babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » Bush Funds Al Qaeda: Seymour Hersh story

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Bush Funds Al Qaeda: Seymour Hersh story
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 26 February 2007 08:42 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Hersh says the U.S. has been “pumping money, a great deal of money, without congressional authority, without any congressional oversight” for covert operations in the Middle East where it wants to “stop the Shiite spread or the Shiite influence.” Hersh says these funds have ended up in the hands of “three Sunni jihadist groups” who are “connected to al Qaeda” but “want to take on Hezbollah.”

brilliant strategy !

[ 26 February 2007: Message edited by: jeff house ]


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 26 February 2007 09:06 AM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The Shi'a "deathsquads" are actively being funded by outside features... Most of the Sunni insurgency forces are dependant on weaponry from Saddam's early stashes. These stash's are starting to dry up and the Sunni militai's ability to defend themselves from well supplied Shi'a militias is quickly degrading. Sunni militias (underneath the heading of 'AQ in Iraq') have actively approached the US asking for help defend themselves on multiple instances over the past year. It's been widely assumed that the US has supported Sunni factions through CIA backend sources (otherwise the extent of the civil war would be far greater).

Humourous to consider that the Americans greatest ally vs Iran was likely the regime they toppled in Iraq in the first place. Now the people they toppled are the closest things they have to friends while combating Iran ^^

Considering all Sunni factions active in Iraq, or almost all atleast, have actively declared an alliance with AQ (although in many cases, AQ provides nothing but morale support)... ANy funds that ends up in Sunni groups opposing Shi'a militias will ultimately be in the hands of AQ allied Jihadist groups.

Heh, it's been suggested that the CIA still maintains ties to AQ contacts from the old Afghan days when they were actively supporting guerillas vs Russians.


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 26 February 2007 09:25 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Many things have been "suggested" or "rumoured".

What is important here is that there is solid evidence that, in order to defeat Iran, money and training is going to Al Quaeda.

Of course, they've promised not to use the stuff to blow up New York.

That will be useful.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 26 February 2007 09:58 AM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, this makes sense... didn't Al-Qaeda get its start in Afghanistan, funded by the Reagan administration, in its zeal to defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan?

Funding them now would just be a return to the basic (mainly Republican right) US practice of funding and building their allies enemies: supporting Diem in South Viet Nam, then helping to oust/kill him; supporting bin Laden and his allies in Afghanistan and building him up to be enemy #1; supporting Saddam Hussein's Iraq and then attacking Iraq; supporting Iran in the Iran/contra deals; supporting Noriega in Panama then ousting him.

Ain't realpolitik fun? Too bad about all the deaths and stuff, but, gee, the geniuses running US foreign policy over the last 20, 30, 40+ years always had a good reason, I'm sure, for everything they did at the time.

This report, if true, certainly reveals how completely unprincipled and full of shit that Bush is. Of course, we knew that already, but hopefully this will help some others to see it.


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 26 February 2007 10:13 AM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
What is important here is that there is solid evidence that, in order to defeat Iran, money and training is going to Al Quaeda.

Heh, I'm curious how this will playout actually... I'll have to follow the story now.

- The anti-Iraq war side has been actively canvassing that the tie between Al Qaeda and Sunni militia's within Iraq were created post invasion and the only real ties between AQ and Iraq are morale ones. This has kinda been an anti-iraq war staple to be honest... Using 'hunting AQ' for a reason to invade Iraq has been as thoroughly debunked as trying to use WMD's as a justification.

- Pro-Iraq war is just the opposite stating AQ is actively involved with Iraq and using 'Disabling Al Qaedas terror network' as a justification to the American people for this war.

I'm curious what the connections to AQ are for the sunni factions receiving military support here. Al Qaeda in Iraq for example, was a monotheistic jihadist brigade or something to that extent... Their leader just swore loyalty to AQ. AQ's actual involvement within AQ in Iraq was minimal and almost entirely morale support. Is this a similar setup where the groups involved are linked in a morale/spiritual sense, but not a military sense... Or are actual AQ operatives receiving weaponry from the US?

It'd be interesting to see some of us proved wrong that AQ has a much more involved role within Iraq than what we'll state... At the same time watch the Pro-Iraq war side choke back on the fact that they are arming their most 'evil' of enemies.


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 26 February 2007 12:18 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
We can be sure that this will be ignored utterly by the media that matters.
From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 26 February 2007 01:59 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The Hersh article that is the basis for the ThinkProgress article, is actually informative and interesting.

