OT:US don't qualify for EU membership, don't spank children, WW2 history.

[Thermodyne]

Originally posted by primitive:
Thermo:
First:
Where do you get the information from that all/most terrorism are state sponsored. Proof / links would be in order.

Take five minutes and search goggle. Take a few hours and read some of the press releases from the world intel services. Look at what is already admitted to by the Saudis. Ask some Israelis were the weapons taken from the Palestinians come from.

Here are a few that I have been sent. I can provide you with several Megs of this a month. But it can all be found published elsewhere.

DATE=06/03/2003
TYPE=EDITORIAL
NUMBER=0-10657
TITLE=EDITORIAL: IRAN SUPPORTS TERRORISM
INTERNET=Yes
CONTENT=THIS EDITORIAL IS BEING RELEASED FOR USE BY ALL SERVICES.
Anncr: Next, an editorial reflecting the views of the United States Government:
Voice: Since the liberation of Iraq, the government of Iran has been trying to complicate efforts by the U.S.-led coalition to bring stability to Iraq. Iran is providing covert support to hard-line Shiite Muslim Groups that are promoting Iranian-style radical Islamic rule, rather than democracy, for Iraq. As U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made clear, such outside influence will not be tolerated:
(ACT1 :14 - DALET: POLICY/EDITORIALS)
"Interference in Iraq by its neighbors or their proxies will not be permitted. Indeed, Iran should be on notice that efforts to remake Iraq in Iran's image will be aggressively put down." (END ACT)
Not only is Iran trying to export instability to Iraq, it is also harboring terrorists. For many years, Iran has provided funding, safe-haven, training, and weapons to terrorist Groups, including Hamas, Palestine Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, and Hezbollah. There are reports that Iran is also harboring members of al-Qaida, the terrorists who attacked America on September 11th, 2001. As White House Spokesman Ari Fleischer said, Iran has failed to respond to demands that it crack down on all terrorists:
(ACT2 :27 - DALET: POLICY/EDITORIALS)
"We continue to get the message across about the importance of Iran acting as a nation that does not seek to harbor terrorists and that does its part in making certain that terrorists are not able to use -- or al-Qaida is not able to use -- Iran as any type of place to have operations out of or just even to collect or (to) be. We don't rule out the possibility that a nation with as long a border that some may cross, but we also are concerned about the fact that some may be able to find some level of safety there." (END ACT)
After the recent terrorist car bombings in Saudi Arabia that killed more than thirty people, Iran claims it arrested several al-Qaida members. But this is not enough. It is time for Iran, once and for all, to stop its support for terrorism.
Anncr: That was an editorial reflecting the views of the United States Government. If you have a comment, please write to Editorials, V-O-A, Washington, D-C, 20237, U-S-A. You may also comment at www-dot-voanews-dot-com-slash-editorials, or fax us at (202) 619-1043.

U.S.: Bush To Call On Arab Leaders To Crack Down On Financing for Militants
By Charles Recknagel
U.S. President George W. Bush is due to meet several Arab heads of state in Egypt tomorrow to talk, in part, about cracking down on financing for militant Groups. The meeting picks up an initiative to cut off international funds for terrorism that began after 11 September 2001 but, until now, has had mixed success.
Prague, 2 June 2003 (RFE/RL) -- When U.S. President George W. Bush meets Arab leaders in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh tomorrow, a key topic for discussion is expected to be how to cut off financing for Arab-based militant Groups.
The Groups that concern Washington have a wide variety of ideologies and purposes. One is America's archenemy, Al-Qaeda, which carried out the 11 September 2001 attacks on New York and Washington. Others are Israel's archenemies, the Palestinian Islamic organizations Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and the Lebanese Shi'ite Hizballah.
Washington believes all of the Groups have grown strong partly due to generous contributions from sympathetic individuals and charitable organizations in a number of Arab countries.
Bush will hold talks with the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and Bahrain, plus Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, and is expected to ask them to fully cut off terrorism funding within their countries. He also is expected to ask the leaders for help in encouraging other Arab heads of state to do the same.
Analysts say that Bush's message is designed to give new impetus to U.S. initiatives to cut off international funds for terrorism which began after 11 September 2001 but so far are reported to have had mixed success.
Paul Wilkinson of the Center on Terrorism and Political Violence at St. Andrews University in Scotland told RFE/RL that Washington is particularly concerned over terrorism funding in Saudi Arabia and several other Persian Gulf states.
"Unfortunately the financial efforts [since 11 September] have not really managed to stop the hemorrhage of money in the Middle Eastern states. It is not just Saudi Arabia, it is also other Gulf states, for example, where wealthy sympathizers of [Al-Qaeda leader Osama] bin Laden, of course keeping their support hidden from the authorities, have been able to use the 'hiwala' system. So that's one area where the [U.S.] president and his advisers, I am sure, want to tighten up," Wilkinson said.
The hiwala system is an informal money-transfer method common in the Muslim world. It allows an individual to deposit a sum with a money changer in one city so that an individual in another city can withdraw a similar amount from the money changer's associates there. The transactions are hard to track because the money changers usually do not register them with state banking authorities.
Wilkinson said Bush also will call on the Arab leaders to tighten their supervision of Islamic charities that may be used to funnel money to militant Groups. "Another area is the use or the abuse of charities," he said. "In the Middle Eastern countries there are many, many charities which have been used, very often without the knowledge of the people who founded them and who may be on the board of governors. Money being siphoned off in particular offices of the charity for essentially the purposes of assisting Al-Qaeda's activities."
In contrast to the situation in the Middle East, Wilkinson said that authorities have made good progress in cracking down on terrorism financing in Western countries. The U.S. government says that Western banks and police investigating terrorist financing have been able to block some $121 million which otherwise might have gone to militant Groups to buy materials and maintain support networks. The analysts called that a significant blow to terrorist Groups, whose budgets are in the tens of millions of dollars.
Bush's efforts to now encourage new Arab measures against terrorism financing are likely to be helped by the suicide bombing attacks in Saudi Arabia Last month which killed 35 people, including nine Americans. The attacks, which U.S. and Saudi officials have blamed on Al-Qaeda, demonstrated that the group is as hostile to the Saudi government as to Washington.
Following the attack, the Saudi government acknowledged that the bombings were evidence of "shortcomings" in their security operations. Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said that combating terrorism "does not just include [dealing with] those who commit it, but also standing up to whoever feeds it and sympathizes with it."
Observers say that tone is far more aggressive than previous Saudi statements on terrorism. After the 11 September attacks -- in which 15 of the 19 plane hijackers were Saudi citizens -- Riyadh was initially reluctant to admit that Saudis could be involved in terrorism and that there could be financing sources within the kingdom.
Only after sharp U.S. criticism did Riyadh begin to take some measures to counter extremists and share intelligence. In December, the Saudi government announced it had frozen bank accounts containing some $5 million, required Saudi charities to undergo audits, and created a unit to investigate money laundering.
Those measure have won praise from Washington, with State Department spokesman Philip Reeker saying recently that the United States had had "good cooperation" from the Saudis on counterterrorism initiatives. But Bush's meeting at Sharm el-Sheikh makes it clear that Washington wants to see far more and is ready to exert the pressure of presidential-level talks to force the pace.
How much the Arab leaders respond to the pressure will depend on their willingness to confront their own domestic public opinion, which often supports the militant Groups' goals though it may disapprove of their means.
Public opinion in Saudi Arabia runs strongly against U.S. policies in the Middle East and Al-Qaeda has previously benefited from those sentiments. The group condemns Washington's support for Israel, U.S. support for the Saudi monarchy, and the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia. The U.S. recently announced it is withdrawing its military personnel in the kingdom, a step that many observers see as an effort to now end the tension over their presence.
Throughout the Middle East, public opinion is also strongly against Israel's policies toward the Palestinians, and against Washington as Israel's closest ally. Palestinian Islamic Groups have tried to capitalize on this anger by representing their suicide bombers as front-line forces battling Israeli occupation of Arab land. As a result, Hamas and the Islamic Jihad are widely viewed among Arabs not as terrorist Groups but as liberation movements.
Still, Bush appeared determined to get new action from Arab leaders as he prepared Last week to attend the Sharm el-Sheikh summit.
The U.S. president told the Dubai-based Al-Arabiya satellite television network that at Sharm el-Sheikh he intends to ascertain "the extent of [the Arab leaders'] desire to join the United States and other countries to stop assistance and funding of terrorist organizations."
He also called cutting off funding for militant Groups necessary, he said, "to realize peace and security."
Copyright (c) 2003. RFE/RL, Inc. Reprinted with the permission of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 1201 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Washington DC 20036. www.rferl.org

