MJ

Alpha, I assume that you were responding to my previous “essay.” I have several problems with your arguments and their underlying premise. I cannot address all of them but will try to address few of them, though. Addressing all of them would require more time. First of all, your entire note is overly emotional and not well argumented contrary to your other materials. Contrary to you, I think that the US is using its power extremely controllably and with great caution. It appeals to power when there is no way around. If it is not for US, I think there would not be a shred of world peace around, in the current stage. Pretty much every one would be at every one else’s throat outside Europe (Europe already has done it) – larger Arab states will swallow the smaller ones, Turkey ill swallow few neighboring countries, Israel would be swallowed pretty much by whoever happens to be the first to get there, etc. Then, Iran and Turkey will be at each others throat, Pakistan and India will be next, Afghanistan would be added to the mix, China would be compelled to intervene, end so on. If there is one single force in the world which guarantees world peace as much as she can, that is the US. The peace in the world has been threatened way before the founding of USA. In particular, when the nations of Middle East were eliminating each other, the US had not ever crossed the Atlantic or did not even exist. US did not create the problems in this region. If anything, it has frozen the preexisting problems – the problems which had become worse due to Europe’s centuries’ old contribution. The General Assembly of UN is irrelevant in political affairs of the world. It has always been the Security Council which has made the decisions (better to say declarations) when it comes to serious issues – security issues. That’s why it is called Security Council. It is very strange for me that you would talk about democratic institutions, and meanwhile, you would not recognize that contrary to the standards advocated by you, there are only five countries which make the decisions at UN, and any of them may veto the decision made by the other four. Its founding principle is not the democratic principle of majority but consensus. If this is democracy, at least it is a very strange style democracy. Speaking of DIPLOMACY… Unfortunately, Diplomacy with no force to back it up is an idle talk – this is demonstrated by the world history. Even Khrimian Hairik has recognized it more than 150 years ago and has introduced a special terminology - “Tghti shrep” into circulation. Say, why didn’t we solve the Karabagh problem with Diplomacy (not that we didn’t want to), for example? Additionally, the absolute majority of the members of the “democratic” UN, that you advocate, have no idea about democracy. Their respective countries are governed with norms as far from democracy as one may imagine. Their absolute majority has no role or significance in the world affairs. Even if there will be vote on the floor of the General Assembly, its members will vote the way the same five would want – they will divide into groups depending who promises more financial or other aid to them or what their xenophobic hatred dictates. I also find very bizarre that you would implicitly insinuate that when it comes to the international or regional security, Guatemala and China, per se, should have equal voice. In such case, I can assure you that the world would be much more dangerous place – total and really uncontrollable mess. I also think that it is absolutely invalid and uninformed claim, when one says that the International Institutions have kept the world in relative peace, in the last 50 years. The peace in the world has been kept by the existing powers and the parity between them. The international institutions in the last 50 years have been as irrelevant as they have been in the last year, or when they have been during the tenure of the League of Nations. The “Wild West” was not resulted from the absence of the international institutions – far not. It was resulted from the lack of law enforcement by an able party, or by the absence of the able party. I am far from claiming that US has to be the world police. In fact, I don’t think so. Neither it is a role that the US government wants to assume, from what I see. But so that the US is not compelled to do the policing, others have to step up to the plate. The EU, for example, should do its part. Let them live up to that responsibility – proportional to their claims. [if Armenia, fore example,” is going to rely on “international institutions” for her future, then it is time to think of burying her, btw.] People, you refer to, are not helpless because of the “uncontrollable US.” They are helpless because in different corners of the world for different reasons, they cannot build viable economies and have dignified lives. And US is not hated around the world. Even the countries where one may think she is hated (say Iraq)… The US is hated in each country by the fundamentalists or the left of the left wing. USA, in fact, is not trying to import its brand of democracy around the world. This is one of your baseless insinuations. The examples negating your allegation are [West] Germany, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, and on and on and on. I also find it to be ridiculous to insinuate that “USA is trying to import its name of proletariat. An invading powerful country tries to find a moral ground to oppress weaker nations and tries to name it “liberation”, “democratization”, “freedom”.” These are nice words from the platforms of SocIntern, but how much relevance do they have? Who is the US trying to oppress? Show me one case in history, one nation that the US has oppressed so far, and not done the opposite. In the case of Iraq, in particular, this is one of the most oppressed nations in the history of the last 40 years. It is impossible even to oppress it any more than they have already been. In the past, USA has occupied West Germany, Japan, Haiti, etc. Give me one example, when the US has done anything else but built these countries from the shambles, stabilized them, and left. The sovereignty of Iraq is not threatened. (Sorry that I am replying to you in bits. Don’t have a lot of time to build a smooth “essay.”) In fact, her sovereignty is supported by the US. Iraq should be run by the Iraqi people (this is the US and UK position), while France, Russia, Germany, etc, were pushing for a UN run government – thus surrendering Iraq’s sovereignty to UN. The important thing to understand is that in the modern world, the internal affairs of “Iraq, Iran, Syria and Israel” are not merely their internal affair. Such a statement may be made about a segregated world outside the technology age. It is absolutely wrong about the world that we live in. Somehow, their and others “internal affairs” have huge impact on the others – such as Armenia, for example, when you can think that there is not even a direct relationship. The transportation routs to Armenia, for example, pass through Turkey, Iran, Georgia, Azerbaijan, etc. If each of them, based on “internal affairs” argument, will paralyze these routs leading to Armenia inside their own country, per se, then it in fact, it becomes Armenia’s internal affair. This is just an example. We can say the same about fiber optics cables, electricity transmission lines, oil and gas pipelines, and so on. Majority of the states in the world depends on the “internal” situation in other states. “It should be left to the people of the region to solve their problem,” you say. How idealistic and how invalid … And of all the people of the region, it is us, the Armenians, who have begged others to come to this region- from Europe to Russia. If history of the world is of any value, it should be apparent how the people of this region solve their problems. Besides, if the US doesn’t put pressure on this region, do you feel that no one else is going to meddle or someone else is not going to occupy the “vacuum?” The US did everything so that the countries of the UN Security Council lead the current operation jointly. Some did not come aboard. “Terrorism is a result of weakness and people who have no means of fighting a conventional war turn to terrorism,” you say. Partially yes, partially no - more no than yes. Terrorism has long history. The killing of the Prince of Prussia, for example, had nothing to do with the “desperate people.” Terrorism has been a tool of solving political and ideological problems for centuries. As a tool of solving ideological problems, it has been brought to life by the Marxists and the Socialists. There are many desperate people around the world. There are a number of desperate nations in Africa, Asia. I don’t think Bangladeshis are less desperate than the Palestinians, for example. Nor I think that the population of Zimbabwe is less desperate. Terrorism is not a manifestation of only desperateness. It is an aggregate of poverty (most of the time, but not always), culture, ideological and political thought. As a rule, it is cultivated and executed by the left leaning groups. Partisans of WWII had nothing to do with terrorism. These partisans where fighting liberation war of gorilla style. Their targets were not the German civilians, but the German military targets and the military personnel. It is an absolute nonsense to declare the partisans terrorists. There is a huge discrepancy between the Israeli and the Arab powers, in the region, indeed. There is a small state of 6 million (don’t know the exact numbers) people in that region, with absolutely no resources, surrounded by states who pledge her distraction, and a number of, at least, potentially very wealthy countries, with about 200 million population (don’t know the exact numbers, again), who claim that their neighbor “has no right to exist.” This is where the discrepancy starts. I wall call xenophobic anyone who does not understand this elementary fact or pretends not to understand it. And there are many of those in this forum, too. Israel has the right to exist. When the Arab world or whomever, declares otherwise, that means they declare war to Israel. In such case, Israel is entitled to having all possible, all existing and non existing weaponry, on the earth and heaven. Israel’s existence (and that on a chunk of worthless soil) does not threaten anyone’s national security. It just rattles their xenophobia and homophobia. That Sharon may be a war criminal such as Arafat, it may very well be true. I neither have sufficient facts to claim it nor to deny it. In fact, I am inclined to think that it is true. But so is Arafat, so was Assad (father), the heads of other Arab states. They are counterparts worth each other. Each problem has its logic of solutions. There is a “causational-consequential” argument to be made in everything. If the Arab world things that Sharon is a war criminal, it can declare its recognition of Israel’s right to exist, and then exercise its sovereign rights in the court of International Law, and call Sharon and his likes on the rug. After all, you claim that the larger problems have to be resolved by the International Institutions. Then why not to try this relatively more manageable one? When the distraction of Israel is their state policy, allegations of a “war crime” towards this or that individual are ridiculous. This is the real discrepancy, if we have to speak of discrepancies. Back to Sharon… Sharon is not the issue here. In 1990, the US administration was most adamant against the Israeli policies. Some argue that Bush (senior) lost his second term because he antagonized the Jews in America by pressing Israel very hard. Even Clinton, being most pro-Jewish, was exerting enormous pressure on Israel. American Jewry is exerting enormous pressure on Israel. There is huge antagonism between the American Jewry and that of Israel - more than it has existed between the Armenian Diaspora and Armenia in the past. No one is supporting some of the Israeli policies. But when it comes to looking at the reality, you have one side which declares that the other side doesn’t have the right to exist, and the other says, “screw you.” Let’s finally get this. It is not hard. As far as the US is concerned, let me try to make my point clear, one more time. Arab terrorism has transgressed the Middle East boundaries, and has been delivered to the US soil. It will happen time and time again, unless it is uprooted from where it is incubated. This situation can be compared with the one where there is a nest of infection spreading insects delivering it to the remote corners of the world, and one finds sufficient just killing the insects when they arrive to the remote locations, rather than destroying the nest. To specifically address your argument on nuclear weaponry, which I find to be incredibly ill thought out, if Syria tries to develop nuclear arms, not that Israel “will not occupy Golan Heights,” but before Syria knows, Israel will swipe the Golan Heights and turn it into a valley. This is the proper logic behind the proper argument. Recall the Iraqi nuclear plant story… And if it was me, Syria should not see Golan Heights until she recognizes the right of Israel to exist, establishes diplomatic relations, resolves the demarcation issues and mutually demilitarizes the adjacent to Israel districts. I, personally, as irrelevant as my wishes are, don’t want anyone to have nuclear weapons – especially in the vicinity of Armenia. In fact, I find that perspective extremely troubling. Even the USSR and the US came to an understanding that the nuclear arms had to be phased out, after going through decades of escalation. I don’t want Turkey and Iran to have nuclear arms – they are on the way. I don’t want Syria and Israel to have them. I want a peaceful and cooperating region, less hatred, less human misery, etc. I want progress in the region. I want conditions, where our nation can properly develop her potential and not to become hostage in the hands of Robik, Serje, Dodi Gago, Shvo and Gvo, as a result of the realities created by the regional deadlock. “The mess created in Middle East is a result of involvement of forces not native to a region,” you say. This kind of statements makes an impression that you are not considering the issue intellectually, but emotionally. That is a pity. Regardless of whoever has created the mess (and that is not the US), it is there, and the natives cannot deal with it as of now. Given the opportunity, they will just slaughter each other much the way they have done it for four thousand years. In conclusion, I would just say the following: if a relative peace prevails in Europe, it has nothing to do with the “cultured Europe.” It is resulted from the status quo established after the WWII, and the fact that most of them have came to be satisfied or accept it (except the reality of Yogoslavia, which they strived to dismantle at the first opportunity), by recognizing the high and unjustifiable cost of bringing changes. The situation in Middle East, except the one related to Israel, is resulted from the WWI. It has been long time but, so far, the nations of the region have not come to accept it [and perhaps one may argue, rightfully so]. Definitely it has nothing to do with the International Institutions. As I tried, successfully or not, to make a point, International Institutions have not come from Mars. They are just formalized forums for discussions for the same countries, which discuss things also outside these forums – through bilateral or multilateral relationships. The only thing that the [international Institutions] UN provides is the following: outside the UN, France is totally irrelevant. Inside the UN France has some relevance. That is all. Somewhere in your note, you mention the American culture being newer than the cultures of some other countries. I get an impression that you insinuate that an older culture is something necessarily preferable than the newer one. I would argue that most frequently an old culture means a rotten one. It means something out of realm and smelly, shorting reinvention. An old culture is not necessarily better then the new one. In fact, I would argue that in most of the cases the opposite is true. To be more specific may require opening a new thread up. I am not prepared to do it right now. Finally, as much as I can observe, this ridiculous anti-Americanism does not have a whole lot to do with the subject we are discussing. Underneath, it has the same “old class straggle (event the terminology),” as its pretext, and has the desire of bringing “the shrine of capitalism and imperialism” down. Most of the European public has become increasingly more socialistic – some has always been so. Some of the US younger generation (I would estimate about 20% of the US population) has become so. At the end of the day, it comes down to the same category of “entitlements,” I have once spoken about. Many people have the feeling of being “entitled.” There are some such people in this forum – especially those who are still under the “daddy’s wing,” or are about to come out of there. Since they haven’t done anything in their lives on their own, yet, and are in or about to enter the larger world, they find it safer to exclaim, “Give it! I want it, too. I am also entitled to it!” This relates not only to the individuals in this forum, but to some degree, also to some of the European countries. My take on it is that no one is entitled to anything other than equal opportunity. Everything must be earned. It may require working hard – as much as some [in this forum] may insinuate that the hard work is not prerequisite for success. I would say yes, if one wants to “take it away from someone who already has it.”