At the very least, it looks like they are fostering all out war between the Sunnis and the Shiites. Then Saudi Royal family is playing ball in this field as well. And they definitely feel the boot of religion upon their throats.

So Irsael wants Iran gone - land issues and Zionist desire to have "promised land"

Saudi Arabia wants Iran gone - religious issues

the USA/OIL want Irans oil supplies, can't have the Chinese have them after all.

the USA/Evangelicals are backing this because they want Aramgeddon to happen and Israel must fill the Biblical mandate for the prophecy of the rapture.

Canadian evangelicals want Iran attacked for the same reasons as the US evangelicals do. Which is why Harper told Israel his "New" government will support them no matter what they do.

IMV Al Qaeda are nothing more to all of this, than are the Canadian US military tax payer paid mercenary armies for the above interests, plus a few more here and there.

[ 26 February 2007: Message edited by: remind ]


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 26 February 2007 03:12 PM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
IMV Al Qaeda are nothing more to all of this,

They've made an exceedingly effective opposition for the religious right to rally against... A Satan figure if you will. It is much more easy to convince a population to go to war when a leader for them is demonized (Last thing any democracy at war wants to do is humanize the enemy, much easier for the populace to fear and hate the devil and his followers afterall... It's impressive to watch Hugo do a reversed version of it with Bush). AQ played a massive role within the past few years, but more as a publicity stunt to demonize the enemies as much as anything. Can anyone name the last thing that the AQ is acreditted with doing (short of the video release of 'retaking a village'?).

Theres a book out dealing with the rise of Facism within America... The AQ and their various morphed forms ('Jihidist', 'Islamic extremist', "tyranical awfulness of the Taliban", etc...) that allow our population look at them like they are less than human make for an extremely useful scapegoat. It does take alot of effort to build up a public that can look 1000+ civilians dead in the Lebanese - Israeli war and have one half of your population argue that terrorists are standing to close to civilians makes it the terrorists fault and the other half argue that you're bombing the wrong ones and shouldn't be using white phosphorous. Heh, or the great CNN debate over the casualty totals "Is 550k Iraqi's dead too many?" vs "Naw, theres no way we've killed that many yet".

If you ask me, the AQ have played an extremely important role in the past few years.

[ 26 February 2007: Message edited by: Noise ]


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 26 February 2007 03:35 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Noise:
If you ask me, the AQ have played an extremely important role in the past few years.

Oh I agree completely, and I was not minimizing their contribution, I was saying Canadian and US and other coalition military were equal.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 26 February 2007 03:38 PM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Looks like Hersh is also putting stress on how fast Iran appears to be digging in and preparing to brace for what they already know is coming ^^
From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 26 February 2007 04:11 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Noise:
Looks like Hersh is also putting stress on how fast Iran appears to be digging in and preparing to brace for what they already know is coming ^^

But is it really coming right up?

Russia and China appear to be stepping into the frey and are saying no...Siren's Putin thread has this link.

http://www.ericmargolis.com/


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 26 February 2007 04:47 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Bravo to Russia and China for standing up to the bully!
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 26 February 2007 06:38 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
China and Russia are doing nothing that is not in their own interests. They play the same games as do the Bush regime.
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 26 February 2007 06:59 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
How the world churns. According to that piece Hersh says that Chenney didn't like Negraponte because he was too ethical. Who could imagine?

I hear that Henry Kissinger once said that Donald Rumsfeld was the most "ruthless man he ever met," and I found that about as shocking as this revelation about Chenney's feelings about Negraponte.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 26 February 2007 07:00 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Of course they're protecting their own interests! But it's the Bush regime that is pushing right up against their borders and extending its reach worldwide.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058

posted 26 February 2007 07:34 PM      Profile for contrarianna     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The US rules all through its economic clout backed by its military. It's unlikely that Russia will, or can, do anything other than talk. They could, of course, destroy the planet with the mutual help of the US, but its unlikely they are willing to go to war over Iran. The impression of unrestrained psychos in Washington probably limits how far the Russians will play their hand (at least I hope so).

China has more economic clout with the US than Russia and could cause a market disaster. It holds a debt-bomb over the US and would cause a lot of grief if it stopped lending to the US.

So far, China sees it in its own interest to continue the debt-bubble but that could change if pushed hard enough.