02 June 2003
Wolfowitz Highlights Saddam Hussein's Terrorist Links
(Deputy Secretary of Defense May 31 interview, Singapore) (3630)

The United States went to war with the regime of former Iraqi dictator
Saddam Hussein because of the regime's weapons of mass destruction,
its ties with terrorists, and the way it mistreated the Iraqi people,
according to Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz.

In a May 31 interview with Cable News Network in Singapore, Wolfowitz
said America's perception of the Iraq regime changed after the
September 11 terrorists' attacks on the United States, and focused on
the possibility that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction could end up
in the hands of terrorists.

"Before September 11 terrorism was viewed as something ugly, but you
lived with it," Wolfowitz said.

Saddam Hussein, too, "was viewed as something ugly," Wolfowitz said,
but also as "something that was for the Iraqi people to take care of."

After September 11, 2001, "terrorism looked different," to the United
States and the American people, Wolfowitz said.

"Saddam Hussein, who played with terrorists, and had weapons of mass
destruction, looked much more threatening to United States than just
to his own people," he continued.

Turning to the terrorist threat in the Southeast Asia region,
Wolfowitz said the terrorists' bombing in Bali in 2002 that killed
nearly 200 people "brought home just how bad it is" in the region.

"The fact is it doesn't take more than a few hundred people of that
kind, in a country of 200 million to create a serious problem,"
Wolfowitz said.

"But I'm very impressed by the professionalism with which the
Indonesian police has gone after the Bali bombers," he continued.

"We are not going to eliminate terrorists overnight or with one magic
bullet but I do believe that (in) the Last year (there) has been much
more a series of defeats for them with minor tactical successes here
and there," Wolfowitz said.

Following is the transcript of the May 31 Wolfowitz interview with
Cable News Network in Singapore:

(begin transcript)

NEWS TRANSCRIPT
from the United States Department of Defense

DoD News Briefing
Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz
Saturday, May 31, 2003

Q: There is a report in Vanity Fair today that just quoted you as
saying that the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was just a
bureaucratic reason. Can you respond to that?

Wolfowitz: No, it's a misquote. In fact, the full quote you can see on
our website where the whole interview is there. What I was trying to
explain there is a complicated situation. We had, in fact, three
concerns about Iraq, from the beginning, and it's repeated in Colin
Powell's statement in the UN. One was weapons of mass destruction,
about which I've never seen as unanimous a view in the intelligence
community on almost any issue. Second was the Iraqi connection with
terrorism, about which there is a range of views, although everyone
agrees that there is a connection there. And the third was Iraq's
mistreatment of its people, which has unfortunately never been in any
doubt. But in many ways, it's the first two reasons that were crucial,
and as I said in that interview, there is really a fourth reason,
which is that connection between weapons of mass destruction and
terrorism. That's the axis the President originally was talking about
in his State of Union message, is that connection between terrorism
and weapons of mass destruction. It's complicated, it's not a simple
issue, but when people say our rationale keeps changing, it's not that
keeps changing. We've had all three of those reasons from the
beginning but people who often choose to focus exclusively on the
weapons of mass destruction piece of it.

