true. If it is then kindly provide some references. Rumsfeld has never accepted responsibility. In fact, the administration has gone out of its way to state that it was the responsibility of the jail guards. If Rumsfeld were to accept responsibility, he would be liable to face the court even within the US justice system, itself. He would also be liable under the Geneva Conventions. If he has, then why hasn’t he been fired? Infact, he would have to go and face the same trial as the privates, who have been held responsible:

Following are direct quotes from Rumsfeld, in his testimony. He goes on to describe all the acts as terrible, but he never accepts responsibility:

``John McCain pressed Rumsfeld to describe who was in charge at Abu Ghraib. “Who was in charge of the interrogations?” he asked. “What agencies and what—or private contractors were in charge of the interrogations? Did they have authority over the guards? And what were the instructions to the guards?”

Rumsfeld replied that the responsibility rested with officers who oversaw detentions and with military-intelligence officers in charge of interrogations, and that the responsibility, “shifted over a period of time.”``http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/may2004/rums-m10.shtml

``Let`s get back to the point. In 1968 the unthinkable happened. A renegade Soviet Kilo class submarine attempted to launch a nuclear strike against the US. The launch attempt failed due to an accident on board. The Glomar Explorer was able to fish out 2 live nuclear warheads from the Soviet sub that had sank to the bottom of the ocean.``

What exactly do you mean by two live nuclear warheads? What does that prove, other than a sub had nukes? They obviously weren`t launched. How did you calculate that they were to be launched. There are nuclear submarines floating around in the waters, as we speak, with nuclear warheads that can be launched. Does that mean, they will fire them? No submarine in the history of mankind has ever fired a nuclear missile onto another country.

The only incidence I know of, which came close, is when a Soviet sub was attacked by a US ship, and its commanders (who have nuclear launch authority) had to make a decision on launching nukes, since they had lost communications. It was similar to the scenario highlighted in the movie, ``Crimson Tide.`` Two out of the three commanders said, “Yes.” However, one disagreed, and they are not allowed to launch until everyone agrees. Chomsky mentioned the name of the one who disagreed and said he should be given 50 Noble prizes. I forget his name.

Even if we accept your renegade sub theory, it never launched the missiles. Did it? There have been close calls for launching, but nukes have never been launched.......

After reading the various comments on this site, I have come to some conclusions:-

1. Rich guys/countries can kill poor guys/countries to their heart’s desire and no one is bothered. Poor people are generally considered, “collateral damage,” and dispensable. Their deaths are easily justified as something, which had to be done to bring about some higher political goal: civilization, democracy, oil, WMDs – whatever reason fits at the time. People put in their token sympathy and then move on.

However, there is absolutely no amount of justification that is ever accepted for the death of rich guys (or citizens of rich countries).

The total number of Americans who died in the WTC bombings was around 4,000. A large number, no doubt. There were memorials held, vigils, everyone from every country was expected to denounce the action unilaterally. It was considered that the USA now had a right to bomb any country in the world, because 4000 of its own citizens had died. Anyone who even suggested that the USA, “had it coming” was considered evil.

The total number of Iraqis who have been killed by the USA is 40,000 (according to Newsweek) and 100,000 (according to a Johns Hopkins study). That is 10 to 25 times the number of Americans killed in WTC! Such a huge difference. In addition, God knows how many hundreds of thousands must have been wounded. And million or more must have lost their livelihood.

Yet there are no vigils. No concern. People have even referred to the dead as, “vermin” and filth, on this site. In fact, the USA govt. does not even count the dead Iraqis. And I really don’t think, too many Americans are actually bothered about how many Iraqis are killed. It’s just a number. Perhaps because it is still much lower that the 500,000 death figure that a US Secretary of State had stated as, “acceptable” in a Freudian slip on TV.

But, for all the talk of democracy and oil etc., did anyone bother to ask the people who were killed what their opinions were? Were they willing to volunteer their deaths for some cause defined solely by the USA? Is there any way that an election is going to bring them back to life? If not, then who is to be held responsible for their deaths?

Interestingly, would the reaction of the USA and the West would have been so indifferent had the people being killed been Americans (or Canadians, for that matter). What would happen if 40,000 to 100,000 Americans were killed and another million or so displaced and/or wounded (the town of Fallujah alone had 250,000 displaced)? Would there be any way to justify so many American deaths as, “collateral damage?” What if it was even proven it would bring more democracy to the USA, or raise the living standard of the average American? Would people agree?

Similarly, what if the people being killed were not Arab and Muslim? Is there any kind of scenario under which the USA could kill 40k to 100k (or even 10K) Jews? Can somebody point to one such scenario? Would Iraq have been bombed like this if its whole population was Jewish? Would Donald Rumsfeld have resigned if a jail filled with Jewish individuals was to be abused like Abu Ghariab? Would Bush have been re-elected if Abu Ghariab was filled with African Americans. Trent Lott had to resign because he made one casual remark supporting Storm Thurmond’s racist attitude. Imagine what would have happened to him had he overseen a torture jail filled with African Americans.