From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 26 February 2007 07:36 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm just saying they don't merit a "bravo" for stands that benefit their own spheres of influence.
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 27 February 2007 09:05 AM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
China and Russia are doing nothing that is not in their own interests. They play the same games as do the Bush regime.

China actually stand to lose alot of energy imports in the event of an attack on Iran. Russia sees it as global instability as much as anything. I like the american response to the Russians "We already won the cold war, you're defeated go away".


Remind:

quote:
But is it really coming right up?

A bombing campaign I would now give quite likely. As it is, Americans are frequently chasing militants long into Iran anyway... In some ways an invasion on Iran soil has taken place a few times now.

I'm going to go over Hersh's articles and research a little more... I'm curious what his take on Israel through all this is. I feel for the Jewish state as it's about to be used as a pawn of the US. The US won't start a bombing campiagn themselves... They'll let the proxy state start it and come to it's aid soon after. Israel has already made the Air space request now, it may just be a matter of time.


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 27 February 2007 10:21 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Calling Israel a "proxy state" is about as simple-minded as attributing everything Fidel Castro did to the Soviet Union.

In the case of neighbouring hostile states obtaining nuclear weapons, Israel bombed Saddam Hussein's nuclear facility at a time that Saddam had US support. The US in fact condemned Israel for the attack.

In this instance Israel is acting in its own interests, and these interests, this time, are fully congruent with those of the US.

That doesn't make it a satellite, though.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058

posted 27 February 2007 10:24 AM      Profile for contrarianna     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Noise:

I feel for the Jewish state as it's about to be used as a pawn of the US.

Most of what you say on how the war might get started and progress is plausible.
The notion that Israel is somehow pushed into this is less so.

In addition to the statements from Israeli policymakers urging the US to military action on Iran, the overlap of neo-con policy makers in Washington with Israeli interests is not elusive.

Notice also the press overlap with the most aggressively pro-Israel voices urging US action on Iran.

It may be true that many Israel planners would prefer to have the US expend its treasure alone on Iran--but in my mind that doesn't translate in to sympathy for those pro-Israel interests who have been pushing hardest for military intervention as innocent victims.


From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 February 2007 10:32 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
Calling Israel a "proxy state" is about as simple-minded as attributing everything Fidel Castro did to the Soviet Union.

In the case of neighbouring hostile states obtaining nuclear weapons, Israel bombed Saddam Hussein's nuclear facility at a time that Saddam had US support. The US in fact condemned Israel for the attack.

In this instance Israel is acting in its own interests, and these interests, this time, are fully congruent with those of the US.

That doesn't make it a satellite, though.


Just because Fidel Castro, may or may not have acted in accord with his own beliefs, or in the interests of his views of Cuban interests, in a manner which may have not have fit in precisely with Soviet goals does not mean that it could not be called a proxy state. He obviously felt that his interests, and Cuba's interests were in accord with keeping the strategic partnership alive, above all considerations largely one can summise because of how economically dependent Cuba was on Soviet subsidy.

Cuban troops did not suddenly appear in Angola, purely on the say so of Fidel Castro, of this you can be certain.

The status of all proxy states is always in flux, as it is actually a complex negotiation, wherein the minor partner generally acts (at least pubicly) in concert with the major partner, even if that means maintaining the apperance of indpendent action.

In fact, attributing indepent action to a satelite state is often part of the game played, especially when the superior state feels embarrassed in pursuing the course of action itself. The satelite state is often an useful tool for keeping the superior states hands clean.

Most of the Soviet Satelite states, did things unilaterally at one time or another, and of their own accord, which embarrassed the Soviet Union. And not always with dire consequences for the offending party. I believe Ceacescu made embarrassingly negative statements about the Soviet invasion of the Czecholsovakia (or was it Hungary 56? -- one or the other), such spats do not mitigate the nature of Rumania as a proxy state.

Of course any theory of government, or inter-government interaction, which asserts the existance of completely monolithic top down expression of power will be found to be false when examined in in the details of the occassional exceptions, but this dose not change the overall nature of the hierarchy.

Status as a proxy state usually is accorded on the baisis of exactly how dependent the junior partner is on the superior partner. The fact is that in the case of the Oziraq Nuclear Reactor attack by the IAF, it is almost absolutely certain that the State department was informed, and also certain if the US had chosen to, it could very well have prevented the attack simply by opposing it.

It was given the "green light" as they say. Or are you trying to submit here that the Reagan Adminstration of Iran-Contra, was above such shinanigans?

Interestingly, the Oziraq Nuclear Reactor site was also attacked by Iran in 1980, just after the Iran-Iraq war begaon.