Could you guys help me to translate the word "network" to Armenian, please? I need it in the context of human network.

Vava, Why would one want to be cynical? Is that a quality that we should be proud of? Actually, I would characterize the sentiments that I sort of am very resentful of as Vulgar Marxism (not necessarily in the scientific sense of that term, but worse.) And may I ask, what do you believe in, at all? I do sure put my trust in certain materials and not in others. It is not something that I am going to apologize for. Contrary to some, I would never talk, at least publicly, about something that I don’t know enough about. Would you agree that, in general, it would be prudent to not talk about things that one does not know enough about? Or perhaps it is OK to talk even about such things once in a while, but when it becomes a daily pattern, or when it becomes a device of discharging one’s personal discomfort with his/her personal life, when it disseminates toxicity, it is something, sooner or later to feel “enough is enough” about? I do agree that some of the “Hitler's propaganda also 'made sense' to many people” - actually to some of the most educated and intelligent people and to one of the most outstanding nations. That is what I am concerned about and that is an issue that I am trying to address here. Let me ask, why would you never be “cynical” on the other side of the fence? (Don’t take this personal. In my view, you are one of the few reasonable guys “on your side of the fence,” here.) I also agree with you on relying on multiple resources and I highly encourage it. Do you read the resources which convey the other side of the issue? Do you have a feeling that the “armchair paleontologists” of the forum do it? Have you analyzed/studied, as you advocated in your previous material, the policies and the issues which are subject to heated emotional outbursts? Could you give a couple of examples for the sake of clarity? You also talk about the “mainstream” media, as if, by in large, it is conveying a different point of view than what you are trying to. From the tabloid trash to mainstream media, such as BBC, CNN, NBC, New York Times, etc, with a couple of exceptions, such as FoxNews, every mainstream outlet of media is conveying “analysis” of the type that you attribute to the “alternative” media. Therefore, I think what you say is just bizarre. Additionally, every single person speaking up in this forum conveys the same underlying theme (OK, maybe there are one or two exceptions), which you would call “alternative.” I would claim that, for this forum and the mainstream media, in fatc, what I convey is the “alternative” opinion. I have no interest in unleashing propaganda campaign here - first of all, because this place is irrelevant from the perspective of unleashing propaganda. I speak up only once in a while – as I said earlier, when I feel enough is enough. BTW, “Jacques Iraq” is not a nick name coined by me. He has been coined so for decades, now. If you really want to have an argument or discussion, to learn things or to teach others, I would highly appreciate it and welcome, and I would be very respectful to your opinions as far as I don’t get a perception that you are arguing for the sake of the argument, to assert your ego, to engage in demagoguery, to sound “smart,” etc. And if I get that perception, most of the time, the you would not get response from me at all, or when “enough is enough,” I will respond appropriately. I don’t mean that you, personally, behave inappropriately. In fact, you have pretty reasonable posture, as I have said before. And when someone follows your example, I would respectfully address him/her, too. Unfortunately, that is not the reality of the “worriers” of this forum or many other activists outside it. So, because of your tone of discussion, let me address your comments, specifically. I truly believe that US has conducted itself in a maximally prudent manner. US is not in a position to “copycat” Canada. Canada has never attempted or resolved any international conflicts, because she (and not only she) knows that the US is there to do it for her. There is none that US may rely on. It is the most powerful country, it is the richest country, and when something is wrong anywhere, every one asks US to step in. The Balkans is the perfect example. Being a European problem by its scope and character, Europeans did not want to resolve it (though some of them had instigated it). They declared that they “didn’t have the capacity to solve the problem without the US.” Maybe they indeed could not, since they did not want to spend on building military might, nor were ready to incur the human cost. You are asking why not to wait for the inspectors. It is simple. Inspectors have been in Iraq for a decade. UN has passed 17 resolutions, since, demanding disarmament and compliance. Iraq has not complied. Until December 2002, it did not even let the inspectors in. When the US sent its army and the fleet to the region, then it let the inspectors in. Then, they started to play “cat and mouse,” each time yielding one more step, when the US would increase the military pressure. Guess what, if we expect that in a year or so, the inspectors are going to register progress, which I am sure would have never happened, because they are not in a position to find the hidden weaponry (they are not detectives), that meant the US was supposed to incur the cost of it for a questionable outcome. Inspectors, normally, verify that the weaponry subject to discussions has indeed been destroyed. This implies full cooperation from the Iraqi side. If the decade of experience and the 17 resolutions were not enough to understand the Iraqi handwriting then I don’t know what was enough. The continuation of the inspection regime, even for the sake of the idle process, would have implied maintenance of the US army in the region for expended periods and multibillion $ expenditures from the US side, which except UK no one was willing to share. But even then, the outcome was highly questionable, as I mentioned. I, personally, would not give a damn for the UN. It is a corrupt and obsolete organization. Syria and Libya are members of the Human Right committee in UN. I think Libya is the chairman, currently. Iraq was scheduled to become the chairman of the disarmament committee last month, I believe. UN has never resolved any serious problem except the humanitarian ones. The Bosnian problem was delegated to UN, the Rwandan problem was delegated to UN, same with Somalia... UN has passed 17 resolutions on Iraq in 10 years, perhaps several resolutions on Cyprus, same on Israel and Palestine, even on Karabagh. If UN cannot impose (for the sake of formality of the conversation) its will on Karabagh, how do you expect it do so on Iraq? It is a body where countries of frequently conflicting interests come together and talk. There is not a single political problem that UN has ever resolved. When NATO started to bomb Yugoslavia, I don’t recall anyone asking for the UN “blessing.” When Clinton occupied Haiti, I don’t recall any polarization of the “anti-war” sentiment. With Iraq, for some “mysterious” reason, the situation is different, and I have a pretty good idea, I think, why. You are also referencing to the “long run safety of the US population.” I disagree with your sentiment in this issue, too. The long run safety of the US population and btw, Canada, with that, should not be left on the mercy of Iraq, Iran, etc. If those who cultivate the hatred, animosity, misery in Middle East and elsewhere, make a strategic decision to deliver the problem to the US shores (this is what Al Qaeda did – it showed a way, sort of declared the opening of the season), US being an open society, cannot defend itself just internally. It has to take the fight where the problems are being incubated, and eliminate the problems which give rise to the climate of terrorism, and not to respond when they arrive in a fatal manner to the US soil. You are saying that, if UN would have authorized the use of force, France and Germany, but not Russia, would have joined. As much as I like you, forgive me, but this is a twisted logic. First of all, UN authorization would have meant authorization from France, Russia and China. This is what UN means - add UK and USA to the list. Anyone who knows a little bit about the core of the problem would know that France was never going to authorize it, because it is the sole country that is benefiting most from the existing situation, and it is behind much of the aggregation of the problem. France didn’t even authorize the first Gulf War. It just refrained from the voting. Russia, despite the unfavorable public opinion inside Russia, would have and did come to the US side – much like in1990. The infamous Evgeniy Primakov even delivered the “kiss of death” to Saddam. But when it became apparent that France was going to veto it no matter what, Russia (and China, and others) decided to take the safer rout – “why to stick your head out,” when the issue was deadlocked anyway? Basically, what you are saying, translates “don’t do it, unless France agrees.” It is not an acceptable logic, moreover, an acceptable international policy, more importantly, an acceptable US policy. “So then according to you, the bleeding heart Republicans are out to save the lives of the Iraqi people. I'm sorry, but I have trouble buying in to that argument,” you ask. I am sorry, but you have misread my argument. I hope it is not deliberately done, otherwise I would start to think that you are also demagoging the issue. I hope not. I have brought an argument about human, or better to say, about the civilian lives. I specifically specified that I don’t insinuate that this was the driving factor behind the US decision. I would like to add a secondary comment: even the Minister of Information of Iraq, the one qualified as Elmo by some, has not claimed more than 700 civilian deaths, so far. There are some here and elsewhere, that claim more than that. I have tried to make an argument based on national security. It has nothing to do with Republicans or Democrats. Half of the Democrats in the US Congress, especially those delegated by the function to define and oversee the US National Security policy, have recognized the inevitability of the war and have given their support for it. About “this coming up suddenly,” again… It didn’t come suddenly. It was going on for 12 years. It accelerated after 9/11. And there was no rush. The US introduced Resolution in September 2002, and waited till March 2003. To respond to your question, here is what we have got to earn from all this, in my view. There will be a representative government in Iraq – it will represent the disenfranchised Kurds, Sheites, and Christians, other than the Sunnies. The economic sanctions against Iraq will be lifted and the life there would slowly get to its normal rout. Iraq will be able to capitalize on the only source of wealth it has – oil. The new Iraqi government will recognize the right of Israel to exist. The US and UK forces will stay in Iraq for a while. Enormous pressure would be brought on Syria so that it stops sponsoring terrorism, stops its attempts of acquiring the Iraqi chemical and biological weapons, and recognized Israel’s right to exist. Enormous pressure would be brought on Saudi Arabia to “clean up its act.” It will also recognize the Israeli right to exist. This will be followed by the rest of the Arab world. Enormous pressure would be brought on Iran to help the secular part of the society to take over the process of governance in its hands. Most likely, it would not require military intervention. More than or about 70% of Iranian population is under 30 (my numbers may not be accurate, but reflect the gist of it). There will be variety of methods applied to transform the Iranian society into an open one. Iran will also recognize Israel’s right to exist. Palestinians would be required to recognize Israel’s right to exist. Enormous pressure will be brought on Israel to “clean its act.” It will be required to help the Palestinians to create a viable state. It will be required to stop the settlement of the occupied territories. There will be a very difficult issue with the repatriation of the Palestinian refugees – the biggest hurdle in the issue - less of so the status of Jerusalem. The North Korean problem would be attacked in multiple ways. The US will make the case to China and Russia that if they don’t bring the necessary pressure on North Korea to denuclearize and demilitarize the Korean peninsula, the US will deploy nuclear weapons in South Korea and Japan. If the attempt fails, the US will resolve the problem militarily - together with China and Russia or without them. This is how I see things. This is what I see this administration is trying to get done. Therefore, I wholeheartedly support it - both as someone who loves America and someone who loves Armenia. Much of what I conveyed is crucial for Armenia’s future existence, too. The human cost of all this would be much less than in the opposite case. I can perhaps go into further details, but it is not required, I think. In conclusion, here is what I have to say. I have no problem with the opposite view. After all, as correct as these arguments look to me, things may be more complex and I may be wrong. I can easily tolerate the differing view and, more easily, I can neglect it. But this is when I deal with a person who is sufficiently cultured, and is exercising his/her right of free speech within the framework of the acceptable common norms. I have significant allergy towards the toxic people, the “armchair experts,” ideological “prophets” and activists, Internet worriers (some of the people who I have loved and respected in the past, have turned into such), demagogues, etc. I would enjoy to not engage with them – until enough is enough. In conclusion, would like to convey to you a story. When I have not much work to do and am waiting for my next project, I read. Sometimes I read the materials from other Armenian forums to understand where the popular thought of those Armenians who share it over the Internet is. There is this guy, who would on a daily basis post a small material – his analysis on the world and regional affairs. It is nothing too competent or professional, nor stupid. It was sort of OK and, if not interesting, then at least entertaining. One day he posted a material claiming that “he believes that the international Oil Interests were behind the killings in the Armenian Parliament, few years ago." Since then, I stopped reading his materials – every time I saw his name, I just skept. But he is not a toxic person. It is easy to neglect his materials – especially that his posts were in a forum that I don’t care about. For some stupid reason, I do want to see this forum not contaminated with the toxicity and the trash that some people feel dumping here. Jeez, This was a long “essay!”