2. At the same time, even if one looks at the Americans dying in this war, one notices something common about a majority of them. They are generally the poor Americans. How many Congressmen have their child fighting in Iraq? I think the figure is one. Bush and Cheney, themselves, having pulled all kinds of strings to avoid going to Vietnam and sending some poor American in their own place. Chickenhawks, all of them. These Chickenhawks are then further supported by the middle class and upper-middle class Chickenhawk voters.

Those supremely concerned about their own daughters seem to have no concern about other people’s daughters. If hamidm and tahmad knew with 100% certainty that their own sons and daughters would have to go to Iraq first, in case of a war, would they still be so gung-ho about bringing, “democracy” to Iraq? Would they even encourage their own kids to volunteer, today, for Iraq? Or would they try to stop them? If their conviction about, “reforming” Iraq, even at the cost of tens of thousands of deaths is genuine, then why not put their money (or their own children’s lives) where their mouth is?

Why? Because deep down inside, they are Chickenhawks also? They want other people’s kids to kill other people’s kids to make life better for their own kids.

So, who ends up going to Iraq from the USA. And who ends up getting killed? In any Army war, it is generally the Army enlisted. Very very few officers get killed. The person who has no technical skill and contacts ends up becoming cannon fodder. The one who cannot avoid going to war like Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Ashcroft (or even hamidm or tahmad).

It is the poor of the USA society killing and thus being killed by the poor of the Iraqi society.

Unlike Pakistan, in the USA people generally don’t join the enlisted ranks as a career. They join it, for a few years, to get out of the ghetto. To get the GI education plan. To get a US citizenship. To put something on their resume, so they can get a job in the civilian world. This is why the enlisted man and woman on the front line tend to be in his/her late teens or early 20s, from some backward area of the USA. Someone who can barely point to New York on the map, much less Baghdad. All of a sudden, he is sent to Iraq to kill others and get killed. Something he/she never would have opted for had he known beforehand. And he ends up getting killed and/or maimed for life. And when he looks around, he realizes that none of the Chickenhawks have their own kids there.

I think the best way to avoid offensive wars is to make a law that makes it mandatory for all Congressmen voting for war to send their own children to that same war, first. I have a strange feeling that the US Congress would approve very few wars, if such a law were in place. If this law were further extended to state that all voters supporting war would have to place their children’s names at the top of the list for reserve call-up, I have a strange feeling very few Chickenhawks (including those on Chowk) would be so gung-ho about, “reforming” other countries…..

Saddam and Bush are the two biggest Chickenhawks in the world today (Interestingly, OBL, for all his evil ways, is not a Chickenhawk. He is fighting, himself). The world has been divided into, “With us or against us.” And both the options, OBL and Bush, are hell-bent on killing others to achieve their own political goals……….And I have a strange feeling the more the USA bombs other countries (regardless of what justification it gives to satisfy its own citizenry), the more popular OBL is going to get.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#121 by Ordinary_Muslim
Rizwan,

I am kind of surprised to read your claims w/o any supporting links or evidence as to the authenticity of what you said.

“Let`s get back to the point. In 1968 the unthinkable happened. A renegade Soviet Kilo class submarine attempted to launch a nuclear strike against the US. The launch attempt failed due to an accident on board.”

I Googled it in several ways but I could not find any reference to your assertion that “the Submarine attempted to launch a nuclear strike against the US.”

Here is some info. You can follow the links to get more info.
I would appreciate it if you would post a link that supports your assertion.

“The Soviet ``Golf``-class ballistic missile submarine (SSB) K-129 sank off Hawaii on 11 April 1968, probably due to a missile malfunction. The ``Golf`` class submarines were diesel-electric ballistic missile subs, a modified version of the ``Foxtrot`` class submarines. They carried 3 SS-N-5 SLBMs in an elongated sail structure.”

“There is continued speculation about what was really recovered, but the real answers are, of course, highly classified.”
“only the forward 38 feet of the submarine was recovered. The section included two nuclear-tipped torpedoes, various cipher/code equipment and 8 dead crewmen.”


http://www.hazegray.org/faq/smn7.htm#G12
http://w3.the-kgb.com/dante/military/mission.html

You also claim, “Secretary Rumsfeld has accepted responsibility for what happened at Abu Ghurayb.”
I could not find any thing where Sec. Rumsfeld said anything close to what you are suggesting.
Here is what he said before the Senate.
“It`s my obligation to evaluate what happened, to make sure that those who have committed wrong-doing are brought to justice, and to make changes as needed to see that it doesn`t happen again.
I feel terrible about what happened to these Iraqi detainees. They are human beings. They were in U.S. custody. Our country had an obligation to treat them right. We didn`t, and that was wrong.”
http://www.4law.co.il/rum1.htm
Feeling terrible and accepting responsibility are two different things.

Further, there were plenty of reports about Saddam’s connection to 1994 bombing and 9-11. There has never been any corroborating evidence that can definitely tie Saddam’s hands to both attacks on WTC.

Iraq and both 1994 and 9-11 have a very plausible and important link but Sadam does not play any role there.