Q: Even this article seems to highlight the distrust that's around
that. The perception seems to be that weapons of mass destruction was
an excuse to move in. How did you respond

Wolfowitz: I can tell you quite emphatically it was not an excuse.
What really changed in our whole perception of this issue was
September 11. Before September 11 terrorism was viewed as something
ugly, but you lived with it. Saddam Hussein was viewed as something
ugly, something that was for the Iraqi people to take care of. After
September 11, terrorism looked different. Saddam Hussein, who played
with terrorists, and had weapons of mass destruction, looked much more
threatening to United States than just to his own people. And so it
changed the calculation entirely. I mean, without that perception of
threat, I don't believe the President would have considered it
something that American lives should be risked for, as terrible as the
regime is -- I mean there is no question the regime was a horrible
thing.

Q: The fact that there hasn't been a substantial Cache of weapons of
mass destruction -- is that an embarrassment?

Wolfowitz: No. Is it an embarrassment to people on the other side that
we've discovered these biological production vans, which the defector
told us about? Look, this dictator had twelve years to develop
innumerable ways to hide his program, and we've said from the
beginning, the only way you get to the bottom of it is when people
start to talk to you. That's why we gave the UN inspectors
unprecedented powers to interview people. I think it is evidence in
itself that Saddam never allowed a single one of the scientists to go
outside the country for interview. In fact he never allowed a single
one of them to be interviewed in the country without monitors present
or at least tape recorders present. So he was a man with something to
hide, and we'll have to find it.

Q: What kind of repercussions do you think this will have now, in the
Arab world and in Southeast Asia?

Wolfowitz: I heard from one Arab foreign minister that it's a shame
that we weren't able to do this for ourselves, but it had to be done
and thank heavens you did it. This is an Arab official. I think in the
Arab world it was actually not a surprise that thousands of mass
graves turned up. I think the Arab people understand that this man was
responsible for killing more Muslims than I think any other single
individual and there is an opportunity now to build a much better Arab
society and to demonstrate to the rest of the world that Arabs are
capable of democracy. I believe they are.

Q: And yet at the same time as the Senior Minister said Last night,
there also seems to be a growing concern and in some nations a fear
that the US will go it alone. Senior Minister Lee kind of chided the
US a little bit Last night.

Wolfowitz: I found it surprising frankly. Why don't you chide
President Chirac for going it alone? There were 15 NATO nations on our
side and France had Belgium and Luxemburg and Germany with it, in what
seemed frankly like a rather cynical disregard of facts and disregard
of the suffering of the Iraqi people. In all of this discussion about
multilateral, unilateral, we had 46 countries with us. But more
importantly, and I would say we had 95% of the 20 million Iraqi people
with us and their voices ought to count for something.

Q: So you don't see it as a unilateral action at all, do you?

Wolfowitz: No, I don't. In fact we had more international legal
sanction I think for what we did than for the action in Kosovo that
NATO did a few years ago, and no one disputed that.

Q: How do you respond to things like the Senior Minister and what
other diplomats have said?

Wolfowitz: First of all, to say that we had a coalition of 46
countries, that we weren't acting unilaterally, that the time came
that some action had to be taken. Frankly, it was I think France's
action that has weakened the United Nations. We've seen in times past
in history when the failure to come together to act is terribly
damaging to the international community. And I think we were acting
not just in behalf of our own interest, although our own interests
were definitely involved, but I think we had very major regard
(inaudible) quite significantly. We had all the support that we needed
in the region. None of the terrible things that people said were going
to happen -- there weren't terrible mass casualties in Iraq, there
wasn't a food crisis or refugee crisis. We, I think, did a lot to take
care of the concerns that people had.

Q: What about Iran? What policy will the U.S. pursue?

Wolfowitz: We have concerns about Iran. It's sort of actually a
welcome development that our concern about Iran's nuclear program is
now finally being shared by other countries that were dismissive about
that concern for a long time. We have a big concern about Al Qaeda in
Iran. We are not quite sure whether the Iranians hold them or don't
hold them or what they are going to do with them if they are holding
them. We are concerned more generally (about) Iran's support for
terrorism. But I believe that one of the ways that we can help to
influence Iran to a different kind of policy is by getting things
right in Iraq, because the example of a free and democratic Iraq I
think is going to increase the pressure the Iranian regime already
feels to its own people and that s a good thing.

Q: Is the threat of military action a possibility in Iraq?

Wolfowitz: You know, I think you know, we never rule out that kind of
thing. But let me put it this way. I think the most effective way we
have to persuade the Iranian regime to change is the fact that some 75
percent of the Iranian people voted (a) few years ago for a different
government. They didn't get the government they voted for, but
nevertheless this is a regime that is susceptible I think to some
extent to pressure from its own people.

Q: The thoughts of Senior Minister Lee have been mirrored often by
other Muslim leaders in Southeast Asia, by the Indonesian, by the
Malaysians. And within the Muslim world, it seems to be amplifying
into a paranoia that the U.S. is going to attack and pick them out one
by one. I've heard that said also. How do you respond to something
like that this growing paranoia in the Muslim world that the U.S. with
its power can pick them out one by one?

Wolfowitz: I think there are many Muslims, like the foreign minister I
referred to earlier, including many Arabs, who welcome the positive
change in Iraq. They wish that they had been able to do it and didn't
need us to do it. But they don't see it as picking off. They see it as
liberating a major important Arab people. I do think it is important
to make progress now in the Arab-Israeli issue. That is something that
will do a great deal to balance the concerns that we are one-sided and
that we only worry about one kind of justice.

I think it is very important also to see this Iraq thing through to
success, and while we've had some spectacular gains - it's barely two
months since the war began, let's remember that -- there is a lot of
work to be done. I think those are two very positive contributions
that when, if we can achieve them, I think the whole issue will look
different. Nobody likes war. It's not a pretty thing. It's only
compared to mass graves and the kind of terror that Saddam Hussein was
putting forward that you can say it's the lesser of two evils.