I did some online search of terrorist organizations worldwide. As expected, I found that their absolute majority is of Marxist-Leninist, Socialist-Communist orientation - even some of those which operate within the Islamic paradigm. I have also noticed, for long time, that the traditional US bashers are of the same orientation. The same concerns to the predominant majority of the “anti-war” people. It appears to me that there is something about socialistic sentiment, which turns even the good people into hateful bunch. In NY and elsewhere, the primary organizers of the “anti-war” protests where socialist and communist organizations. The question ( with obvious answer) is what does unify all of them? Here is the list, anyway (obviously it is not complete): 15 MAY ORGANIZATION DESCRIPTION Formed in 1979 from remnants of Wadi Haddad's Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-Special Operations Group (PFLP-SOG). Led by Muhammad al-Umari, who is known throughout Palestinian circles as Abu Ibrahim or the bomb man. Group was never part of PLO. Reportedly disbanded in the mid-1980s when several key members joined Colonel Hawari's Special Operations Group of Fatah. ACTIVITIES Claimed credit for several bombings in the early-to-mid- 1980s,including hotel bombing in London (1980), El Al's Rome and Istanbul offices (1981), and Israeli Embassies in Athens and Vienna (1981). Anti-US attacks include an attempted bombing of a Pan Am airliner in Rio de Janeiro and a bombing on board a Pan Am flight from Tokyo to Honolulu in August 1982. (The accused bomber in this last attack, Mohammed Rashid, is currently jailed in Greece following his conviction for the bombing, which killed a Japanese teenager.) STRENGTH 50 to 60 in early 1980s. LOCATION/AREA OF OPERATION Baghdad until 1984. Before disbanding, operated in Middle East, Europe, and East Asia, Abu Ibrahim is reportedly in Iraq. EXTERNAL AID Probably received logistic and financial support from Iraq until 1984. REVOLUTIONARY ORGANIZATION 17 NOVEMBER (17 November) Description A radical leftist group established in 1975 and named for the November 1973 student uprising protesting the military regime. Anti-US, anti-Turkish, anti-NATO; committed to violent overthrow of the regime, ouster of US bases, removal of Turkish military presence from Cyprus, and severing of Greece's ties to NATO and the EC. Organization is obscure, possibly affiliated with other Greek terrorist groups. Activities Initial attacks were selected handgun assassinations against senior US officials , including US Embassy official Richard Welch in 1975 and US Navy Captain George Tsantes in 1983. Began assassinating Greek officials and public figures in 1976 and added bombings, including attacks against US military buses in 1987 and assassination of US defense attache William Nordeen in 1988. Since 1990 has expanded targeting to include EC facilities and foreign firms investing in Greece, and added improvised rocket attacks to its methods. In 1991 was responsible for at least five of the 15 terrorist attacks against coalition targets in Greece during the Gulf War, including the assassination in March of a US Army sergeant. Also stepped up attacks against Turkish interests with attempted murder of Turkish Embassy official in July and assassination of Turkish Embassy press attache in October. Strength Unknown, but presumed to be small. Location/Area of Operations Greece, primarily in Athens metropolitan area. External Aid May receive support from ELA and other Greek terrorist group cadres. FIRST OF OCTOBER ANTIFASCIST RESISTANCE GROUP (GRAPO) DESCRIPTION Small, Maoist urban terrorist group established in 1975. Loosely associated with the Spanish Communist Party- Reconstituted. Seeks to remove US military forces from Spain and establish a revolutionary regime. ACTIVITIES Carried out small-scale bombing attacks on US and NATO facilities in early 1980s; capabilities reduced by arrests since 1985. During 1991, GRAPO claimed responsibility for bombing a rail line outside Madrid and segments of the NATO pipeline in Spain. STRENGTH Probably fewer than a dozen operatives. LOCATION/AREA OF OPERATION Spain. EXTERNAL AID Reported to have had ties to the French Action Directe and the Italian Red Brigades. The German RAF has sought ties to the group. FORCE 17 DESCRIPTION Formed in early 1970s as a personal security force for Arafat and other PLO leaders. ACTIVITIES According to press sources, in 1985 expanded operations to include terrorist attacks against Israeli targets. No confirmed terrorist activity outside Israel and the occupied territories since September 1985, when it claimed responsibility for killing three Israelis in Cyprus, an incident that was followed by Israeli air raids on PLO bases in Tunisia. STRENGTH Unknown. LOCATION/AREA OF OPERATION Based in Beirut before 1982. Since then, dispersed in several Arab countries. Now operating in Lebanon, other Middle Eastern countries, and Europe. EXTERNAL AID PLO is main source of support. ABU NIDAL ORGANIZATION (ANO) AKA: Fatah REvoloutionary Council, Arab Revolutionary Council, Arab Revolutionary Brigades, Black September, Revolutionary Organization of Socialist Muslims. DESCRIPTION: International terrorist organization led by Sabri alBanna. Split from the PLO in 1974. Made up of various functional committees, including political, military , and financial. ACTIVITIES: Has carried out over 90 terrorist attacks since 1974 in 20 countries, killing or injuring almost 900 people. Targets the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Isreal,moderate Palestinians, the PLO. and various Arab countries, depending on which state is sponsoring it at the time. Major attacks include Rome and Vienna airports in DEcember 1985, the Neve Shalom synagogue in Istanbul, the Pan Am Flight 73 hijacking in Karachi in September 1986, and The City of Poros day-excursion ship attack in july 1988 in Greece. Suspected of carrying out assasination on 14 January 1991 in Tunis of PLO deputy chief Abu Iyad and PLO security chief Abu Hul. ANO members also attacked and seriously wounded a senior ANO dissident in Algeria in MArch 1990. STRENGTH: Several hundred plus "militia" in Lebanon and overseas support structure. LOCATION/AREA OF OPERATION Headquarted in Irag (1974-83) and Syria (1983-87); currently headquarted in Libya with substantial presence in Lebanon (in the Bekaa Valley and several Palestinian refugee camps in coastal areas of Lebanon). Also has presence in Algeria. Has demonstrated ability to operate over wide aream including Middle East Asia and Europe. EXTERNAL AID: Has received considerable support, including safe haven, training, logistical assistance, and financial aid from Irag and Syria (until 1987); continues to receive aid from Libya, in addition to close support for selected operations. PALESTINE LIBERATION FRONT (PLF) DESCRIPTION Terrorist group that broke away from the PFLP-GC in mid- 1970s. Later split again into pro-PLO, pro-Syrian, and pro- Libyan factions. Pro-PLO faction led by Muhammad Abbas (Abu Abbas), who became member of PLO Executive Committee in 1984, but left the Executive Committee in 1991. ACTIVITIES Abu Abbas-led faction carried out abortive seaborne attack staged from Libya against Israel on 30 May 1990. Abbas's groups were also responsible for October 1985 attack on the cruise ship Achille Lauro and the murder of US citizen Leon Klinghoffer. A warrant for Abu Abbas's arrest is outstanding in Italy. Others who were involved in the hijacking are wanted elsewhere. Openly supported Iraq during Persian Gulf war. STRENGTH At least 50. LOCATION/AREA OF OPERATION PLO faction based in Tunisia until Achille Lauro attack. Now based in Iraq. EXTERNAL AID Receives logistic and military support mainly from PLO, but also Libya and Iraq. AL-FATAH AKA :Al-'Asifa. DESCRIPTION: Headed by Yasser Arafat, Fatah joined the PLO in 1968 and won the leadership role in 1969. Its commanders were expelled from Jordan following violent confrontations with Jordanian forces during the period 1970-71, beginning with Black September in 1970. he Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 led to the group's dispersal to several Middle Eastern countries, including Tunisia, Yemen, Algeria, Iraq, and others. Maintains several military and intelligence wings that have carried out terrorist attacks, including Force 17 and the Hawari Special Operations Group. Two of its leaders, Abu Jihad and Abu Iyad, were assassinated in recent years. ACTIVITIES: In the 60s and the 1970s, Fatah offered training to a wide range of European, Middle Eastern, Asian, and African terrorist and insurgent groups. Carried out numerous acts of international terrorism in Western Europe and Middle East in the early-to-mid-1970s. STRENGTH: 6,000 to 8,000. LOCATION / AREA OF OPERATION: Headquartered in Tunisia, with bases in Lebanon and other Middle Eastern countries. EXTERNAL AID: Has had close, longstanding political and financial ties to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and other moderate Persian Gulf states. These relations were disrupted by the Gulf crisis of 1990-91. Also has had links to Jordan. Received weapons, explosives, and training from the former USSR and the former Communist regimes of East European states. China and North Korea have reportedly provided some weapons. ________________________________________________ ARMENIAN SECRET ARMY FOR THE LIBERATION OF ARMENIA (ASALA) DESCRIPTION: Marxist-Leninist Armenian terrorist group formed in 1975 with stated intention to compel Turkish Government to acknowledge publicly its alleged responsibility for the deaths of 1.5 million Armenians in 1915, pay reparations, and cede territory for an Armenian homeland. Led by Hagop Hagopian until he was assassinated in Athens in April 1988. ACTIVITIES: Initial bombing and assassination attacks directed against Turkish targets. Later attacked French and Swiss targets to force release of imprisoned comrades. Made several minor bombing attacks against US airline offices in Western Europe in early 1980s. Bombing of Turkish airline counter at Orly Airport in Paris in 1983 --eight killed and 55 wounded--led to split in group over rationale for causing indiscriminate casualties. Suffering from internal schisms, group has been relatively inactive over past four years, although recently claimed an unsuccessful attack on Turkish Ambassador to Hungary. STRENGTH A few hundred members and sympathizers. LOCATION/AREA OF OPERATION Lebanon; Western Europe, Armenia, United States, and Middle East. EXTERNAL AID Has received aid, including training and safehaven, from Syria. May also receive some aid from Libya. Has extensive ties to radical Palestinian groups, including the PFLP and PFLP-GC. BASQUE FATHERLAND AND LIBERTY (ETA) DESCRIPTION Founded in 1959 with the aim of creating an independent homeland in Spain's Basque region. Has muted commitment to Marxism. In 1974 split into two factions--ETA/Political- Military and ETA- Military; the former has been inactive since limited home rule granted in 1982. Despite the arrest of several leaders and terrorist cells in Spain and France over the past two years, ETA-Military has continued to conduct lethal attacks. ACTIVITIES Chiefly bombings and assassinations of Spanish Government targets, especially security forces. Finances activities through kidnappings, robberies, and extortion . Bombings are sophisticated, lethal, and sometimes indiscriminate. Over 40 people were killed and over 200 injured in ETA attacks during 1991. STRENGTH Unknown; may have hundreds of members, plus supporters. LOCATION/AREA OF OPERATIONS Operates primarily in Spain and France, but conducted low- intensity bombings against Spanish diplomatic, commercial, and cultural facilities in Italy and Germany in 1991. EXTERNAL AID Has received training at various times in Libya, Lebanon, and Nicaragua. Also has close ties to PIRA. CHUKAKU-HA (Nucleus or Middle-Core Faction) DESCRIPTION An ultraleftist/radical group with origins in the fragmentation of the Japanese Communist Party in 1957. Largest domestic militant group; has political arm plus small, covert action wing called Kansai Revolutionary Army. Funding derived from membership dues, sales of its newspapers, and fundraising campaigns. ACTIVITIES Participates in mass protest demonstrations and snake- dancing in streets; supports farmers' protest of construction of Narita airport, among other causes; sabotaged part of Japanese railroad system in 1985 and 1986; sporadic attacks usually designed to cause only property damage through use of crude rockets and incendiary devices; anti-US attacks include small-scale rocket attempts against US military and diplomatic targets; no US casualties so far. STRENGTH 3,500. LOCATION/AREA OF OPERATION Japan. EXTERNAL AID None known. DEMOCRATIC FRONT FOR THE LIBERATION OF PALESTINE (DFLP) DESCRIPTION Marxist group that split from the PFLP in 1969. Believes Palestinian national goals can be achieved only through revolution of the masses. In early 1980s, occupied political stance midway between Arafat and the more radical rejectionists. Split into two factions in 1991, one pro- Arafat and another more hardline faction headed by Nayif Hawatmah. ACTIVITIES In the seventies, carried out numerous small bombings and minor assaults and some more spectacular operations in Israel and the occupied territories, concentrating on Israeli targets such as the 1974 massacre in Ma'alot in which 27 Israelis were killed and over 100 wounded. Involved only in border raids since 1988. STRENGTH Estimated at 500 (total for both