[ 27 February 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 27 February 2007 11:11 AM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Jeff:
quote:
Calling Israel a "proxy state" is about as simple-minded as attributing everything Fidel Castro did to the Soviet Union.

You are right, I am over simplifying with that statement and I should rephraise... Perhaps you could tell me what is the correct term to describe the relationship between 2 nations when one nations military sees the majority of it's equipment and funding come from the other?

quote:
That doesn't make it a satellite, though.

Is it not true that only from US military aid that the Israel military is capable of what it is? Will the unexploded ordinance dropped in Iran display the usual made in america stamp?

What would you call the setup?


Contrarianna:

quote:
The notion that Israel is somehow pushed into this is less so.

Pends how you view the American influence within Israeli politics I guess... Does Americans empowering the most aggressively pro-Israel voices count as pushing them towards it? From the American planner standpoint, how hard would it be to empower the Israeli's willing to make the strikes and ignore the ones that don't? I would not put it beyond the American military that cherry picked the information given on Iraq to justify that invasion to be doing the exact same thing to coax the Israeli population into the same.

quote:
but in my mind that doesn't translate in to sympathy for those pro-Israel interests who have been pushing hardest for military intervention as innocent victims.

My sympathy would have been directed towards the people of Israel about to get dragged into a war by the pro-Israel interests, and not the ones pushing for military action. One of the fallouts of any attack could include Iranian interests attacking Israel (syria could potentially get dragged in, but the groups heavily armed and supported by Iran can almost be garenteed to strike back).


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 27 February 2007 03:48 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Noise:
Jeff:

My sympathy would have been directed towards the people of Israel about to get dragged into a war by the pro-Israel interests, and not the ones pushing for military action. One of the fallouts of any attack could include Iranian interests attacking Israel (syria could potentially get dragged in, but the groups heavily armed and supported by Iran can almost be garenteed to strike back).


Well, I would imagine that most Israelis are 'pro-Israel.' I suspect you are using the 'pro-Israel' term to refer to the militant/aggressive elements in the Israeli body politic and leadership. At least I hope so.

Syria and others might well attack Israel, but they would be crushed - Israel can't stop grassroots movements, but they can certainly stop any conventional military action.

That said, Iran will likely be able to successfully repel or destroy any serious attempt to invade or occupy by the US (or anyone else). Iran is huge, unitary and mountainous. It would be extremely hard to occupy. And helicopters are useless, or nearly so, in the mountains (too easy to shoot down).

China, Russia and anyone else with an interest in seeing the US chastened or weakened would have every motivation to support the Iranians (or Iraqis for that matter). They could do that indirectly - through arms sales - or even more subtly, through currency and other mechanisms. I doubt they would get directly involved - not worth it.

China could stop a US invasion (at great cost to itself) by selling off a portion of the trillions of $USD in cash and American debt they currently hold. It would hurt them, but I have little doubt they intend to do it sometime or other (when they have reached some predetermined threshold of industrial capacity, I imagine). The US might bluster, but it would bluster broke. It is careening very close to that edge now, nevermind if it starts another war.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 February 2007 03:51 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Why does everyone insist on presenting the absurd scenario of a US invasion, when the tradition is that they just bomb the fuck out of people, then sometime later, having starved and brutalized the population with some regieme of sanctions they invade if it seems opportune, if they can't get what they want through brutality and intimidation from afar?

The A-10 Wharthog is the gun boat of modern American imperialism.

[ 27 February 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 27 February 2007 04:35 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
The A-10 Wharthog is the gun boat of modern American imperialism.


Sure it is, but it won't do well in mountains for the same reason that any low-flying aircraft don't do well in mountains - too easy to shoot down.

Of course the US will try to bomb the hell out of IRan, and probably succeed in massive destruction. But unlike Serbia, or Iraq or Cambodia or any of the other places they've bombed the hell out of, Iran has the capacity (and the right)to push back.

And they can push back, and fight, in more places than just their own territory.

I just hope to hell that we either get rid of Harper before Bush pushes the button, or that Harper is too terrified of we the people to actually go along with the insane quest.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 February 2007 05:10 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by arborman:

Sure it is, but it won't do well in mountains for the same reason that any low-flying aircraft don't do well in mountains - too easy to shoot down.