Q: (Inaudible)

A: Well we have an opportunity now. The President is meeting in Sharm
El Sheikh, I think Monday, with leaders of three Arab countries and
with Prime Minister Sharon and the Prime Minister of the Palestinian
Authority, and then he'll go on to Aqaba to meet with just the Israeli
and Palestinian.

There is a new atmosphere there. There was a new atmosphere there,
it's worth remembering, in 1991 after the defeat of Saddam Hussein
that I think is what opened the way to the Madrid conference, opened
the way to the Oslo agreements, which were two of the most positive
steps that we have seen in that process.

Removing the neighborhood bully has got to improve the environment.
But also the United States now goes into this with a credibility we
didn't have before. And I think that's going to make a difference for
everybody.

Q: Do you think that that is the source that fueled a lot of the
extremism? Do you agree with that analysis of it? The Middle East?

Wolfowitz: I think it's overstated. There's no question that it fuels
extremism. But the idea that if you take that away, none of the
funding of Madrases would take place, nonsense. None of the hatred of
the United States would be there, nonsense. In fact, let's be clear,
if you read Bin Laden's proclamations, the thing that he most
complained about was the presence of American forces in Saudi Arabia
as part of the containment of Iraq. So that I believe is progress also
-- that the Saudis have no longer have to carry the burden of large
American forces on their territory, bombing Iraq almost daily, to
support a containment policy that was failing.

Q: But wasn't the U.S. in its own way supporting the Saudis who were
also exporting Wahabism. Isn't that going to be changing?

Wolfowitz: Well, it doesn't mean we are supporting the Saudi export of
Wahabism. It does mean there are worse things than the government in
Saudi Arabia, and we certainly didn't want to see it taken over by a
hostile neighbor. I believe in fact that the bombing that took place
in Riyadh about two weeks ago, ten days ago, was a kind of wake-up
call for Saudi Arabia just as I believe Bali was a wake up call for
Indonesia, and 9-11 was a wake up call for us. And while the
terrorists achieved a certain, from their point of view, tactical
success, I think it was a strategic failure and I think the Saudis are
much more serious now about dealing with their own problems than they
were before. And they have a much freer climate to do it because
Saddam Hussein isn't over their shoulder and the Americans aren't on
their doorstep.

Q: In Southeast Asia, there has been a lot of arrests over the Last
month. Intelligence reports are saying that there were really two main
places Al Qaeda operatives fled to post-Afghanistan -- there were five
areas where Al Qaeda was operating but two main places the Horn of
Africa and southeast Asia, southeast Asia having the most Al Qaeda
operatives coming in here. How large of a threat remains here in your
perception?

Wolfowitz: It's hard to know because if we knew it, we d pick them up.
So we are guessing about what we know we don't know. And by the way
you have to count Pakistan and Iran as two other major places. And
northeastern Iraq, by the way, which is no longer a sanctuary. So it
wasn't one place.

My sense of the Al Qaeda problem here is that it was more indigenous,
not so much that people fled from Afghanistan into southeast Asia, but
that the penetration into southeast Asia was more extensive than we
had understood at least before 9-11, and in some ways we first started
to get an inkling it from materials we captured from Afghanistan that
led us to that group in Singapore and those arrests.

But Bali brought home just how bad it is here. The fact is it doesn't
take more than a few hundred people of that kind, in a country of 200
million to create a serious problem. But I'm very impressed by the
professionalism with which the Indonesian police have gone after the
Bali bombers. I think there is a new spirit in Indonesia. The
Philippines and Malaysia and Thailand were already quite serious and
of course Singapore -- well they were a little shocked that terrorists
could be even in this nice tightly controlled little country.

We are not going to eliminate terrorists overnight or with one magic
bullet but I do believe that the Last year has been much more a series
of defeats for them with minor tactical successes here and there.

Q: Despite that there has been a lot said about Indonesia doing a lot
to dismantle the network, but the network still remains. As late as
April you still have JI and Al Qaeda still meeting in Indonesia. I
guess from you, a sense of how this network that is here, JI, how
large a threat of --

Wolfowitz: Look, there are still terrorists operating in United States
and in the UK and in Europe. Particularly I think in democratic
countries, it takes time, and you have legal restrictions on what you
can do and political constraints on what you can do, and even in less
democratic countries these people go underground. So that's why our
President had said from the beginning it is going to be long war, it's
not going to be won with one victory in Afghanistan or a second one in
Iraq. It's not going to be won just by arresting 3,000 people,
although we have done that. It's going to take time and I do believe
it's also important during that time that we build up the positive
forces.

Q: Redeployment of U.S. troops. Looking at the threat, and then
bringing the troops. Where in Southeast Asia are we looking at? We
know they are coming to the Philippines, but where --

Wolfowitz: No they are not. Here is the basic thing. We are looking at
our military posture worldwide including in the United States,
Congress has given us authority and it's not easy to get that
authority to do a base realignment and closure commission in the
United States starting in 2005. That's a big thing. We are doing it in
United States, we are doing it worldwide, because we have to figure
out how to make the most effective use of our military forces. I know
we have a lot, but the requirements are large as well, and the threat
has changed. The threat turns up in places in the world we had never
imagined we'd be in before.

But the technology has changed also, and allows us to do things with
an efficiency and an effectiveness and a reach that didn't exist when
we set up many of these bases. So we need to approach our posture
differently. But some of these announcements in the press that come if
anything from some ninth level bureaucrat, and I'm not even sure that
it came from there.

We are not about to move our Marines from Okinawa to Australia --
that's wrong. We are not about to base forces in the Philippines --
that's wrong. And in any case we are not going to make any of these
changes without consulting with our Congress and consulting with our
allies and our friends in this part of the world. So, the general
principle is correct, most of the details that I have read are either
inaccurate or extremely premature.

Q: What are the key ideas that are going to motivate this new change?

Wolfowitz: I think there are really three things. One, that we can do
things at long range with precision in a way that was never possible
before. Secondly, the same sort of internet revolution that you can
see on your home computer brings together disparate forces with an
effectiveness that never existed before. But the third thing is that
the threat is so dispersed that you need a kind of mobility and
flexibility in how you move your forces around.

