Thursday, July 08, 2004

Here's something interesting and good from

A Review of Moore's Farenheit 9/ an Iraqi Citizen ^
| 6/7/04 | sarmad zangna

Wednesday, July 07, 2004

Fahrenheit 9/11-9/4  

Iraq - one year after the war; Iraq through a complete 180 degrees of change; one of the countries that was always known as a challenge for what it was, as a threat - not only to humanity but to the whole world.
Do you want to compare 9/11 to 9/4?
9/11 - the attacks on the civilization of freedom, the symbol of the free world.
9/4 - the fall of the dictatorial regime of evil, the symbol of the slave world.
The big difference between the two events? No one felt these two events, and lived through them as much as the Americans and the Iraqis. No one felt the changes more than those two peoples.
And here we see who claims these events and uses them as a purpose and a reason to make his own celebrity, and win trophies and awards, as if he invents something for humanity, or finds a cure for one of the diseases.
MICHAEL MOORE, the director of "Fahrenheit 911".
This movie - I won't even call it a movie - it's like a "cut and paste" movie - I wonder what he is thinking when he shows his "cut and paste" movie: "cut and paste" for explosions and fighting, and terrorists covering their faces; statements by GWB playing golf (I didn't know playing golf in America was a crime. I know it was in Iraq before 9/4. It was only for presidents.) I wonder if it took MICHAEL MOORE hard work to produce this "cut and paste".
I wonder if you've lived under dictators, extremists, terrorist rule, or if you are just living under the gift of being free - free to say anything, free to do anything, free to make a film from "cut and paste" to win trophies and awards and $26 million. I just wanna remind you where you are, because there are brave men fighting for where you are. I wonder if you live safer and safer for all your life - safer for hope, safer for justice - and if there's fear in your life. I wonder why we always try to think of ourselves, why we evaluate hard work and achievements, and show them like dark spots.
Saying that your troops will never be back home - this is not true. Saying that going to war wasn't the right thing to do.
What are the solutions you offered? Okay, we've been attacked by the extremists. We must solve our problems first before we attack them? We have too much freedom? We should make less freedom because "Bin Laden" doesn't accept that freedom goes toward the east? Freedom is evil - evil because you don't follow anyone, you follow your mind?
We should never have attacked Iraq because Saddam was not yet a threat. He didn't develop weapons of mass destruction. He only had some chemical and biological weapons and some missiles.
That you can speak to soldiers about not going back to Iraq because of what they see there is a reason for people to be proud and believe that what is happening is for the good of all. This is the freedom to do what you see is right for you. If this soldier was in any place in the Middle East, he would be executed because he said he didn't like what his government did.