factions). LOCATION/AREA OF OPERATION Syria, Lebanon, and the Israeli--occupied territories; attacks have taken place entirely in Israel and the occupied territories. EXTERNAL AID Receives financial and military aid from Syria and Libya. DEVRIMCI SOL (aka: DEV SOL) DESCRIPTION Formed in 1978 as a splinter faction of the Turkish People's Liberation Party/Front. Espouses a Marxist ideology, intensely xenophobic, and virulently anti-US and anti-NATO; seeks to unify the proletariat to stage a national revolution. Finances its activities chiefly through armed robberies and extortion. ACTIVITIES Conducted attacks against US, Turkish, and NATO targets until weakened by massive arrests during 1981-83. Methods of attack include handgun assassinations and bombings. Since reemergence during late 1980s, has concentrated attacks against current and retired Turkish security and military officials; responsible for the murders of four active and retired generals and nearly 30 police officers in 1991. Resumed operations against foreign interests during 1991, claiming responsibility for assassinating two American contractors and one British businessman; attempted the murder of a US Air Force officer and over 30 bombings against Western diplomatic, commercial, and cultural facilities. STRENGTH Several hundred members, several dozen armed militants. LOCATION/AREA OF OPERATION Carries out attacks in Turkey--primarily in Istanbul, Ankara, Izmir, and Adana . Conducts fundraising operations in Western Europe. EXTERNAL AID Possible training support from radical Palestinians. REVOLUTIONARY ARMED FORCES OF COLOMBIA (FARC) Description Established in 1966 as military wing of Colombian Communist Party; is largest guerrilla group there. Goal is to overthrow government and ruling class; anti-US. Organized along military lines, includes at least one urban front. Activities Armed attacks against Colombian targets, bombings of US businesses, kidnappings of Colombians and foreigners for ransom, and assassinations. Traffics in drugs and has well- documented ties to drug traffickers. Peace talks with Colombian Government have proved unsuccessful. Strength Approximately 4,500 to 5,500 armed combatants and 10,000 supporters. Location/Area of Operation Colombia. External Aid FARC has ties to Cuba; amount of aid unknown. FARABUNDO MARTI NATIONAL LIBERATION FRONT (FMLN) DESCRIPTION Formed in 1980 with Cuban backing, the guerrilla umbrella organization is composed of five leftist groups: Central American Workers' Revolutionary Party (PRTC), People's Revolutionary Army (ERP), Farabundo Marti Popular Liberation Forces (FPL), Armed Forces of National Resistance (FARN), and the Communist Party of El Salvador's Armed Forces of Liberation (FAL). The group reached a peace agreement with the Government of El Salvador on 31 December 1991. ACTIVITIES Bombings, assassinations, economic sabotage, arson, among other rural and urban operations. Since 1988 the FMLN increased urban terrorism in the capital. STRENGTH 6,000 to 7,000 combatants. LOCATION/AREA OF OPERATION El Salvador, limited activity in Honduras. EXTERNAL AID Has received direct support from Cuba and receives support from the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, where it maintains an office. The FMLN also receives significant financial support from front groups and sympathetic organizations in the United States and Europe. HAWARI GROUP DESCRIPTION Part of Yasser Arafat's Fatah apparatus, the group is named after its leader commonly known as Colonel Hawari, who died in an automobile crash in May 1991 while traveling from Baghdad to Jordan. The group has ties historically to Iraq. Membership includes former members of the radical Palestinian 15 May organization. ACTIVITIES Carried out several attacks in 1985 and 1986, mainly in Europe and usually against Syrian targets. Has also targeted Americans, most notably in the April 1986 bombing of TWA Flight 840 over Greece in which four Americans were killed. Future of group uncertain following Hawari's death. STRENGTH Unknown. LOCATION/AREA OF OPERATION Middle Eastern countries and Europe. EXTERNAL AID PLO is main source of support. HIZBALLAH (Party of God) aka: Islamic Jihad, Revolutionary Justice Organization, Organization of the Oppressed on Earth, Islamic Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine DESCRIPTION Radical Shia group formed in Lebanon; dedicated to creation of Iranian-style Islamic republic in Lebanon and removal of all non-Islamic influences from area. Strongly anti-West and anti-Israel. Closely allied with, and often directed by, Iran. Dissidents, however, have conducted rogue operations that were not approved by Tehran. ACTIVITIES Known or suspected to have been involved in numerous anti-US terrorist attacks, including the suicide truck bombing on the US Marine barracks in Beirut in October 1983 and the US Embassy anex in September 1984. Elements of the group were responsible for the kidnapping and continuing detention of most, if not all, US and other Western hostages in Lebanon. STRENGTH Several thousand. LOCATION/AREA OF OPERATION Operates in the Bekaa Valley, the southern suburbs of Beirut, and southern Lebanon; has established cells in Western Europe, Africa, and elsewhere. EXTERNAL AID Receives substantial amounts of financial, training, weapons, explosives, political, diplomatic, and organizational aid from Iran. JAPANESE RED ARMY (JRA) DESCRIPTION An international terrorist group formed about 1970 after breaking away from Japanese Communist League Red Army Faction. Now led by Fusako Shigenobu, believed to be in Syrian-garrisoned area of Lebanon's Bekka Valley. Stated goals are to overthrow Japanese Government and monarchy and to help foment world revolution. Organization unclear, but may control or at least have ties to Anti- Imperialist International Brigade (AIIB); may also have links to Antiwar Democratic Front--an overt leftist political organization-- inside Japan. Details released following November 1987 arrest of leader Osamu Maruoka indicate that JRA may be organizing cells in Asian cities, such as Manila and Singapore. Has had close and longstanding relations with Palestinian terrorist groups--based and operating outside Japan--since its inception. ACTIVITIES Before 1977, JRA carried out series of brutal attacks over wide geographical area, including the massacre of passengers at Lod airport in Israel (1972) and two Japanese airliner hijackings (1973 and 1977). Anti-US attacks include attempted takeover of US Embassy in Kuala Lumpur (1975). Since mid-1980s has carried out several crude rocket and mortar attacks against a number of US embassies. In April 1988, JRA operative Yu Kikumura was arrested with explosives on the New Jersey Turnpike, apparently planning an attack to coincide with the bombing of a USO Club in Naples, a suspected JRA operation that killed five, including a US servicewoman. He was convicted of these charges and is serving a lengthy prison sentence in the United States. STRENGTH About 30 hardcore members; undetermined number of sympathizers. LOCATION/AREA OF OPERATION Based in Syrian-controlled areas of Lebanon; often transits Damascus. EXTERNAL AID Receives aid, including training and base camp facilities, from radical Palestinian terrorists, especially the PFLP. May also receive aid from Libya. Suspected of having sympathizers and support apparatus in Japan. KURDISH WORKER'S PARTY (PKK) DESCRIPTION Marxist-Leninist terrorist group composed of Turkish Kurds established in mid-1970s. Seeks to set up Marxist state in southeastern Turkey, which has a large population of Kurds. ACTIVITIES Primary targets are Turkish Government forces and civilians in southeastern Turkey, but is becoming increasingly active in Western Europe against Turkish targets and rival Kurdish groups. In 1986,attacked NATO target in Mardin, Turkey. Last summer the PKK carried out a spate of kidnappings of Westerners; all were released unharmed. STRENGTH 3,000, plus 2,000 to 5,000 supporters. LOCATION/AREA OF OPERATIONS Iran, Syria, and Iraq. Operates in Turkey and Western Europe; training facilities in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley. EXTERNAL AID Probably still receives some aid and safehaven from Syria, Iran, and Iraq. EMANUEL RODRIGUEZ PATRIOTIC FRONT (FPMR) DESCRIPTION The FPMR was founded in 1983 as the armed wing of the Chilean Communist Party. Named for a hero in Chile's war of independence against Spain. The main movement announced it was laying down arms to become a political movement on 1 June 1991. The group splintered in 1987 into two factions, of which the dissident wing (FPMR/D) is now one of Chile's most active terrorist groups. ACTIVITIES FPMR/D is responsible for numerous bombing attacks against domestic and foreign targets and assassinations of Chileans. Responsible for many attacks on Mormon churches and US businesses from 1986 through 1991. In November 1990 an FPMR/D bomb concealed in a softball bat killed a Canadian and injured a US Embassy officer . The group attacked a Marine guard van at the US Embassy on 16 February with an antitank rocket that did not detonate and automatic weapons fire, injuring one US Marine. STRENGTHM 1,000 to 1,500. LOCATION/AREA OF OPERATION Chile. EXTERNAL AID Received training and weapons support from Cuba in past years, none in 1991. May cross-train with Peru's MRTA. MORAZANIST PATRIOTIC FRONT (FPM) DESCRIPTION A radical, leftist terrorist group that first appeared in the late 1980s. Attacks made in protest of US intervention in Honduran economic and political affairs. ACTIVITIES Attacks on US, mainly military, personnel in Honduras. Claimed responsibility for attack on a bus in March 1990 that wounded seven US servicemen. Claimed bombing of Peace Corps office in December 1988, bus bombing that wounded three US servicemen in February 1989, attack on US convoy in April 1989, and grenade attack that wounded seven US soldiers in La Ceiba in July 1989. STRENGTH Unknown, probably relatively small. LOCATION/AREA OF OPERATION Honduras. EXTERNAL AID Had ties to former Government of Nicaragua and possibly Cuba. LAUTARO YOUTH MOVEMENT (MJL) aka: The Lautaro faction of the United Popular Action Movement (MAPU/L) or Lautaro Popular Rebel Forces (FRPL) DESCRIPTION Violent, anti-US, extremist group that advocates the overthrow of the Chilean Government. Leadership largely from leftist elements, but includes criminals and alienated youths. Recruits from poorer areas of cities. The leftist group became active in late 1980s. Its assaults during 1990 increased in number and sophistication and have continued through 1991. ACTIVITIES Has been linked to several assassinations of policemen, bank robberies, and bombings and burnings of Mormon chapels. STRENGTH Unknown. LOCATION/AREA OF OPERATION Chile; mainly in Santiago. EXTERNAL AID May have ties to Cuba. MOZAMBICAN NATIONAL RESISTANCE (Resistencia Nacional Mocambicana, or RENAMO) DESCRIPTION Established in 1976 by the Rhodesian security services, primarily to operate against anti-Rhodesian guerrillas based in Mozambique. South Africa subsequently developed RENAMO into an insurgent group opposing the Front for the Liberation of Mozambique (FRELIMO). ACTIVITIES Operates as a guerrilla insurgency against Mozambique Government and civilian targets; frequently and increasingly runs cross-border operations into Zimbabwe, Malawi, and Zambia, where it has murdered and kidnapped numerous civilians and destroyed property. STRENGTH 20,000 guerrillas. LOCATION/AREA OF OPERATION Mozambique; border areas of Zimbabwe, Malawi, and Zambia. EXTERNAL AID Assistance previously received from South Africa as well as from private Individuals and groups in Europe and elsewhere. NATIONAL LIBERATION ARMY (ELM)--Bolivia DESCRIPTION Claims to be revived ELN that was established by Che Guevara in the 60s and was active into the early 70s. Holds traditional Marxist-Leninist revolutionary ideologies. Operates as an umbrella group over numerous small Bolivian subversive movements that includes the CNPZ. ACTIVITIES During 1991 focused on domestic Bolivian targets. See Nestor Paz Zamora Commissi on (CNPZ) for further information on ELN activities. Threats against US interests continued through 1991. Probably responsible for fake bomb placed in US Embassy elevator in April 1991. STRENGTH Unknown. LOCATION/AREA OF OPERATION Bolivia. EXTERNAL AID May receive training, logistic, and other limited support from Peru's MRTA. _______________________________________________________- NATIONAL LIBERATION ARMY (ELN)--Colombia DESCRIPTION Rural-based, anti-US, Maoist-Marxist-Leninist guerrilla group formed in 1963. Engaged in unsuccessful peace talks with the Government of Colombia during 1991. ACTIVITIES Periodically kidnaps foreign employees of large corporations and holds them for very large ransom payments. Extortion and bombing attacks against US and other foreign businesses in Colombia, particularly the petroleum industry. Has inflicted major damage on oil pipelines since 1986. STRENGTH 1,000 to 2,000. LOCATION/AREA OF OPERATION Colombia. EXTERNAL AID In the past received limited arms and training from Cuba and training from Nicaragua. NESTOR PAZ ZAMORA COMMISSION (CNPZ) Discription Radical leftist terrorist organization that first appeared in October 1990. Named after deceased brother of President Paz Zamora. Currently operates under the ELN (Bolivia) umbrella. Violent, extremely anti-US, Marxist-Leninist organization. ACTIVITIES The group attacked the US Embassy Marine guardhouse on 10 October 1990 with automatic weapons and a bomb. One Bolivian policeman was killed and another seriously injured in the attack. STRENGTH Unknown. Probably fewer than 100. LOCATION/AREA OF OPERATION Bolivia. EXTERNAL AID Peru's MRTA has provided training, limited funding, and logistic support. NEW PEOPLE'S ARMY (NPA) DESCRIPTION The guerrilla arm of the Communist Party of the Philippines, an avowedly Maoist group formed in December 1969 with the aim of overthrowing the government through protracted guerrilla warfare. Although primarily a rural-based guerrilla group , the NPA has an active urban infrastructure to carry out terrorism; uses city-based assassination squads called sparrow units. Derives most of its funding from contributions of supporters and revolutionary taxes extorted from local business. ACTIVITIES In addition to guerrilla activities, has used urban terrorism,including attacks on government officials, police, and military officers in Manila and other majo r cities. Has vowed to kill US citizens who allegedly are involved in the government's counterinsurgency campaign. The NPA has killed 10 US military members and private American citizens in the Philippines since 1987. Attacked some US businesses located in rural areas who refused to pay so-called revolutionary taxes. STRENGTH 16,000, plus support groups. LOCATION/AREA OF OPERATION The Philippines. EXTERNAL AID Receives funding from overseas fundraisers in Western Europe and elsewhere; also linked to Libya. Diverts some funding of humanitarian aid. POPULAR FRONT FOR THE LIBERATION OF PALESTINE-GENERAL COMMAND (PFLP-GC) DESCRIPTION Split from the PFLP in 1968, claiming that it wanted to focus more on fighting and less on politics. Violently opposed to Arafat's PLO. Led by Ahmad Jabril, a former captain in the Syrian Army. Closely allied with, supported by, and probably directed by Syria. ACTIVITIES Claims to have specialized in suicide operations. Has carried out numerous cross-border terrorist attacks into Israel, using unusual means, such as hot-air balloons and motorized hang gliders. Hafiz Kassem Dalkamoni, a ranking PFLP-GC official, was convicted in Germany in June 1991 for bombing US troop trains. He faces additional charges in Germany for other terrorist offenses, including manslaughter. STRENGTH Several hundred. LOCATION/AREA OF OPERATION Headquarters in Damascus with bases in Lebanon and cells in Europe. EXTERNAL AID Receives logistic and military support from Syria, its chief sponsor. Financial support from Libya. Safehaven in Syria. Support also from Iran. PALESTINIAN ISLAMIC JIHAD (PIJ) DESCRIPTION The PIJ originated among militant Palestinian fundamentalists in the Gaza Strip during the 1970s. The PIJ may be a series of loosely affiliated factions, rather than a cohesive group. The PIJ is committed to the creation of an Islamic Palestinian state and the destruction of Israel through holy war. Because of its strong support for Israel, the United States has been identified as an enemy of the PIJ. The PIJ also opposes moderate Arab governments that it believes have been tainted by Western secularism. ACTIVITIES The PIJ demonstrated its terrorist credentials when it attacked a tour bus in Egypt in February 1990 and killed 11 people, including nine Israelis. The PIJ also has carried out cross-border raids against Israeli targets in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. A PIJ leader in Jordan has publicly threatened to attack US interests. PIJ agents were arrested in Egypt in September 1991 while attempting to enter the country to conduct terrorism. STRENGTH Unknown. LOCATION/AREA OF OPERATIONS Primarily Israel and occupied territories and other parts of the Middle East, including Jordan and Lebanon. EXTERNAL AID Uncertain, possibly Iran and Syria. FRONT FOR THE LIBERATION OF PALESTINE SPECIAL COMMAND (PFLP-SC) DESCRIPTION Marxist-Leninist group formed by Abu Salim in 1979 after breaking away from the now-defunct PFLP-Special Operations Group. ACTIVITIES Has claimed responsibility for several notorious international terrorist attacks in Western Europe, including the bombing of a restaurant frequented by US servicemen in Torrejon, spain, in April 1985. Eighteen Spanish civilians were killed in the attack. STRENGTH 50. LOCATION/AREA OF OPERATION Operates out of southern Lebanon, in various areas of the Middle East, and in Western Europe. EXTERNAL AID Probably receives financial and military support from Syria, Libya, and Iraq. PALESTINE LIBERATION ORGANIZATION (PLO) DESCRIPTION Founded in 1964 as a Palestinian nationalist umbrella organization dedicated to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. After the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, control devolved to the leadership of the various fedayeen militia groups, the most dominant of which was Yasser Arafat's Al-Fatah. In 1969, Arafat became chairman of the PLO's Executive Committee, a position he still holds. In the early 1980s, PLO became fragmented into several contending groups but remains the preeminent Palestinian organization. The United States considers the PLO an umbrella organization that includes several constituent groups and individuals holding differing views on terrorism. At the same time, US policy accepts that elements of the PLO have advocated, carried out, or accepted responsibility for acts of terrorism. PLO Chairman Arafat publicly renounced terrorism in December 1988 on behalf of the PLO. The United States considers that all PLO groups, including Al-Fatah, Force 17, Hawari Group, PLF, and PFLP, are bound by Arafat's renunciation of terrorism. The US-PLO dialogue was suspended after the PLO failed to condemn the 30 May 1990 PLF attack on Israeli beaches. PLF head Abu Abbas left the PLO Executive Committee in September 1991; his seat was filled by another PLF member. ACTIVITIES In the early 1970s, several groups affiliated with the PLO carried out numerous international terrorist attacks. By the mid-1970s, under international pressure, the PLO claimed it would restrict attacks were later carried out by groups affiliated with the PLO/Fatah, including the Hawari Group, the Palestine Liberation Front, and Force 17, against targets inside and outside of Israel. STRENGTH See numbers for affiliated groups. LOCATION/AREA OF OPERATION Tunis, other bases in various countries in the Middle East. EXTERNAL AID See affiliated groups. Accurate public information on financial support for the PLO by Arab governments is difficult to obtain. POPULAR STRUGGLE FRONT (PSF) Description Radical Palestinian terrorist group once closely involved in the Syrian-dominated Palestinian National Salvation Front. Led by Dr. Samir Ghosheh. Rejoined the PLO in September 1991. Activities Terrorist attacks against Israeli, moderate Arab, and PLO targets. Strength Fewer than 300. Location/Area of Operation Mainly Syria and Lebanon, and elsewhere in the Middle East. External Aid Receives support from Syria and may now receive aid from the PLO. RED ARMY FACTION (RAF) Description The small and disciplined RAF is the successor to the Baader Meinhof Gang, which originated in the student protest movement in the 1960s. Ideology is an obscure mix of Marxism and Maoism; committed to armed struggle. Organized into hardcore cadres that carry out terrorist attacks and a network of supporters who provide logistic and propaganda support. Has survived despite numerous arrests of top leaders over the years. Activities Bombings, assassinations, kidnappings, and robberies. Targets German Government and private sector and US interests. Among the latter, attempted assassination in Belgium of NATO Commander (1979); bombing of NATO Air Force headquarters in Ramstein (1981); rocket attack of USAREUR Commander in Heidelberg (1981); and bombing of Rhein-Main Air Force Base (1985). In February 1991, the RAF fired approximately 250 assault rifle rounds at the US Embassy in Bonn, and in April the group assassinated the German Trust Agency director, Detlev Karsten Rohwedder. Strength Ten to 20, plus several hundred supporters. Location/Area of Operations Germany. External Aid Basically self-sustaining, but during Baader-Meinhof period received some support from Middle Eastern terrorist groups; some ties may still exist. The RAF received logistic support, sanctuary, and training from the German Democratic Republic during the early 1980s. The RAF appears to be developing closer ties to GRAPO in Spain. REVOLUTIONARY PEOPLE'S STRUGGLE (ELA) Description Formed in 1971 to oppose the Greek military junta; is a self described leftwing revolutionary, anticapitalist, anti- imperialist group. Organization is unclear, but probably consists of a loose coalition of several very small and violent groups or affiliates, possibly including 17 November. Activities Before 1974, was nonviolent; turned to terrorism after removal of junta. Has targeted US military and business facilities and, since 1986, stepped up attacks on Greek Government and commercial interests; primary method has been bombings of buildings, apparently without intent to endanger life. Safehouse raid in November 1990 revealed weapons cache and direct contacts with 1 May and Revolutionary Solidarity; during 1991, ELA and 1 May claimed joint responsibility for over 20 bombings. Strength Unknown, perhaps up to 20 or 30, plus supporters. Location/Area of Operation Greece. External Aid No known foreign sponsors. SENDERO LUMINOSO (Shining Path, SL) Description Peru's largest subversive organization is among the world's most dangerous and ruthless terrorist groups. Formed in late 1960s by then university professor Abimael Guzman Reynoso. Goal is to destroy existing Peruvian institutions and replace them with a peasant revolutionary regime as well as to rid Peru of foreign influences. Has extensive ties to narcoproducers and narcotraffickers working in Peru. Activities Killed 10 foreigners in 1991. Engages in particularly brutal forms of terrorism. Originally rural based, but has increasingly operated in urban areas since 1986 . Has attacked diplomatic missions of nearly every country represented in Peru, foreign businesses, foreign and domestic humanitarian aid projects, in addition to Peruvian Government and private-sector targets. Strength 4,000 to 5,000 combatants. Strong rural support base. Location/Area of Operation Peru. External Aid No known foreign sponsors. Receives money from drug trade, including Colombian narcotics traffickers. TERRA LLIURE (TL) (Free Land) Description Leftwing Catalonian separatist terrorist group formed in the 1970s with the goal of establishing an independent Marxist state in the Spanish Provinces of Catalonia and Valencia. Leadership announced in July 1991 that the group had ceased terrorist operations, but hardcore members may remain active. Activities Mainly small-scale bombing attacks against property in northeastern Spain. Targets include foreign banks and travel agencies. Reportedly renounced terrorism in July 1991. Strength Unknown. Location/Area of Operation Spain. External Aid None known. TUPAC AMARU REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENT (MRTA) Description Traditional Marxist-Leninist revolutionary movement in Peru formed in 1983. Led by Nestor Serpa and Victor Polay. Objective is to rid Peru--and perhaps region--of "imperialist" influence and establish a Marxist regime. Activities Responsible for more anti-US attacks than any other group in Latin America. In 1990 and 1991, attacked the US Ambassador's residence, bombed the US Consulate and US-Peruvian Binational Center, attacked US businesses and Mormon churches. Attacked Peru's Presidential Palace, and President Fujimori's airplane in 1991. Strength 1,000 to 2,000 combatants. Location/Area of Operation Peru. Bolivia in conjunction with the ELN. External Aid Has received training in Cuba. May have ties to Libya. PROVISIONAL IRISH REPUBLICAN ARMY (PIRA) aka: The Provos Description A radical terrorist group formed in 1969 as the clandestine armed wing of Sinn Fein, a legal political movement dedicated to removing British forces from Northern Ireland and then to unify Ireland. Has a Marxist orientation. Organized into small, tightly knit cells under the leadership of the Army Council. Activities Bombings, assassinations, kidnappings, extortion, and robberies. Targets government and private-sector interests--including senior British officials and British military targets in Western Europe-and Northern Irish Protestant paramilitary organizations. Has become increasingly indiscriminate in its spectacular bombing attacks. PIRA has stepped up operations on mainland Britain over the past two years, conducting over 20 attacks there during 1991. In February, a mortar attack against No. 10 Downing Street was launched while Prime Minister Major and senior members of his Cabinet were meeting. Bombing at two busy railway stations in central London resulted in the death of one civilian and injury to dozens more. In December, PIRA exploded a 2,000-pound bomb outside a police station in Northern Ireland, injuring over 60 civilians, and launched a wave of bomb attacks against rail lines and shopping centers on the British mainland. Strength Several hundred, plus several thousand sympathizers. Location/Area of Operation Northern Ireland, Irish Republic, Great Britain, and Western Europe. External Aid Has received aid from a variety of groups and countries and considerable training and arms from Libya and, at one time, the PLO. Also is suspected of receiving funds and arms from sympathizers in the United States. Maintains links to ETA. http://members.tripod.com/terrorism_is_ok/groups.html