It's very different from old Cold War posture in Germany, where you
thought you knew exactly what the Soviet war plan was, and exactly
what you had to do to meet it, or the threat you face on the Korean
Peninsula. Those are very fixed, they are very calculable. You need a
very big force in place to deal with them. The new threats are
unpredictable, widely dispersed, and what you may need is a much
smaller force, much more quickly.

Q: There is a growing paranoia or fear among the Muslim nations that
the U.S. power, will result in them getting picked off one by one. How
do you respond to that?

Wolfowitz: I think by my count, seven times in the Last ten years or
so, U.S. military forces have gone into harm's way to rescue people
from aggression or from ethic cleansing or from war-induced famine.
I'm thinking about Kuwait, I'm thinking about northern Iraq after the
Gulf War, I'm thinking about Somalia, I'm thinking about Bosnia, I'm
thinking about Kosovo. I'm thinking of Afghanistan. I'm thinking Iraq.

All seven of those countries were majority Muslim populations. We were
there helping Muslims who were suffering, not because they were
Muslims, but because our interests were engaged and because in many
cases our moral impulses were engaged as well. I think what we're
trying to accomplish in Iraq is to help the Iraqi people build a free
and democratic country, which I think will have a powerful political
effect throughout the Muslim world and the Arab world. Not all change
is accomplished by the use of force.

(end transcript)

(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)

____________________________________________

[Ruatha]

Originally posted by primitive:
Start fix the problems, stop creating more. Fight against the terrorists, not their mothers and childrens. Work on your defences. Tough it out.

I belive you are quite right here.
If we could raise the living situation for people so that no one is raised in refugee camps etc the recruiting fround fro the fanatics (and the number of fanatics) would lessen dramaticly.
There will always be mad people, there are some american internal terrirists aswell, but by removing most of the harsh conditions around the world would remove a lot of the terrorists.
What future do you belive that the kids growing up in the refugee camps see?
Those who promise them a better future are the ones who promises them a grand future in heaven, here on earth the future for most of them seems quite unpromising.

[Erax]

Thermo, your Posts come directly from the US government. I read them through and I don't disagree with them but if I did it would be quite easy to call them biased.

I especially like the parting remark by Wolfowitz : "Not all change is accomplished by the use of force."

[primitive]

Thermo:
That was a whole load of BS you managed to paste in. Stupid me even wasted valuable vacation time reading it. I did find no evidence in there of terrorism being state sponsored. Just some old ramblings from Rummy from the middle of the propaganda war in March which accuses Iran of harbouring/supporting terrorists. Ramblings which has no cred anymore (missing WMDs anyone), and which Wolfowitz also tries hard to downplay in his interview from May 31st.

I did however find this (newer) quote:
Washington believes all of the Groups have grown strong partly due to generous contributions from sympathetic individuals and charitable organizations in a number of Arab countries.

There is a vast difference between individuals and Groups within in Muslim countries sponsoring terrorists (which there undoubtedly are a lot of) and their governments actively sponsoring the terrorists (which may or may not be true).

So, once again: If you have any proof other than old propaganda speeches, please post

[oleg]

Originally posted by Thermodyne:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
It was a symbol, thats why.

Stalingrad was the historic gateway to Asia. This is why it was fought over so many times in the past. And with ½ a million people, it was a major city by anyone’s standards. A quick look at the map will show that once the Volga was crossed, there were no natural defensive lines on the way to Moscow. Originally, the mission was to continue on and secure the resources of the region. But this had changed, 6th was going to be sent north to the capital in the spring. This was known in exacting detail by the Russians because of Lucy. The Germans had no intention of taking the whole country; they expected a negotiated peace on their terms. This was how war was fought in Europe at that time.

---

I don't remember correctly, but think it is more than 1500 miles from Stalingrad to Moscow. In fact, German army fas moving AWAY from Moscow when it pushed from Kharkov to Stalingrad. It was never meant to turn back and go north toward Moscow. The whole 1942 compain was focused on securing Norh Caucasses with its oil fields. Germany had a very big problem maintaining armies so far away from Romania oil. Rail road were constantly sabotaged. After 41 disaster Stalin was very afraid of another attack on Moscow. He kept most of the army in the center. The south front was defended only by armies Stalin wanted to spare. I read in Marshal Zhukov memmoirs generals begged Stalin many times to send reserves to Stalingrad but he refused. It is only in deep Autumn he finally became convinced there would be no attack in the Central Front and send Zhukov and two armies to South front. Stalin was a bloody coward.

[oleg]

Originally posted by Ruatha:
Was there any industrial capacity left in Moscow?
I thought it was all moved east in case Moscow would fall.
Wasn't the Soviet army bad trained and under equipped? In that case it wouldn't be very hard for Soviet to fill the ranks again as they had a vast population to recruit from.

So I also belive that even if Stalingrad and Moscow had fallen the Russians would have eventually recaptured it.

(We've fought them all our history until we stopped fighting almost 200 years ago (our Last war was with Russia, and when they set foot on Swedish soil we realized war wasn't for us....) , and they've always retaken everything we've occupied, even if it took them hundreds of years to do it sometimes!)

Yes, moscow remained a big industrial city throought the war. Part of equipment and a lot of people were evacuated but not all. When I write there was nothing east from Stalingrad, I did not mean there was nothing east from Moscow. The major industrial cities - Kujbyshev, Ufa, Cheljabinsk, Gorkij, etc. were still hundreds and hundreds miles away from the front even at the worst times. There was no reason whatsoved to capitulate even if Germans crossed Volga. Remember, 6th Army was destroyed to a man just a few months later.

[Thermodyne]

Primitive:

The majority of this information is going to originate from the intelligence services of the United States. And other then recent new clips will be somewhat dated. I really don’t care if you consider it credible, your opinion has little weight in this situation. In the end, congress is the body that needs to be convinced. But here are a couple of items that will support the position that states support terrorism.