The attacks on 911 were only the beginning of evil. Fighting this evil is the mission of all good people. It is a challenge.
Mr. MICHAEL MOORE, what will be your reaction after several years, when you see a free country and a modern and civil one? That we should say thank you to the brave men who did that, or see your "cut and paste" movie, or sue you for being an imposter?
Your troops will be home as soon as they have done their job. This is a promise from Iraqis.
I have talked with many soldiers. They were happy to work here. Some of them even say, "Iraq is our home. We work to rebuild it."
Know what I will go to do and I now this need more than one post, but I see it, like one of the must important issues to be discuss ,and I will use some parts from" Dave Kopel" I took some parts and discuss it .
"Moore has been criticized for using the reaction shots as a clever way to avoid showing the planes hitting the buildings, and some of the victims falling to their deaths. Even if this is true, the segment still effectively evokes the horror that every decent human being felt on September 11."
This is on of the reasons for I call it "cut and paste" movie.
Three days after September 11, Moore demanded that no military action be taken against Afghanistan:
"Declare war?" War against whom? One guy in the desert whom we can never seem to find? Are our leaders telling us that the most powerful country on earth cannot dispose of one sick evil f---wad of a guy? Because if that is what you are telling us, then we are truly screwed. If you are unable to take out this lone ZZ Top wannabe, what on earth would you do for us if we were attacked by a nation of millions? For Chrissakes, call the Israelis and have them do that thing they do when they want to get their man! We pay them enough billions each year, I am SURE they would be happy to accommodate your request....
Mr .Moor if you think that the hall issue is related to one and only one person, you are rung and completely rung its not only "Bin Laden" ,it's a faith on there believers ,on there way ,is only right way ,nothing matter in life every thing is behind life , "Al Qaeda" is only the organization who organize the work ,and any leader for each group, had to take the decision he see as the right one, any where he is ,and he got only to ask for the support ,from the organization to do his job ,they don't believe in any religion or thought ,accept there religion and thoughts .
Fahrenheit asserts that Saddam's Iraq was a nation that "had never attacked the United States. A nation that had never threatened to attack the United States. A nation that had never murdered a single American citizen."
yes "Saddam Iraq" as you say because really before 9/4 Iraq was Saddam and Saddam was Iraq only ,is he a threat only when he kill an American ? Weird way to give accuses to defend saddam ,you didn't see what was written on the walls , what we was learning us in schools ,universities or daily live "fight America ,America been beaten ,fight Israel ,Israel will be beaten" "America is responsible for your misery" and much more ,Mr.moor if you been rise up on these principals ,how? You can be shower when I will Attack you.
Moore's pro-Saddam allegation that Saddam "never threatened to attack the United States" is true in the narrow sense that Saddam never gave a speech in which he threatened to, for example, send the Iraqi navy and army to conduct an amphibious invasion of Florida. But although Saddam never threatened the territorial integrity of America, he repeatedly threatened Americans.
Dear Mr. Moor you lived the propaganda of "Saddam" and his fiat believes, we lived the realty of Saddam, we was dealing with him every minute every day ,weak sleep ,he was just every where ,you didn't live through all this ,you don't believe me if I told you that people with all the pain they got from Saddam cant tell know believe that, he is goon ,they cant speak, they are afraid that he will come back ,they learn to beat ,and humiliated, and never speak ,Saddam will be more than happy if he could attack America ,if he cot the ability to do so ,I wish you was here in Iraq ,when you speak to your president and say to him sham on you ,I wish you could say that to Saddam ,and see how he will respond to you, any way if you are so worried about "Saddam " he is now in the hand of Iraqi justices you can afford him a lower ,and I assure you, that saddam will be well traded, and he will be given all his rights , and that he never did to any Iraqi he killed and executed .
Iraq and al Qaeda
I agree ,that Saddam didn't have any sympathy towards extremes and religionist ,but if they only Worked against its rule ,and on his land ,and if they supported him, and fight with his fear case then they will be alleys, and we should support them.
Moore shows scenes of Baghdad before the invasion and in his weltanschauung, it's a place filled with nothing but happy, smiling, giggly, overjoyed Baghdadis. No pain and suffering there. No rape, murder, gassing, imprisoning, silencing of the citizens in these scenes.
Excuse me is this my Baghdad you talk about ,that Baghdad I live in for more than 20 year ,with all what we lived through ,how could we be happy and smiling ,and we got people bored to death ,under ground ,live ,because ,I cant give you a cause ,maybe you can ,you seems to know more than us ,how? we can be Happy ,and I got friends executed ,I got bothers in jail ,how? We can be happy, and we got nothing to eat, how? we can be happy ,and we got nothing to live for, Iraq was ruled by a regime that had forced a sixth of its population into fearful exile, maybe you have the answers?
The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win.
Once a gian seems like Mr.moor simplies and complicate like "cut and paste" he was doing all the way saying that those who he called them REVOLUTION ,are only enemy of Iraq-the coalition of Saddam loyalists, al Qaeda operatives, and terrorists controlled by Iran or Syria-who are united in their desire to murder Iraqis, and to destroy any possibility of democracy in Iraq, never and ever people been REVOLUTION by cutting innocents peoples head ,or attack police stations ,or bomb ordenary people ,or hit power stations ,or oil pipes ,is those REVOLUTION ,if you didn't notice those REVOLUTION are only ,in the places which they where the most usefull people from Saddam rejieam ,and they simply don't accept the change for bettert life to all not to some,and if they are popular and supported by people here ,I wonder why they cover their facess ? no one in Iraq doubt the support from Iran and Syria to those murdders .
According to Screen Daily, Moore's film will open in mid-July on ten screens in Lebanon and two screens in Syria.
This indeed will be the grateast movie for such as people ,living under the rule of fanticy ,and Hezbollah is doing this in Lebanon ,this is fine and great , I wander if they can show "the independents day" movie ,there is a theme in the movie ,fighting together agents evil.
we will never allow any one to force any think on us ,no ,no more.
I hope Mr.Moor could have a little time to look over how we see things through his "cut and paste" movie .
Just want to say Iraq is our ,and we never let him be goon as it was before, and any Iraqi will meet you some day he will meet you as a friend not as an enemy.
Finally here is some pictures for the new Iraq ,hope you can use it for a new movie not for "cut and paste " movie and show how Iraq is going forward ,and he was release from Darkness,Hope you can use something named faith.