Alpha, I was thinking of organizing better my thoughts and responding to your material at /cgi-bin/forum/ultim...17;t=000340;p=2 , further, but decided to do a little search, first. I found a material which is not great, in my view, but it is not bad either. So, I open this new thread. I think it is worth looking at things without hype and with an attempt to better understand the issues. . So, here it is. You can find some other materials on their site referenced below. If I find some noteworthy materials elsewhere, I will open a new thread and ------------------------------------------------------------------- What the War on Iraq Means Analysis March 2003 by David Tucker The impending war on Iraq is the direct consequence of the Bush Administration's national security strategy. If the Bush administration and its successors follow this strategy, as they should, it will alter in a fundamental way the character of international relations. The strategy argues in effect that a fundamental change is necessary in international relations because the world is changing in a fundamental way. Technological advances mean that greater and greater power—chemical, biological and nuclear—can be in the hands of more and more nations and even individuals. In such a world, we will not be able to count on our ability to deter these nations and individuals from using this great destructive power against us, as we were able to count on deterrence in our confrontation with the Soviet Union. We must, therefore, act preemptively, since we cannot let our enemies strike first. Some commentators who support the Bush Administration's strategy have tried to argue that there is nothing fundamentally new here. Victor Davis Hanson, for example, has claimed that preemption is as old as warfare and that the United States fought preemptive wars in "Grenada, Panama, Serbia, and Kosovo." Hanson is right that nations have acted preemptively but they have not declared it their policy to do so. They have sought, instead, pretexts for their actions, often trying to provoke an action to which they could then respond militarily. This hypocrisy was the honor vice paid to virtue. But this is not what the Bush security strategy calls for. It is not what we are doing in the case of Iraq. Nor is it true that we did this in the cases that Hanson cites. In Grenada and Panama, we did not act until U.S. citizens had been attacked. In both Bosnia and Kosovo, Milosevic and his allies were the aggressors. We responded with our allies on behalf of the international community. To its credit, the Bush administration has been forthright in explaining the character of the innovation it has proposed and is now acting on with regard to Iraq. Its national strategy document notes that international law recognizes that a nation does not have to suffer an attack before it responds. It notes as well, however, that according to international law the threat to which a nation responds must be imminent, "a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack." But in a world where weapons of mass destruction "can be easily concealed, delivered covertly, and used without warning," the strategy argues, "we must adapt the concept of imminent threat." In other words, in the past the fact that an enemy had an army, navy or air force was not sufficient to justify attacking him. These forces had to be poised to attack. Today, more destructive power than military forces of the past possessed can be contained in a few vials or a small device that can be concealed and used clandestinely. Therefore, the mere possession of weapons of mass destruction, along with hostile intent, makes a country a legitimate target for military action. This is what the Bush national strategy means and what the war on Iraq exemplifies. The logic of the Bush administration's position is unassailable. But we should not underestimate its consequences. For example, as we have seen in the case of Iraq, it will make international cooperation more difficult, because it is harder to reach consensus about when to act to counter threats that are less evident than massed military forces on someone's border. In addition, much of the material used in producing weapons of mass destruction can also be used for peaceful purposes, which will introduce more ambiguity into assessments of threats. The cost of war will discourage capricious use of this new doctrine, but even so, less international cooperation will mean a more contentious and possibly more violent world. But wars of preemption are not all that will occur, if we follow the new doctrine. In fact, the logic of the new strategy and the cost of war should make us willing to intervene early in the chain of actions that lead to possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). We should be willing to use military force to prevent the production or shipment of material that could be used to produce such weapons. This would mean conducting raids to destroy production facilities and seizing ships at sea. In short, the Bush administration's strategy, if consistently applied, points to a world in which violence is more prevalent but justified by the hope that it will prevent the greater violence of a WMD attack in the United States. The Bush administration's strategy is a revolution because it reverses the now centuries old effort to restrict the freedom of sovereign states to use military force outside their borders. Such a strategy is necessary but, whatever the outcome of the war in Iraq, we should understand it to be a sad necessity. David Tucker is a Member of the Board of Advisors at the Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs at Ashland University and an Associate Professor of Defense Analysis at the Naval Postgraduate School. He is the author of Skirmishes at the Edge of Empire: The United States and International Terrorism. The views expressed here are his own and do not reflect the position of the Naval Postgraduate School, Navy Department, or Department of Defense. http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/oped

Shut up, you, "gataghadz vochkhar" (it translates "idiot").

Today they declared that Iraq is the ancient cradle of civilization.

Some devices may be advisable for overcoming certain challenges caused by Francophile zealotry. Glossary of proper terminology maybe found in the traditional manuals of Signal Processing. http://www.quietnoise.com/damping.htm

Sip, Would you dampen the White Noise, please?

Vava, When you talk about biases, it assumes that you know the accurate picture of things, and you can judge what is biased and what is truthful. I put my trust in that material with a pretty high degree of confidence. I can assure you that I would not put my trust in trash copied and pasted from the Web page of SocIntern (Socialist International), figuratively speaking, or the rest of the similar and affiliated organizations. Copying and Pasting trash (forgive my French ) from one trashy site to another, and multiplying it does not make it more credible. I can immediately tell you one source of the report, on the basis of which this material is composed – the 12,000 page December 7th Report of the Iraqi government to the UN Security Council. I am sure there are other sources, too. I would advise you to contact the responsible officers of Coalition for International Justice (see their web site) and ask them what sources they have used. You don’t have to say that you are not a US Tax-payer. Being a non-profit organization and, I suspect tax-exempt, they would be obligated to answer you. I definitely believe in them being an independent agency. It doesn’t mean that I claim their material is 100% accurate. Not because I think that, much like Michael Moor, they may be deliberately misleading the public, but just due to an understanding that even the most professional studies under the existing circumstances may be incomplete and may have flaws. However, everything that I read there, looks to be absolutely logical and professional to me. Bush Administration did not suddenly declare war. It did everything it could to get things done under the UN auspices. However, it did not surrender the decision making process in the name of the national security of the US to the mercy of Jacques Iraq. The war might have been avoided, perhaps, if Saddam’s old accomplices would not give him signs that they will do everything to save his neck. I can assure you that, at least up to yesterday, Saddam (assuming he is alive), was counting on his old friends being able to save him. And, yes, it is a regime, since it has not come to power through an elective and democratic process, nor Iraq is a monarchy where the power may be passed through the inheritance right. As far as the human life is concerned, that is a good argument. As a result of the existing status quo, which all of the opponents of the war vehemently supported to continue, in the last 10 years or so about 1,000,000 Iraqi civilians have died, including about 600,000 children (I know, I know, Sip, children are not more valuable than the adults. ) That means, roughly, 10,000 civilians a month. Assuming that US would’ve agreed to delay the offensive, and to grant the UN Inspectors “few more months,” that would have meant “few more tens of thousands" civilian lives. By the Iraqi accounts, publicized the last couple of days, so far about 460 civilians have been killed. It is widely believed that that number is inflated and, in particular, it includes those killed by the Iraqi side as an act of reprisal, those killed through their own bombing of their own people, and through using them as human shields and suicide bombers. If this is the case, it is better to have the courage to launch an overwhelming offensive and win quickly and swiftly, than to continue the agony of the people for months/years. I am not claiming that this was the only consideration from the US side, when launching the offensive, but it definitely is one of the valid considerations. In reality (outside the hypothetical world), you may be compelled to make choice between the bad choice, the worse choice and the worst choice. I have addressed some of your other arguments in my earlier postings. In the view of what is apparent regarding the social, economic and political climate in Iraq, the overthrowing of this regime and the helping to even instill a better (let it be) regime, may be qualified as liberation. So much for today… [ April 05, 2003, 06:21 AM: Message edited by: MJ ]

quote:Originally posted by Domino: quote:Originally posted by MJ:Thank God! You still believe in God ? What about Santa ? I will tell you that only when you shave your mustache and change your forum user name to WhiteNoise.

Thank God!

quote:Originally posted by Domino:... because afterall I am just a dumb. I have been very clear on that subject, before.

quote:Originally posted by THOTH: quote:Originally posted by MJ:The link between Al Qaeda and Iraq is a fact. This is a completely and utterly untrue statement.Fine. Today, I have already committed more time to this forum than I can afford.

No, not better. What I expected, though. First of all, most of these "facts" tell no story to the reader and some are simply false. Additionally, so that to provide some credibility to the presumed argument, I think you should also reference such lines as what in the last several decades the foreign policies of Soviet Union/Russia, Germany, UK, France, China, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Pakistan, India, etc, have done. Perhaps, then, in that large picture of things, we can really understand what the US foreign policy has done. P.S. I can guarantee you that I have no interest to go on and on, on the topic, either. I always force myself to speak out - when I feel enough is enough. Btw, I appreciate the work that you are doing for Armenia. Therefore, would not like to "cross my sword with you," as disagreeable as I find your conceptual world on broader issues. [ April 04, 2003, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: MJ ]

quote:Originally posted by Raffi Kojian:

[continuation] You say the Administration has tried hard to find links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and has failed. In fact, it has not tried to do so. It is the opponents of the Administration who have demanded such “evidence.” It is like, first you make a false problem up, and then you demand someone solve it. The Administration has brought a number of facts which attest to the link, but it has never been a driving factor and is attributable to a deeper understanding of the issue, which is not expected from the ‘masses.’ Some have expected that the suggested link was going to be such a broad scale that just on its own, it would have provided “moral ground” for the offensive over Iraq. It is not the Administration’s fault but of those who have a very narrow scope of understanding of the issue. The Administration did not try to make case based on Al Qaeda, though for some understandable, perhaps, reason, this is what the average consumer might have expected. Terrorism has long history, and it precedes Al Qaeda, and goes way beyond the organizational and missionary scope of Al Qaeda. If Al Qaeda is even eliminated, there will be some other group or individual, or more likely some secret state structure, which would be positioned to commit more astonishing terrorist acts, as long as there is an international or regional issue which gives rise to large scale resentment. To summarize, it is not Bush’s or the Administration’s fault that some people would think that the justification of the offensive against Iraq is supposed to be Al Qaeda, and if an “overwhelming evidence” is not provided, then the “moral ground” is absent. As an argument of a secondary dimension, I would like to remind you that after 9/11, when the offensive against Afghanistan started, many (ans some in this forum) claimed that “it was not proven that Osama Bin Laden” was behind the attack. In fact, they claimed that it was a fabrication. It didn’t take long even to come up with “eye-opening” conspiracy theories about “who runs the world.” Large number of people still don’t think that Al Qaeda has committed 9/11. So who should the Administration try to appease? My thinking is to no one. National and world security is not something to be run based on polls. The kind of thinking, as conveyed in many materials of our forum, among other places, is a very dangerous state of mind from the perspective of state governance. It implies that you wait till terror is committed against you, and then you respond. It is beyond doubt that the primary cradle of international terrorism is the Middle East. Some would attribute it to the situation surrounding Israel and Palestine. Sure, it is part of it. I would think that situation is a consequence of the problem, it is not the driving factor of the problem itself, though it feeds the outbursts of the darkest layers of the xenophobic human beast – including in this forum. Prior to the Gulf War, all countries of the region felt threatened by Iraq. In mid 80s, there was expectation of war between Syria and Iraq. Among the states that felt and feel threatened by Iraq were/are Iran, Syria, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, etc. All of them (expect Iran), gave support against Iraq in the first Gulf War. Most of them continue to do so even today. The reason was Iraq’s and Syria’s drives to dominate Middle East, especially the Arab world. Now add Iran and Turkey to this mix. This is a very complex and very tangled region – one where the historic, geopolitical, economic and social issues intermingle with emotional ones. The result is just mess – mess that somehow has to be cleaned so that the people of the region, first of all, would have dignnified life. I also find your argument on “Was for Oil” to be very unfortunate while, obviously, there will be consequences on the Oil market as a result. Of all the people in this forum, I would expect that you don’t make such ill thought out arguments. You say terrorism is a sign of helplessness. You are only partially right. First, who has created that helplessness? Those in Palestine definitely are helpless. But cannot we see that they are being used? The regional terror is being sponsored by the Iraqi, Iranian and Syrian governments. Which one of them is helpless? Why are the Palestinians in a situation of such overwhelming helplessness? I know, I know… Not just one member will jump up and exclaim “Israel,” in response. I am sorry for them. Their hateful nature has eaten their minds and blinded their judgments. This doesn’t mean that I don’t recognize Israel’s responsibility in the problem. It means I don’t see Israel being the source of the problem. The fact of the matter is that the entire regional economy is paralyzed, while this region sits on enormous wealth. This paralysis is the source of the enormous misery of the region. If people have no hope in life, and life has no value, what would stop them from committing terror, especially when there are those who financially and ideologically sponsor it? And frequently, committing suicide-terror is the only way some may support their families. Meanwhile, the prevailing status quo of the region provides Saddam, Saudies, and others with hundreds of millions of dollars, and more importantly, power. I would urge you to think over the manifestation of “three axes of evil.” It was not a rhetoric terminology. It was a shortcut for a very serious international policy. Also, maybe you could write about how do you see the solution of the problems of this region. Then, I think it would put you in a better position of criticizing the solutions pursued by others. I have to go. P.S. One can ask, "why this proble has not been givn so much attention by the US, before, and has become such a big issue now." The answer is simple. The problem has arrived to the US shores on 9/11. Again, some opponent may try to say "show me the link with Al Qaeda." I would say that is a stupid thing to request. The problem is there - whether Al Qaeda or not. [ April 04, 2003, 07:42 AM: Message edited by: MJ ]

Alpha, I have very limited time, now, and will respond to your material only partially. In the coming day or two I will address the rest. No one has alleged that Iraqi terrorism has Wahabism as its ideological pretext. In fact, most of the world/historic terrorism has Socialism/Marxism as its ideological pretext, and Iraq is more or less socialistic county, even by your own recognition, I think. (ASALA, PKK, PLO, North Korean Regime, etc). Saudi Arabia is of increasing concern to the US. There is no question that it is a breathing ground of international terrorism. However, as I have indicated before, that is not the position of the Saudi ruling position but its opposition. The choice is to support the Saudi regime or not to support it, in which case the Saudi Arabia will become a full fledged terrorist country. If Iraq would not be dealt with, that outcome in S.A. will become an absolute reality. I expect that after the fall of the Iraqi regime there will be a huge pressure on Saudi (and definitely on Syria and Iran – not necessarily military but other. Note that few years ago Turkey booed, and Syria expelled Ocalan and PKK. How much do you think is it going to stand up against the US?) I absolutely disagree with your perception of the UN Inspectors mission and their reported outcome. That’s not what the inspections do. In fact, outside the TV charades, they have not made such statements, and have claimed that the only thing Iraqi regime cooperates in is the process. In their more than 100 page reports the Inspectors have always claimed that Iraq does not cooperate. Additionally, it has not been their mission to prove that Iraq has WMD, but the burden of proof was on Iraq to prove that she has destroyed the weapons which in and prior of 1998 had been proven to exist. The link between Al Qaeda and Iraq is a fact. However, it is immaterial. Libya had no links with Al Qaeda, and Al Qaeda didn’t even exist then, but she was engaged in terrorism. Al Qaede is not the only and the most dangerous terrorist threat. I think you are not giving proper thought to the cliché and the statement on the “three axes of evil.” The distinguishing of only three states does not mean that there are no other terrorist states, but means that under the conditions of the removal of the three axes, the rest of the terrorist regimes would collapse as a consequence. As I have mentioned once, each large problem has few critical points, attacking of which leads to the solution of the overall problem. I have to run, now. As promised, I will address the rest of your arguments later – including those on what does promote and create climate of terrorism. [ April 04, 2003, 07:13 AM: Message edited by: MJ ]

quote:Originally posted by Azat: quote:Originally posted by MJ:Ther eis an interesting 70 page document/report, here: http://www.cij.org/pdf/CIJ_Saddam.pdf From the other threadThanks, Azat.

quote:Originally posted by Sip: MJ had posted a long thread about what Islam is supposed to be, which I think provides some very interesting reading HERE but how close that is to reality of what Islam actually is, it's up to debate I guess. Sip, I don't disagree with you. But in the same manner, we can post a long thread about Christianity and find out, indeed, that the Christian reality is as far from the Christian values as the Islamic one is from the Islamic values. BTW, Nvard, I am sorry that you think the way you do. You just disqualified the absolute majority of Armenians, if not all, from being Armenian. [ April 03, 2003, 07:59 AM: Message edited by: MJ ]

Vava, I significantly differ on some of the issues you have talked about - one of them being the “multinationals profiting from the situation.” In general, I think the term 'multinational' is much misused and bears much misguided sentiment. I also think that your description of the landscape around the "Food-for-Oil" program is not descriptive of the reality. Few weeks ago, I had provided a hyperlink with about 70 pages of independent studies, which can shed much light on the issue. I am somewhat sleepy right now, and cannot find the thread it was referenced in. But it is in one of the relevant threads. With all my disagreements with some of your statements, I appreciate the restraint you have demonstrated in your material.

Thoth, I had somehow missed that you had “advanced the terminology and concept of body bags.” As far as the increase or decrease of the terrorism is concerned, our arguing on that subject would be immaterial. Based on the last two years experience, this administration is performing its duties, especially in the arena of national security, on a super-professional level, and you should delegate that function to them, as appropriate, rather than trying to solve it yourself. And don’t you worry – there are more than enough checks and balances in the American system. As far as your concerns about the potential nuclear and biological attacks are concerned, it seems to me that this administration shares your concerns and is aggressively pursuing the prevention of such an outcome. In general, you have a very peculiar way of conveying your thoughts. Frequently, your two opposing views blur and fade, unnoticeably transiting from one pole to the other (with the help of few IMOs and prentices ), which makes it hard to assess where you stand on the issues. [ April 02, 2003, 07:05 PM: Message edited by: MJ ]

To slightly lighten up, few jokes, which I think are reflective of the sides' complexes: In Moscow, the respected daily Izvestiya devoted more than half of its front page on Tuesday to dark satire on the war. "Saddam claims to have shot down a British warplane, but Bush says: 'It's a lie. We shot it down!"' read one of the Russian jokes mocking friendly fire incidents in the war. "Mr. Bush, do you have proof that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction?," asks a journalist at a fictional news conference. Bush's answer: "Yes, we kept the receipts." Even comedians in traditionally neutral Sweden can't resist. "The text on leaflets dropped over Iraq reads: 'McDonald's, opening soon in Baghdad' 'Hands up!' and 'Collect four of these and you'll get a free Coke once we're finished bombing'."

Err… First, about the “body bags”… I keep hearing it since the Balkan conflict and Afghanistan. Frequently, I feel those who have advanced this terminology and concept are expressing more of a desire than prediction… Terrorism does not start with this war. This was is one of the necessary steps to prevent terrorism. Terrorism has become more vicious because, despite the warning of the experts in the last 10 years that the primary threat in the world is terrorism, one ‘happy’ administration and another ‘happy Union’ did not have the aptitude to grasp it – even after the failed attack on the WTC in early 90s. You don’t eliminate terrorism by appeasing the terrorists. You fight it out. Additionally, you help the economies of the regions and cultures, which incubate terrorism, to help them to create wealth so that their people are not so desperate that their lives and the lives of others have no value to them. I am frequently puzzled as to what lengths would people go just to ‘prove’ that this war is ‘wrong,’ it is not ‘planned well,’ the ‘actions are right but not the motivations,’ etc. Such a bizzare philosophy… As far as the future/potential Iraqi resistance is concerned, if you have been following the news of the last 24 hours, two elite divisions are gone, with four left. We can talk in few days about the four. And, contrary to your insinuation, I believe that the restraint that the US and British Armies have demonstrated is not indicative of the “inevitability of the victory,” but of values that their societies hold. And there is nothing wrong in claiming that the victory over Saddam is inevitable. It is a fact and not propaganda. It is obvious from all material and moral factors. [ April 02, 2003, 07:14 PM: Message edited by: MJ ]

I just saw your prior message. I have followed the coverage of the war on a daily basis. No representative of the administration has made such statements. If the media has made them, what’s new about media’s ventilation? However, in the large scale of things, using your terminology, it has been essentially one sided and bloodless. I can tell you precisely why Saddam was not pursued in the first Gulf War. That war was being conducted under the UN mandate, and the mandate was given only to liberate Kuwait. The same forces which were opposed to the war this time were the same ones that opposed the marching of the US troops towards Baghdad. I just wish that you don’t express any more a priori opinions as you have advocated in your previous material. I don’t see a need or a desire of subduing the Iraqi nation - there is no such agenda nor need. From the beginning of this discussion, the people on your side have predicted 100,000s of civilian deaths, World War III, blah, blah, blah. You also express other vague thoughts, and I don’t want to response to every [non-clear] one, and have no desire to turn this into ping-pong.