The first is a quote from a statement made to members of the House of Representatives by Ambassador Philip C. Wilcox Jr. It is included because it was made in 1996. This shows that the Last administration knew about the links and as we all know, took very little action. The is appeasement, and we all know where it got us.

Here is a link to the updated Version of the report that the Ambassador speaks of at the end of the quote.

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2000/

Quote:
Syria continues to provide safe haven and logistic support to a variety of terrorist Groups, both Arab and non-Arab, such as the Kurdish PKK. Several of these Groups maintain a presence in Damascus and terrorist training facilities or forces in Syria. Terrorist Groups also have bases in parts of Lebanon either controlled or strongly influenced by Syria. Personnel of several other international terrorist Groups are allowed to transit Syria. Syria does not define the activities of the Groups as "terrorism." We strongly disagree.
The Palestinian group Hamas openly operates a political office in Damascus, where it maintains close contacts with Iranian officials and other rejectionist Groups. The leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which, like Hamas, has claimed responsibility for suicide bombings in Israel, is resident in Damascus. Damascus has allowed the Iranian-backed Hizballah terrorist organization to operate freely from areas of Lebanon under Syrian control; Syria also permits Iran to resupply periodically Hizballah through Damascus airport. We have described these facts in our annual report to Congress "Patterns of Global Terrorism."
End Quote:

Here is the oficial list as of 4/01. Sorry but this is the most recent one I have, but it has grown every year and would be asumed to have continued to do so.