Iraqi American Together Agents terries
A soldier teaching some kids1
Asoldier teaching some kids
Celebrations on the transition day on the28
Celebrations with transition day on the28
Celebrations on the transition day on the28.a
Graduation day
Graduation day1
Graduation picture
Man of the future,Iasked him for apicture and he accept.
New design for the buildings.
Newbuilding in the Iraqi streets.
New building in the Iraqi streets1.
newstyle for the private building.
new style for the private buildings here1.
Ministry of agriculture rebuilding.
New styles of building in Baghdad.
Al-rahman musk one of the biggest musk's in Iraqand the regain.
Private Car fashions in the center of Baghdad.
Alrubaie street in Zauna in Baghdad,supermarket.
Traditional buildings.
Preparing to celebrate.
woman implores in work.

website statistics

Some new phony quotes are circulating around the internet about Bush:

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our Number one priority and we will not rest until we find him!"

-- George W. Bush, September 13, 2001

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

-- George W. Bush, March 13, 2002

Here is how FreeRepublic points out how they're phony:

Post 7:

from, Bush press conference

Q Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part -- deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of --

THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.

Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.

So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.

And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There's going to be other struggles like Shahikot, and I'm just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly. We're tough, we're strong, they're well-equipped. We have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.

Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.

But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore. And if we -- excuse me for a minute -- and if we find a training camp, we'll take care of it. Either we will or our friends will. That's one of the things -- part of the new phase that's becoming apparent to the American people is that we're working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary, or training, or a place to hide, or a place to raise money.

And we've got more work to do. See, that's the thing the American people have got to understand, that we've only been at this six months. This is going to be a long struggle. I keep saying that; I don't know whether you all believe me or not. But time will show you that it's going to take a long time to achieve this objective. And I can assure you, I am not going to blink. And I'm not going to get tired. Because I know what is at stake. And history has called us to action, and I am going to seize this moment for the good of the world, for peace in the world and for freedom.

Post 39:

Just did a Nexis search, and both quotes are certainly false. The second one did have some slight resemblance to what he said in reality on March 13--note one of the above-posted press conferences--but it is exaggerated and falsified and taken totally out of context.

The first quote, on the other hand, is definitely fabricated out of whole cloth. Only two gullible journalists have written about these quotes, and then three letter-to-the-editor writers.

website statistics

Haven't posted anything in a looooong time. Basicaly out of laziness and busy with other things like my scam baiting page:

So, here we go...........