If the Iranian government and its army (whatever remains of it) are relegated to the mountains, I am sure the Americans will be very pleased, and not all interested in losing their expensive hardware their. The point of an all out airial attack is not the erradication of the government, but the destruction of its sophisticated infarstructure. Relegating Amedinejad and co. to a stone age existance, is the point.

And besides, I don't know where you get this idea that low flying slow aircraft like the A-10 Wharthog is particularly vulnerable in that particular terrain. The A10 Wharthog depends on its armour in order to protect it from small arms fire, and if far less vulerable than choppers, which are by necessity of design somewhat delicate.

The Iraqi resistance has been doing quite well against the US choppers these days, and there are not many mountains in the region of guerilla activity, but I have yet to hear a report on the downing of an A-10, ever.

US confirms insurgents shot down helicopter

quote:
The military also said the crash site had been cleared with explosives after the remains and equipment were removed "to ensure the enemy could yield no gain from the debris". At least seven US helicopters have crashed or been forced down by hostile fire since January 20. Two private security company helicopters also have crashed but the cause was unclear.


quote:
The 'Warthog' is exceptionally hardy, to the point that it could be considered an airborne tank. Its strong airframe can survive direct hits from armor-piercing and high-explosive projectiles up to 23 mm. The aircraft has triple redundancy in its flight systems, with mechanical systems to back up double-redundant hydraulic systems. This permits pilots to fly and land when hydraulic power or part of a wing is lost. The aircraft is designed to fly with one engine, one tail, one elevator and half a wing torn off. Self-sealing fuel tanks are protected by fire-retardant foam. Additionally, the main landing gear is designed so that the wheels semi-protrude from their nacelles when the gear is retracted so as to make gear-up landings (belly landing) easier to control and less damaging to the aircraft's underside.

The cockpit and parts of the flight-control system are protected by 900 lb (408.2 kg) of titanium armor, referred to as a "titanium bathtub." The tub has been tested to withstand multiple strikes from 20 mm cannon fire. The thickness of the titanium varies from ½ an inch to 1½ inches determined by a study of likely trajectories and deflection angles. This protection comes at a cost, though; the armor plating itself weighs almost 6% of the entire aircraft’s empty weight. To protect the pilot from the fragmentation likely to be created from impact of a shell any interior surface of the tub that is directly exposed to the pilot is covered by a multi-layer nylon spall shield. The protection for the pilot from above obviously comes second to the necessity for the pilot to have good all-round vision. The canopy cannot protect the pilot as well as the titanium, but the bullet-proof diffusion-bonded stretched-acrylic canopy can withstand small arms fire and is spall-resistant, although the canopy needs to be penetrable by the ejection seat.

Recent proof of the durability of the A-10 was shown when USAF Captain Kim Campbell, flying a ground support mission over Baghdad during the 2003 invasion of Iraq suffered extensive flak damage to her A-10. The hit damaged one of the A-10's two engines and destroyed its hydraulic system, disabling the plane's stabilizer and flight controls. Despite this, the pilot managed to fly it for an hour and landed it safely at the air base in manual reversion mode.


A-10 Thunderbolt II

[ 27 February 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 27 February 2007 06:04 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
US funds terror groups to sow chaos in Iran
quote:
America is secretly funding militant ethnic separatist groups in Iran in an attempt to pile pressure on the Islamic regime to give up its nuclear programme.

In a move that reflects Washington's growing concern with the failure of diplomatic initiatives, CIA officials are understood to be helping opposition militias among the numerous ethnic minority groups clustered in Iran's border regions.

The operations are controversial because they involve dealing with movements that resort to terrorist methods in pursuit of their grievances against the Iranian regime.

In the past year there has been a wave of unrest in ethnic minority border areas of Iran, with bombing and assassination campaigns against soldiers and government officials.

Such incidents have been carried out by the Kurds in the west, the Azeris in the north-west, the Ahwazi Arabs in the south-west, and the Baluchis in the south-east. Non-Persians make up nearly 40 per cent of Iran's 69 million population, with around 16 million Azeris, seven million Kurds, five million Ahwazis and one million Baluchis. Most Baluchis live over the border in Pakistan.

Funding for their separatist causes comes directly from the CIA's classified budget but is now "no great secret", according to one former high-ranking CIA official in Washington who spoke anonymously to The Sunday Telegraph.

His claims were backed by Fred Burton, a former US state department counter-terrorism agent, who said: "The latest attacks inside Iran fall in line with US efforts to supply and train Iran's ethnic minorities to destabilise the Iranian regime."