Patterns of Global Terrorism - 2000
Released by the Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism
April 30, 2001
The designation of state sponsors of terrorism by the United States--and the imposition of sanctions--is a mechanism for isolating nations that use terrorism as a means of political expression. US policy seeks to pressure and isolate state sponsors so they will renounce the use of terrorism, end support to terrorists, and bring terrorists to justice for past crimes. The United States is committed to holding terrorists and those who harbor them accountable for past attacks, regardless of when the acts occurred. The US Government has a long memory and will not simply expunge a terrorist's record because time has passed. The states that choose to harbor terrorists are like accomplices who provide shelter for criminals. They will be held accountable for their "guests'" actions. International terrorists should know, before they contemplate a crime, that they cannot hunker down in safehaven for a period of time and be absolved of their crimes.
The United States is firmly committed to removing countries from the list once they have taken necessary steps to end their link to terrorism. In fact, the Department of State is engaged in ongoing discussions with North Korea and Sudan with the object of getting those governments completely out of the terrorism business and off the terrorism list.
Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, and Sudan continue to be the seven governments that the US Secretary of State has designated as state sponsors of international terrorism. Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism in 2000. It provided increasing support to numerous terrorist Groups, including the Lebanese Hizballah, HAMAS, and the Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ), which seek to undermine the Middle East peace negotiations through the use of terrorism. Iraq continued to provide safehaven and support to a variety of Palestinian rejectionist Groups, as well as bases, weapons, and protection to the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), an Iranian terrorist group that opposes the current Iranian regime. Syria continued to provide safehaven and support to several terrorist Groups, some of which oppose the Middle East peace negotiations. Libya at the end of 2000 was attempting to mend its international image following its surrender in 1999 of two Libyan suspects for trial in the Pan Am 103 bombing. (In early 2001, one of the suspects was convicted of murder. The judges in the case found that he acted "in furtherance of the purposes of...Libyan Intelligence Services.") Cuba continued to provide safehaven to several terrorists and US fugitives and maintained ties to state sponsors and Latin American insurgents. North Korea harbored several hijackers of a Japanese Airlines flight to North Korea in the 1970s and maintained links to other terrorist Groups. Finally, Sudan continued to serve as a safehaven for members of al-Qaida, the Lebanese Hizballah, al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the PIJ, and HAMAS, but it has been engaged in a counterterrorism dialogue with the United States since mid-2000.
State sponsorship has decreased over the past several decades. As it decreases, it becomes increasingly important for all countries to adopt a "zero tolerance" for terrorist activity within their borders. Terrorists will seek safehaven in those areas where they are able to avoid the rule of law and to travel, prepare, raise funds, and operate. The United States continued actively researching and gathering intelligence on other states that will be considered for designation as state sponsors. If the United States deems a country to "repeatedly provide support for acts of international terrorism," the US Government is required by law to add it to the list. In South Asia, the United States has been increasingly concerned about reports of Pakistani support to terrorist Groups and elements active in Kashmir, as well as Pakistani support, especially military support, to the Taliban, which continues to harbor terrorist Groups, including al-Qaida, the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. In the Middle East, the United States was concerned that a variety of terrorist Groups operated and trained inside Lebanon, although Lebanon has acted against some of those Groups. Lebanon also has been unresponsive to US requests to bring to justice terrorists who conducted attacks against US citizens and property in Lebanon in previous years.
Cuba
Cuba continued to provide safehaven to several terrorists and US fugitives in 2000. A number of Basque ETA terrorists who gained sanctuary in Cuba some years ago continued to live on the island, as did several US terrorist fugitives.
Havana also maintained ties to other state sponsors of terrorism and Latin American insurgents. Colombia's two largest terrorist organizations, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia and the National Liberation Army, both maintained a permanent presence on the island.
Iran
Despite the victory for moderates in Iran's Majles elections in February, aggressive countermeasures by hardline conservatives have blocked most reform efforts. Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism in 2000. Its Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) continued to be involved in the planning and the execution of terrorist acts and continued to support a variety of Groups that use terrorism to pursue their goals.
Iran's involvement in terrorist-related activities remained focused on support for Groups opposed to Israel and peace between Israel and its neighbors. Statements by Iran's leaders demonstrated Iran's unrelenting hostility to Israel. Supreme Leader Khamenei continued to refer to Israel as a "cancerous tumor" that must be removed; President Khatami, labeling Israel an "illegal entity," called for sanctions against Israel during the intifadah; and Expediency Council Secretary Rezai said, "Iran will continue its campaign against Zionism until Israel is completely eradicated." Iran has long provided Lebanese Hizballah and the Palestinian rejectionist Groups--notably HAMAS, the Palestine Islamic Jihad, and Ahmad Jibril's PFLP-GC--with varying amounts of funding, safehaven, training, and weapons. This activity continued at its already high levels following the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon in May and during the intifadah in the fall. Iran continued to encourage Hizballah and the Palestinian Groups to coordinate their planning and to escalate their activities against Israel. Iran also provided a lower level of support--including funding, training, and logistics assistance--to extremist Groups in the Gulf, Africa, Turkey, and Central Asia.
Although the Iranian Government has taken no direct action to date to implement Ayatollah Khomeini's fatwa against Salman Rushdie, the decree has not been revoked, and the $2.8 million bounty for his assassination has not been withdrawn. Moreover, hardline Iranians continued to stress that the decree is irrevocable. On the anniversary of the fatwa in February, the IRGC released a statement that the decree remains in force, and Ayatollah Yazdi, a member of the Council of Guardians, reiterated that "the decree is irrevocable and, God willing, will be carried out."
Iran also was a victim of Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK)-sponsored terrorism. The Islamic Republic presented a letter to the UN Secretary General in October citing seven acts of sabotage by the MEK against Iran between January and August 2000. The United States has designated the MEK as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.
Iraq
Iraq planned and sponsored international terrorism in 2000. Although Baghdad focused on antidissident activity overseas, the regime continued to support various terrorist Groups. The regime has not attempted an anti-Western terrorist attack since its failed plot to assassinate former President Bush in 1993 in Kuwait.
Czech police continued to provide protection to the Prague office of the US Government-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), which produces Radio Free Iraq programs and employs expatriate journalists. The police presence was augmented in 1999, following reports that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) might retaliate against RFE/RL for broadcasts critical of the Iraqi regime.
To intimidate or silence Iraqi opponents of the regime living overseas, the IIS reportedly opened several new stations in foreign capitals during 2000. Various opposition Groups joined in warning Iraqi dissidents abroad against newly established "expatriates' associations," which, they asserted, are IIS front organizations. Opposition leaders in London contended that the IIS had dispatched women agents to infiltrate their ranks and was targeting dissidents for assassination. In Germany, an Iraqi opposition figure denounced the IIS for murdering his son, who had recently left Iraq to join him abroad. Dr. Ayad `Allawi, Secretary General of the Iraqi National Accord, an opposition group, stated that relatives of dissidents living abroad are often arrested and jailed to intimidate activists overseas.
In northern Iraq, Iraqi agents reportedly killed a locally well-known religious personality who declined to echo the regime line. The regional security director in As Sulaymaniyah stated that Iraqi operatives were responsible for the car-bomb explosion that injured a score of passersby. Officials of the Iraqi Communist Party asserted that an attack on a provincial party headquarters had been thwarted when party security officers shot and wounded a terrorist employed by the IIS.
Baghdad continued to denounce and delegitimize UN personnel working in Iraq, particularly UN de-mining teams, in the wake of the killing in 1999 of an expatriate UN de-mining worker in northern Iraq under circumstances suggesting regime involvement. An Iraqi who opened fire at the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) office in Baghdad, killing two persons and wounding six, was permitted to hold a heavily publicized press conference at which he contended that his action had been motivated by the harshness of UN sanctions, which the regime regularly excoriates.
The Iraqi regime rebuffed a request from Riyadh for the extradition of two Saudis who had hijacked a Saudi Arabian Airlines flight to Baghdad, but did return promptly the passengers and the aircraft. Disregarding its obligations under international law, the regime granted political asylum to the hijackers and gave them ample opportunity to ventilate in the Iraqi Government-controlled and international media their criticisms of alleged abuses by the Saudi Arabian Government, echoing an Iraqi propaganda theme.
While the origins of the FAO attack and the hijacking were unclear, the Iraqi regime readily exploited these terrorist acts to further its policy objectives.
Several expatriate terrorist Groups continued to maintain offices in Baghdad, including the Arab Liberation Front, the inactive 15 May Organization, the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), and the Abu Nidal organization (ANO). PLF leader Abu `Abbas appeared on state-controlled television in the fall to praise Iraq's leadership in rallying Arab opposition to Israeli violence against Palestinians. The ANO threatened to attack Austrian interests unless several million dollars in a frozen ANO account in a Vienna bank were turned over to the group.
The Iraq-supported Iranian terrorist group, Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), regularly claimed responsibility for armed incursions into Iran that targeted police and military outPosts, as well as for mortar and bomb attacks on security organization headquarters in various Iranian cities. MEK publicists reported that in March group members killed an Iranian colonel having intelligence responsibilities. An MEK claim to have wounded a general was denied by the Iranian Government. The Iraqi regime deployed MEK forces against its domestic opponents.
Libya
In 2000, Libya continued efforts to mend its international image in the wake of its surrender in 1999 of two Libyans accused of the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988. Trial proceedings for the two defendants began in the Netherlands in May and were ongoing at year's end. (The court issued its verdict on 31 January 2001. It found Abdel Basset al-Megrahi guilty of murder, concluding that he caused an explosive device to detonate on board the airplane resulting in the murder of the flight's 259 passengers and crew as well as 11 residents of Lockerbie, Scotland. The judges found that he acted "in furtherance of the purposes of...Libyan Intelligence Services." Concerning the other defendant, Al-Amin Kalifa Fahima, the court concluded that the Crown failed to present sufficient evidence to satisfy the high standard of "proof beyond reasonable doubt" that is necessary in criminal cases.)
In 1999, Libya paid compensation for the death of a British policewoman/*/, a move that preceded the reopening of the British Embassy. Libya also paid damages to the families of victims in the bombing of UTA flight 772. Six Libyans were convicted in absentia in that case, and the French judicial system is considering further indictments against other Libyan officials, including Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi.
/*/In April 1984, a British policewoman was killed and 11 demonstrators were wounded when gunmen in the Libyan People's Bureau in London fired on a peaceful anti-Qadhafi demonstration outside their building.
Libya played a high-profile role in negotiating the release of a group of foreign hostages seized in the Philippines by the Abu Sayyaf Group, reportedly in exchange for a ransom payment. The hostages included citizens of France, Germany, Malaysia, South Africa, Finland, the Philippines, and Lebanon. The payment of ransom to kidnappers only encourages additional hostage taking, and the Abu Sayyaf Group, emboldened by its success, did seize additional hostages--including a US citizen--later in the year. Libya's behavior and that of other parties involved in the alleged ransom arrangement served only to encourage further terrorism and to make that region far more dangerous for residents and travelers.
At year's end, Libya had yet to comply fully with the remaining UN Security Council requirements related to Pan Am 103: accepting responsibility, paying appropriate compensation, disclosing all it knows, and renouncing terrorism. The United States remains dedicated to maintaining pressure on the Libyan Government until it does so. Qadhafi stated publicly that his government had adopted an antiterrorism stance, but it remains unclear whether his claims of distancing Libya from its terrorist past signify a true change in policy.
Libya also remained the primary suspect in several other past terrorist operations, including the Labelle discotheque bombing in Berlin in 1986 that killed two US servicemen and one Turkish civilian and wounded more than 200 persons. The trial in Germany of five suspects in the bombing, which began in November 1997, continued in 2000. Although Libya expelled the Abu Nidal organization and distanced itself from the Palestinian rejectionists in 1999, it continued to have contact with Groups that use violence to oppose the Middle East Peace Process, including the Palestine Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command.
North Korea
In 2000 the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) engaged in three rounds of terrorism talks that culminated in a joint DPRK-US statement wherein the DPRK reiterated its opposition to terrorism and agreed to support international actions against such activity. The DPRK, however, continued to provide safehaven to the Japanese Communist League-Red Army Faction members who participated in the hijacking of a Japanese Airlines flight to North Korea in 1970. Some evidence also suggests the DPRK may have sold weapons directly or indirectly to terrorist Groups during the year; Philippine officials publicly declared that the Moro Islamic Liberation Front had purchased weapons from North Korea with funds provided by Middle East sources.
Sudan
The United States and Sudan in mid-2000 entered into a dialogue to discuss US counterterrorism concerns. The talks, which were ongoing at the end of the year, were constructive and obtained some positive results. By the end of the year Sudan had signed all 12 international conventions for combating terrorism and had taken several other positive counterterrorism steps, including closing down the Popular Arab and Islamic Conference, which served as a forum for terrorists.
Sudan, however, continued to be used as a safehaven by members of various Groups, including associates of Usama Bin Ladin's al-Qaida organization, Egyptian al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the Palestine Islamic Jihad, and HAMAS. Most Groups used Sudan primarily as a secure base for assisting compatriots elsewhere.
Khartoum also still had not complied fully with UN Security Council Resolutions 1044, 1054, and 1070, passed in 1996--which demand that Sudan end all support to terrorists. They also require Khartoum to hand over three Egyptian Gama'a fugitives linked to the assassination attempt in 1995 against Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Ethiopia. Sudanese officials continued to deny that they had a role in the attack.
Syria
Syria continued to provide safehaven and support to several terrorist Groups, some of which maintained training camps or other facilities on Syrian territory. Ahmad Jibril's Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC), the Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ), Abu Musa's Fatah-the-Intifada, and George Habash's Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) maintained their headquarters in Damascus. The Syrian Government allowed HAMAS to open a new main office in Damascus in March, although the arrangement may be temporary while HAMAS continues to seek permission to reestablish its headquarters in Jordan. In addition, Syria granted a variety of terrorist Groups--including HAMAS, the PFLP-GC, and the PIJ--basing privileges or refuge in areas of Lebanon's Bekaa Valley under Syrian control. Damascus generally upheld its agreement with Ankara not to support the Kurdish PKK, however.

Although Syria claimed to be committed to the peace process, it did not act to stop Hizballah and Palestinian rejectionist Groups from carrying out anti-Israeli attacks. Damascus also served as the primary transit point for terrorist operatives traveling to Lebanon and for the resupply of weapons to Hizballah. Damascus appeared to maintain its longstanding ban on attacks launched from Syrian territory or against Western targets.

Now a thought on your quote. The main person that the statement was directed at was the wife of the Saudi Ambassador to the United States. She has been linked to support of terrorism by way of alleged charitable contributions. The Charities are shams and as a member of the royal family, she gets her money from the State of Saudi Arabia. That is state money supporting and encouraging terrorism. To repair the damage done to our relations with the Saudis, this is now being played down to the public.

[oleg]

...And actually east of Moscow there was no vast population. As oleg alluded to it's mostly undeveloped wilderness and rural areas. At least that was the case during the time we are talking about. I don't know if it's much different now or not.

Geoschmo[/QB]

No, no, no, Moscow was in the center of the Russian Motherland. There were many big industrial cities to the East. Stalingrad is very far away to South East. That is where wilderness was - East and South east from Stalingrad.

[primitive]

Thermo:
Strangely enough, reading your document I find this statement:
State sponsorship has decreased over the past several decades.

Kinda oposite of your statement that todays terrorism are state sponsored. I do not dispute that some of the Palestinian splinter Groups operates from within Syria and Iran, but that are "local" Groups, bad enough, but not a part of the new "global" terrorist picture brought forward by 9/11 and the Bali bomb. There's just nowhere you can do your carpet bomb revenge thing to stop that kind of actions.

[oleg]

Syria and Iran support palestinian Groups. But they have no links with Al-Queda. Neither did Saddam. When Al-Queda will do a next terrorist act against US - and sooner or later they will if not hunted down before, who will you bomb ? Saudi Arabia ? Or may be Germany because terrorists had and may still have cells in Hamburg ?

BTW, any news about Osama ? He must be very happy these days watching the growing Arabs anger.