Recently The New Republic has come out with a new article:

July Surprise?
by John B. Judis, Spencer Ackerman & Massoud Ansari

Post date 07.07.04 | Issue date 07.19.04

Late last month, President Bush lost his greatest advantage in his bid for reelection. A poll conducted by ABC News and The Washington Post discovered that challenger John Kerry was running even with the president on the critical question of whom voters trust to handle the war on terrorism. Largely as a result of the deteriorating occupation of Iraq, Bush lost what was, in April, a seemingly prohibitive 21-point advantage on his signature issue. But, even as the president's poll numbers were sliding, his administration was implementing a plan to insure the public's confidence in his hunt for Al Qaeda.

This spring, the administration significantly increased its pressure on Pakistan to kill or capture Osama bin Laden, his deputy, Ayman Al Zawahiri, or the Taliban's Mullah Mohammed Omar, all of whom are believed to be hiding in the lawless tribal areas of Pakistan. A succession of high-level American officials--from outgoing CIA Director George Tenet to Secretary of State Colin Powell to Assistant Secretary of State Christina Rocca to State Department counterterrorism chief Cofer Black to a top CIA South Asia official--have visited Pakistan in recent months to urge General Pervez Musharraf's government to do more in the war on terrorism. In April, Zalmay Khalilzad, the American ambassador to Afghanistan, publicly chided the Pakistanis for providing a "sanctuary" for Al Qaeda and Taliban forces crossing the Afghan border. "The problem has not been solved and needs to be solved, the sooner the better," he said.

This public pressure would be appropriate, even laudable, had it not been accompanied by an unseemly private insistence that the Pakistanis deliver these high-value targets (HVTs) before Americans go to the polls in November. The Bush administration denies it has geared the war on terrorism to the electoral calendar. "Our attitude and actions have been the same since September 11 in terms of getting high-value targets off the street, and that doesn't change because of an election," says National Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack. But The New Republic has learned that Pakistani security officials have been told they must produce HVTs by the election. According to one source in Pakistan's powerful Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), "The Pakistani government is really desperate and wants to flush out bin Laden and his associates after the latest pressures from the U.S. administration to deliver before the [upcoming] U.S. elections." Introducing target dates for Al Qaeda captures is a new twist in U.S.-Pakistani counterterrorism relations--according to a recently departed intelligence official, "no timetable[s]" were discussed in 2002 or 2003--but the November election is apparently bringing a new deadline pressure to the hunt. Another official, this one from the Pakistani Interior Ministry, which is responsible for internal security, explains, "The Musharraf government has a history of rescuing the Bush administration. They now want Musharraf to bail them out when they are facing hard times in the coming elections." (These sources insisted on remaining anonymous. Under Pakistan's Official Secrets Act, an official leaking information to the press can be imprisoned for up to ten years.)

A third source, an official who works under ISI's director, Lieutenant General Ehsan ul-Haq, informed tnr that the Pakistanis "have been told at every level that apprehension or killing of HVTs before [the] election is [an] absolute must." What's more, this source claims that Bush administration officials have told their Pakistani counterparts they have a date in mind for announcing this achievement: "The last ten days of July deadline has been given repeatedly by visitors to Islamabad and during [ul-Haq's] meetings in Washington." Says McCormack: "I'm aware of no such comment." But according to this ISI official, a White House aide told ul-Haq last spring that "it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any] HVT were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July"--the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston.

The Bush administration has matched this public and private pressure with enticements and implicit threats. During his March visit to Islamabad, Powell designated Pakistan a major non-nato ally, a status that allows its military to purchase a wider array of U.S. weaponry. Powell pointedly refused to criticize Musharraf for pardoning nuclear physicist A.Q. Khan--who, the previous month, had admitted exporting nuclear secrets to Iran, North Korea, and Libya--declaring Khan's transgressions an "internal" Pakistani issue. In addition, the administration is pushing a five-year, $3 billion aid package for Pakistan through Congress over Democratic concerns about the country's proliferation of nuclear technology and lack of democratic reform.

But Powell conspicuously did not commit the United States to selling F-16s to Pakistan, which it desperately wants in order to tilt the regional balance of power against India. And the Pakistanis fear that, if they don't produce an HVT, they won't get the planes. Equally, they fear that, if they don't deliver, either Bush or a prospective Kerry administration would turn its attention to the apparent role of Pakistan's security establishment in facilitating Khan's illicit proliferation network. One Pakistani general recently in Washington confided in a journalist, "If we don't find these guys by the election, they are going to stick this whole nuclear mess up our asshole."

Pakistani perceptions of U.S. politics reinforce these worries. "In Pakistan, there has been a folk belief that, whenever there's a Republican administration in office, relations with Pakistan have been very good," says Khalid Hasan, a U.S. correspondent for the Lahore-based Daily Times. By contrast, there's also a "folk belief that the Democrats are always pro-India." Recent history has validated those beliefs. The Clinton administration inherited close ties to Pakistan, forged a decade earlier in collaboration against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. But, by the time Clinton left office, the United States had tilted toward India, and Pakistan was under U.S. sanctions for its nuclear activities. All this has given Musharraf reason not just to respond to pressure from Bush, but to feel invested in him--and to worry that Kerry, who called the Khan affair a "disaster," and who has proposed tough new curbs on nuclear proliferation, would adopt an icier line.

Bush's strategy could work. In large part because of the increased U.S. pressure, Musharraf has, over the last several months, significantly increased military activity in the tribal areas--regions that enjoy considerable autonomy from Islamabad and where, until Musharraf sided with the United States in the war on terrorism, Pakistani soldiers had never set foot in the nation's 50-year history. Thousands of Pakistani troops fought a pitched battle in late March against tribesmen and their Al Qaeda affiliates in South Waziristan in hopes of capturing Zawahiri. The fighting escalated significantly in June. Attacks on army camps in the tribal areas brought fierce retaliation, leaving over 100 tribal and foreign militants and Pakistani soldiers dead in three days. Last month, Pakistan killed a powerful Waziristan warlord and Qaeda ally, Nek Mohammed, in a dramatic rocket attack that villagers said bore American fingerprints. (They claim a U.S. spy plane had been circling overhead.) Through these efforts, the Pakistanis could bring in bin Laden, Mullah Omar, or Zawahiri--a significant victory in the war on terrorism that would bolster Bush's reputation among voters.

But there is a reason many Pakistanis and some American officials had previously been reluctant to carry the war on terrorism into the tribal areas. A Pakistani offensive in that region, aided by American high-tech weaponry and perhaps Special Forces, could unite tribal chieftains against the central government and precipitate a border war without actually capturing any of the HVTs. Military action in the tribal areas "has a domestic fallout, both religious and ethnic," Pakistani Foreign Minister Mian Khursheed Mehmood Kasuri complained to the Los Angeles Times last year. Some American intelligence officials agree. "Pakistan just can't risk a civil war in that area of their country. They can't afford a western border that is unstable," says a senior intelligence official, who anonymously authored the recent Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror and who says he has not heard that the current pressures on Pakistan are geared to the election. "We may be at the point where [Musharraf] has done almost as much as he can."

Pushing Musharraf to go after Al Qaeda in the tribal areas may be a good idea despite the risks. But, if that is the case, it was a good idea in 2002 and 2003. Why the switch now? Top Pakistanis think they know: This year, the president's reelection is at stake.

Massoud Ansari reported from Karachi.

Problem with that is Both us and Pakistan have been going after Al Qaeda into the tribal areas with force for a couple years now. Ever since 2002, only 9 months after 9/11. Apparently the idiots over at TNR have forgotten, which blows their theory (read: lie) right out of the water. (And note all the "anonymous" sources they used). Going into tribal areas is not that new.

Christian Science Monitor
from the June 28, 2002 edition

Pakistan joins war against Al Qaeda in its tribal areas

Pakistani troops are hunting for some 40 Al Qaeda fighters who escaped after a battle earlier this week.

By Jawad Naeem | Special to The Christian Science Monitor

ISLAMABAD – The nocturnal raid this week by Pakistani troops – with FBI assistance – on an Al Qaeda hide-out was the first cooperative effort of this kind on Pakistani soil.

According to sources in Islamabad, five FBI agents worked alongside nearly 50 Pakistani Army soldiers during the operation near the Afghan border. But the US agents were not involved in the two-hour firefight.

This marks the first major combat operation inside Pakistan's autonomous tribal areas, and underscores the shift in the war on Al Qaeda from Afghanistan to Pakistan. In May, US special forces and Pakistani troops searched a madrassah in Northern Waziristan.

This latest ongoing operation is also an acknowledgment by Islamabad, say analysts, that Osama bin Laden's followers are regrouping in its territory – and that President Pervez Musharraf's government is willing to cooperate fully with US efforts.

"The incident in South Waziristan is a grim reminder that Al Qaeda is very much present in Pakistan and that it is able to find shelters in the tribal areas," says Afzal Niazi, a political analyst in Islamabad. "Flushing out the fugitives from their hideouts in a tribal region carries risk of trouble with locals, but it is a risk the authorities have got to take."

As such, it's unlikely to be the last Pakistani operation in the tribal areas. US military officials estimate that up to 1,000 Al Qaeda fighters have fled into the region from Afghanistan.

The clash Tuesday began around midnight in South Waziristan, a mountainous province inhabited by fiercely independent and deeply religious ethnic Pashtun tribesmen to whom bin Laden and the Taliban are considered heroes of Islam.

According to information gathered from Pakistani security and intelligence sources, the operation involved a strike force of three Pakistani units with 16 soldiers in each. It was initiated after the FBI intercepted communications in mid-May indicating the presence of Al Qaeda members in the area.

For Pakistani troops, the attack quickly turned chaotic. The fortress-like Al Qaeda compound is located in Azam Warsak, in a densely populated residential area some 20 miles from the Afghan border. For that reason, Pakistani military sources say the use of tanks or jet bombers would have produced too many civilian casualties.

As the troops entered the gates of the compound, they were hit by machine-gun fire and grenades. For two hours the battle raged, leaving 10 Pakistani soldiers dead, including a major and a captain.

When the fight was over, Pakistani troops found two dead Al Qaeda fighters lying beside their machine guns. They were identified as Chechens from the papers recovered from their pockets.

There was no trace of some 40 others who were believed to have been hiding in the house along with some women and children.

"They all managed to slip away in the darkness, while the two Chechens fought with machine guns," says a military source in the area.

A Pakistan Army spokesman, Maj. Gen. Rashid Qureshi, says two concerns weighed on the minds of the personnel during the operation.

"There were some women and children inside the building, and there were other houses around it, and because of the concerns the law enforcement personnel had to proceed with care and avoid use of lethal force," he says.

Sources in South Waziristan say troop reinforcements arrived Thursday in Wana, the main town in the area, to beef up the search for the escaped fighters, who are believed to include Chechens and Arabs.

Authorities have summoned tribal chieftains from the area to Wana to tell them to cooperate in the operation or risk punitive action, the sources say. Authorities reminded tribal chiefs that under a 1901 law governing the semiautonomous tribal areas, it is their responsibility to ensure no unlawful activity takes place.

Yesterday, troops were conducting house-to-house searches, and the entire area was under curfew. Soldiers were making forays into the mountains to scan cave hideouts, sources there say.

Witnesses say some 20 tribesmen have been taken into custody, and the authorities have demolished several houses, a form of reprisal against suspected criminals under the Frontier Crimes Regulations, a harsh law inherited from British colonial rule.

The tribal territory is widely believed to be a sanctuary for Al Qaeda and Taliban cadres fleeing the US-led military campaign in Afghanistan, and speculation continues that bin Laden himself may be hiding somewhere in the region with local support.

website statistics

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?