Although Washington officially denies involvement in such activity, Teheran has long claimed to detect the hand of both America and Britain in attacks by guerrilla groups on its internal security forces. Last Monday, Iran publicly hanged a man, Nasrollah Shanbe Zehi, for his involvement in a bomb attack that killed 11 Revolutionary Guards in the city of Zahedan in Sistan-Baluchistan. An unnamed local official told the semi-official Fars news agency that weapons used in the attack were British and US-made.
....

Such a policy is fraught with risk, however. Many of the groups share little common cause with Washington other than their opposition to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose regime they accuse of stepping up repression of minority rights and culture.
....

At present, none of the opposition groups are much more than irritants to Teheran, but US analysts believe that they could become emboldened if the regime was attacked by America or Israel. Such a prospect began to look more likely last week, as the UN Security Council deadline passed for Iran to stop its uranium enrichment programme, and a second American aircraft carrier joined the build up of US naval power off Iran's southern coastal waters.



From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 28 February 2007 05:44 AM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Tangent - there is some positively Orwellian nonsense in CNN's latest coverage of Afghanistan. Of course, there may be similar things in other media sources, but CNN is all we have where I am. The latest line out of the military geniuses in Afghanistan is that local Taliban are being taught to manufacture IEDs by "terrorists" from Iraq.

But wait, wasn't it the Taliban that was supposed to be exporting terror to Iraq (and elsewhere)? Wasn't that why Operation Enduring Freedom was launched?

Just a thought I wanted to record for when the story changes again.


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058

posted 01 March 2007 10:58 AM      Profile for contrarianna     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Contrarianna:
"The notion that Israel is somehow pushed into this is less so."

Noise:
"Pends how you view the American influence within Israeli politics I guess... Does Americans empowering the most aggressively pro-Israel voices count as pushing them towards it? From the American planner standpoint..."


Which "American planner standpoint"?

There are some who say US activity in the Middle would be identical, with or without super-Zionist input in the US government, I tend to think that the prioritizing of right-wing Israeli policy under the Bush II government is sometimes at odds with a more "realist" ME policy (for "realist" read America First hegemony).

Bush II government has an unusually high overlap in policy-makers for Israel as exemplified by neo-con authors of "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" study group paper commissioned by Netanyahu.

the wikipedia article gives an overview and a number of links:


A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, commonly referred to as the "Clean Break" report, was prepared in 1996 by a study group led by Richard Perle for Benjamin Netanyahu, the then-Prime Minister of Israel.[1] The report explained a new approach to solving Israel's security problems in the Middle East with an emphasis on "Western values". It has since been criticized for advocating an aggresive new policy and advancing right-wing Zionism....

The papers pre-amble:
"Following is a report prepared by The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies’ "Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000." The main substantive ideas in this paper emerge from a discussion in which prominent opinion makers, including Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser participated."
Clean Break

I add: also contrary to the "Israel was pushed" idea, is the effectiveness of the pro-Israel lobby in influencing ME policy for both Dem and Repub candidates. The tangle of these elements is apparent when you get Douglas Franklin, a government subordinate of one the authors mentioned above (Douglas Feith) convicted in the AIPAC-Israel spy scandal.

[ 01 March 2007: Message edited by: contrarianna ]


From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 01 March 2007 11:32 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I suppose the Saudi princes and CIA never really stopped funding the spread of militant Islam in central Asia, and Middle East and Africa too apparently. Imagine the Pentagon thinking John Negroponte was too ethical for some of their covert ops. They must have been impressed enough with his handling of right-wing death squads in Honduras to setup the same operations in Baghdad.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 01 March 2007 11:55 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Albireo:
Well, this makes sense... didn't Al-Qaeda get its start in Afghanistan, funded by the Reagan administration, in its zeal to defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan?.

Yes, KAOS headquarters really got going with its covert actions then with the multi-billion dollar taxpayer-funded(and otherwise) operation Cyclone. And all the while the Talibanization of Pakistan and Afghanistan was taking place, the CIA and Pentagon co-operated with the most brutal right-wing dictatorships from El Salvador, Guatemala and Haiti and Chile to death squad governments in Argentina and Brazil. Some have described U.S.-funded killing in Latin America as having caused this hemisphere's most recent holocaust in the second half of the last century. And our lap dogs in Ottawa fawn all over these lunatics with signing the most idiotic, stupefying, silly-willy trade deals and now "North American Union" under "Canadian news media" radar. God help us.

[ 01 March 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca