Malaysia and Pakistan Nuclear Probe

[__earth]

Check this out. A scientist from Pakistan says a centrifuge was manufactured in Malaysia. I ripped it off the LA Times.
If you are a lazy 455, check out the last few paragraphs and you will see what's the fuss is all about. A few major papers like NYT have reported the same thing.

THE WORLD
Pakistan Caught in a Web of Evidence
U.S., U.N. pressure led to revelation of nuclear transfers. The military's role is still unknown.

By Douglas Frantz, Paul Watson and Mubashir Zaidi, Special to The Times

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan ? Pakistan's admission that the father of its atomic bomb orchestrated illegal sales of nuclear weapons technology to three countries came in response to intense pressure from the United States and the United Nations.

After years of official denial, the Pakistanis said Sunday that Abdul Qadeer Khan, a revered 66-year-old scientist, and his associates spread the designs and technology to produce nuclear weapons fuel to Iran, North Korea and Libya.

But the government left a central question unanswered: whether the country's powerful military was involved in selling the nation's nuclear secrets.

U.S. officials, nuclear experts and a former prime minister of Pakistan expressed doubts Monday that Khan and a handful of associates could have circumvented the extraordinary controls on the country's nuclear technology without the military's blessing.

Benazir Bhutto, who served twice as prime minister before being ousted in 1996 in a corruption scandal and going into exile, said she doubted that the technology could have been transferred without the knowledge of senior military officials.

"It is difficult to accept that the scientists could have violated government policy on their own," she said. "Those who violated the policy are now hiding behind the scientists."

Bhutto said she had no knowledge that Pakistan's nuclear program had been breached when she was in office.

But Khan told authorities that he began providing technology to Iran in 1989 ? during Bhutto's first term ? and Pakistani newspapers have reported that Gen. Aslam Beg, commander of the armed forces at the time, approved the move.

The revelations by Pakistani officials were made only after evidence uncovered by international inspectors and U.S. officials pointed conclusively to their nation's role in aiding the nuclear programs of Iran and Libya.

The disclosures focus new attention on Pakistan's nuclear program, which took off after India exploded its first nuclear bomb 30 years ago.

Among other evidence, inspectors recently discovered blueprints linked to Khan in Iran and Libya and entire centrifuge assemblies in Libya that appear to have been shipped directly from Pakistan, according to diplomats familiar with the international inquiry.

Iranian officials also told the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency that Pakistani scientists had introduced them to a private proliferation network that stretched from Germany to Malaysia, the diplomats said.

The flow of new information and U.S. pressure forced Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf to open the investigation that led to Sunday's disclosure that Khan had confessed to sharing nuclear secrets.

Khan signed a 12-page confession in which he admitted providing designs and components for centrifuges, a senior Pakistani official told local reporters in Islamabad.

The official said Khan claimed he was motivated by a desire to ease Western pressure on Pakistan's nuclear program and spread the ultimate weapon to other Muslim countries.

In Washington, a State Department official said the United States was eager to learn whether Khan's proliferation network extended to the military authorities who have long controlled the country's nuclear program.

He said there were concerns that Musharraf might not push for a thorough investigation, fearing he could provoke new threats to his leadership.

Musharraf is a general who took power in a bloodless coup in October 1999. He has cooperated with the U.S. in its declared war on terrorism.

After two recent assassination attempts, he is guarded by an American military team but ultimately depends on the loyalty of other Pakistani military officers for his safety.

Musharraf needs the support of his military to fight rising criticism from nationalists and militant Muslims who believe he has already gone too far in appeasing the United States.

Khan is under a form of house arrest at his home in Islamabad and has been unable to speak to the media.

Family members of nuclear scientists who are being detained for questioning accused the government of making them scapegoats in response to U.S. pressure.

One of those in custody is Mohammed Farooq, who was in charge of foreign procurement for the nuclear program throughout the 1990s. His son Asim said his father was being pressured to testify against Khan even though he had done nothing wrong.

"He's being arrested just because he was close to Dr. Khan," the younger Farooq said.

There have been public demonstrations supporting Khan, and opposition political leaders claimed he and the other scientists were being targeted to prevent repercussions against the country's military leadership.

"The government is trying to wash their hands off by sacrificing people who made the bomb for the country," said Chaudhry Nisar, the leader of an opposition group.

Pakistani officials allege that Khan was driven at least in part by a desire for wealth, a contention that followed recent Pakistani newspaper articles saying the scientist had amassed a fortune in real estate on a meager government salary.

The scenario described by Pakistani officials is that Khan used his position of trust to evade tight security at the country's nuclear installations and disguise his personal proliferation agenda from the military.

"Everybody knew ours was a covert program, and every successive government and security agencies overlooked allegations about Dr. Khan's assets in the interest of the program and because of the trust in this person," a senior official told Pakistani reporters Sunday night.

Pakistan's nuclear program was born in fear and secrecy three decades ago. On May 18, 1974, India detonated its first atomic weapon in the Rajasthani desert about 100 miles from Pakistan.

Pakistani Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the father of Benazir Bhutto, had launched a nuclear effort in 1972. After the Indian test, he ordered a crash program to match his much larger neighbor.

Khan soon took on a pivotal role. Trained as a metallurgist, he was working for a Dutch engineering firm that was a major subcontractor for a European consortium building an advanced nuclear-fuel-enrichment plant. He was on holiday in Pakistan in 1975 when the prime minister asked him to take charge of Pakistan's uranium-enrichment program.

When Khan agreed, Bhutto "thumped his fist on the table and said, 'I will see the Hindu bastards now,' " according to an account in "India's Nuclear Bomb," a book by George Perkovich of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.

A Dutch court convicted Khan of stealing the centrifuge designs from the European consortium, Urenco, and sentenced him in absentia to four years. His conviction was later overturned on a technicality by an appeals court.

Pakistan did not have the technical base to support an atomic development program. So Khan initiated a huge clandestine effort to acquire the components and materials necessary to develop the process to produce fissile material for an atomic weapon. He eventually passed the technology and contacts he used to build Pakistan's program to Iran and Libya, diplomats and intelligence officials said.

Pakistan also lacked the financial resources to build a bomb from scratch. Experts said it turned to fellow Muslim countries for help in creating what would become known as the "Islamic bomb."

"Libya, Saudi Arabia and Iran were primary funders," said Pervez Hoodbhoy, a professor of nuclear physics at Qaid-e-Azam University in Islamabad and an outspoken critic of nuclear weapons.

By the early 1980s, Pakistan was making progress on its bomb.

The extent of U.S. knowledge was laid out in a secret State Department briefing memo dated June 23, 1983.

"There is unambiguous evidence that Pakistan is actively pursuing a nuclear weapons program," said the memo, which was declassified and later published by the National Security Archive, a nonprofit group in Washington.

Three years later, Khan boasted in an interview with a Pakistani newspaper that Pakistan had a nuclear bomb.

By most accounts, Pakistani technology was first passed to Iran in 1989.

What remains unclear is who initiated the offer and who profited from it.

Two former senior Pakistani officials said in separate interviews last summer that Beg, the general, secretly offered to sell the technology to Iran. They said Benazir Bhutto, prime minister at the time, blocked the sale after learning of it from an Iranian leader.

Khan has admitted that he began selling technology to Iran in 1989, but the Pakistani officials said he claimed to have stopped two years later.

However, diplomats said the IAEA has evidence of Pakistani assistance to Iran as late as 1996. Relations between the countries soured about that time because of Pakistan's support for the Taliban in Afghanistan. Iran's Shiite Muslim leadership opposed the Taliban's Sunni extremism.

Some intelligence officials and experts said, however, that Pakistani assistance to Iran's covert program continued despite the troubled relations.

In May 1998, Pakistan successfully tested its first atomic weapon. Khan became an overnight hero, dubbed the father of the Islamic bomb.

What was unknown was the extent of his assistance to other countries.

Despite suspicions that its technology had leaked to Iran and North Korea, Pakistani leaders consistently denied providing help to outside nuclear programs.

In an interview with The Times last summer, Musharraf insisted that Pakistan had never provided nuclear help to Iran, before or after he took office.

But hard proof of Pakistan's role in helping Iran began to emerge last year, after IAEA inspectors were permitted into Iran's nuclear facilities. The advanced centrifuge program that they discovered was clearly based on Urenco designs Khan had stolen nearly 30 years earlier, according to diplomats and intelligence officials.

In addition, they said, components of some centrifuges appeared to have come directly from Pakistan. One diplomat said Iran told the IAEA it had complained to Pakistani scientists that some of the machines it had bought did not work properly.

The secret relationship began to unravel further in November. In response to an IAEA demand, Iran turned over a complete history of its nuclear program. Among the information was a list of middlemen and scientists with links to Pakistan and Khan, according to diplomats who have seen the material.

IAEA inspectors and officials have been unable to determine how much Iran paid for the nuclear technology and designs. But two diplomats familiar with the inquiry said that "tens of millions of dollars" were suspected to have been paid to Pakistani scientists and middlemen.

One of the diplomats said some money was funneled back to secret accounts in Pakistan through the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, which was founded by a Pakistani and collapsed in 1991 under massive fraud.

A Senate report in 1992 by John F. Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat and current presidential candidate, said there was "good reason" to conclude that BCCI helped finance the Pakistani nuclear program. The bank also contributed $17 million to the nuclear research program, according to Perkovich's book.

Some diplomats in Vienna said they suspected the Iranian payments were used to keep Pakistan's nuclear program afloat in the early 1990s, when U.S. sanctions were squeezing the country's finances.

Arms technology rather than money apparently was behind the transfer of centrifuge technology to North Korea, according to interviews with sources in Europe, the U.S. and Asia.

As Pakistan neared completion of its bomb, efforts to develop a delivery system intensified. In late 1993, Khan approached Benazir Bhutto a few days before she was headed to North Korea for a meeting with its leader, Kim Jong Il.

"If you are going to North Korea, it would be very good if you could talk to Kim Jong Il about helping us with this nuclear project," Khan said, according to the two former Pakistani officials.

Khan explained that he wanted designs for long-range missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads. Bhutto agreed, the officials said, telling aides that she hoped she could reduce the military's pressure on her government by helping Khan. She returned from Pyongyang, the North Korean capital, with computer disks containing plans for missiles.

The former officials said Bhutto denied trading nuclear technology for the designs, saying instead that Pakistan paid for them. Later, U.S. intelligence and other sources reported that Pakistani nuclear technology was being traded to North Korea for missiles because Pakistan did not have the money to pay.

The senior Pakistani official said that in his confession, Khan said his dealings with North Korea lasted from the early 1990s to 1997. But U.S. intelligence officials believe transfers were made as recently as 2000.

Libya, on the other hand, appears to have paid substantial sums for Pakistan's centrifuge technology, according to diplomats familiar with the discoveries in the North African country.

"Best guess is that the Libyans paid $40 million or more for centrifuges, components and designs," said a diplomat who has seen documents provided by Libya.

While Iran had withheld some information about its dealings with Pakistan, diplomats said that Libya provided a more comprehensive look at how the network operated and who some of its players were.

The Libyan program started in the early 1990s, using a Pakistani-designed centrifuge known as the G-1. Diplomats familiar with the Libyan disclosures said some of the centrifuges were used and had been flown to Libya from Pakistan.

Later, they said, Libya switched to a more advanced Pakistani centrifuge design, the G-2. Plans for these machines were among the documents provided to U.S. and IAEA officials by the Libyans.

The second-generation machines were being manufactured at a plant in Malaysia through an arrangement made by Khan, according to the diplomats. Components from the plant were intercepted on the way to Libya in October by U.S. authorities.

Details about the Malaysian plant remain sketchy. The Pakistani official told reporters Sunday that a man linked to Khan was in custody in Malaysia and that Khan had admitted meeting with Iranian scientists in Malaysia.

A diplomat in Vienna said the plant was involved in the oil and gas industry and was part of a larger Malaysian company whose name he did not know.

The Pakistani official who described Khan's confession said the nuclear transfers stopped after Musharraf created the National Command Authority to take control of the country's nuclear arsenal in early 2002.

Musharraf is expected to address the country later this week, after the religious holidays. The question now, according to U.S. officials and experts, is whether he will say the investigation will continue or is finished.

"It's incomprehensible to me that there wasn't collusion between these scientists and their superiors, though not necessarily Musharraf himself," said Perkovich, the Carnegie Endowment expert. "But, given that Musharraf and the military run the country, we should be skeptical that the investigation will follow all the leads into the military."



This:
A diplomat in Vienna said the plant was involved in the oil and gas industry and was part of a larger Malaysian company whose name he did not know.
Is most prolly PETRONAS!
In short, WE ARE SCREWED! LOL!

[__earth]

Check this out. A scientist from Pakistan says a centrifuge was manufactured in Malaysia. I ripped it off the LA Times.
If you are a lazy 455, check out the last few paragraphs and you will see what's the fuss is all about. A few major papers like NYT have reported the same thing.

THE WORLD
Pakistan Caught in a Web of Evidence
U.S., U.N. pressure led to revelation of nuclear transfers. The military's role is still unknown.

By Douglas Frantz, Paul Watson and Mubashir Zaidi, Special to The Times

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan ? Pakistan's admission that the father of its atomic bomb orchestrated illegal sales of nuclear weapons technology to three countries came in response to intense pressure from the United States and the United Nations.

After years of official denial, the Pakistanis said Sunday that Abdul Qadeer Khan, a revered 66-year-old scientist, and his associates spread the designs and technology to produce nuclear weapons fuel to Iran, North Korea and Libya.

But the government left a central question unanswered: whether the country's powerful military was involved in selling the nation's nuclear secrets.

U.S. officials, nuclear experts and a former prime minister of Pakistan expressed doubts Monday that Khan and a handful of associates could have circumvented the extraordinary controls on the country's nuclear technology without the military's blessing.

Benazir Bhutto, who served twice as prime minister before being ousted in 1996 in a corruption scandal and going into exile, said she doubted that the technology could have been transferred without the knowledge of senior military officials.

"It is difficult to accept that the scientists could have violated government policy on their own," she said. "Those who violated the policy are now hiding behind the scientists."

Bhutto said she had no knowledge that Pakistan's nuclear program had been breached when she was in office.

But Khan told authorities that he began providing technology to Iran in 1989 ? during Bhutto's first term ? and Pakistani newspapers have reported that Gen. Aslam Beg, commander of the armed forces at the time, approved the move.

The revelations by Pakistani officials were made only after evidence uncovered by international inspectors and U.S. officials pointed conclusively to their nation's role in aiding the nuclear programs of Iran and Libya.

The disclosures focus new attention on Pakistan's nuclear program, which took off after India exploded its first nuclear bomb 30 years ago.

Among other evidence, inspectors recently discovered blueprints linked to Khan in Iran and Libya and entire centrifuge assemblies in Libya that appear to have been shipped directly from Pakistan, according to diplomats familiar with the international inquiry.

Iranian officials also told the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency that Pakistani scientists had introduced them to a private proliferation network that stretched from Germany to Malaysia, the diplomats said.

The flow of new information and U.S. pressure forced Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf to open the investigation that led to Sunday's disclosure that Khan had confessed to sharing nuclear secrets.

Khan signed a 12-page confession in which he admitted providing designs and components for centrifuges, a senior Pakistani official told local reporters in Islamabad.

The official said Khan claimed he was motivated by a desire to ease Western pressure on Pakistan's nuclear program and spread the ultimate weapon to other Muslim countries.

In Washington, a State Department official said the United States was eager to learn whether Khan's proliferation network extended to the military authorities who have long controlled the country's nuclear program.

He said there were concerns that Musharraf might not push for a thorough investigation, fearing he could provoke new threats to his leadership.

Musharraf is a general who took power in a bloodless coup in October 1999. He has cooperated with the U.S. in its declared war on terrorism.

After two recent assassination attempts, he is guarded by an American military team but ultimately depends on the loyalty of other Pakistani military officers for his safety.

Musharraf needs the support of his military to fight rising criticism from nationalists and militant Muslims who believe he has already gone too far in appeasing the United States.

Khan is under a form of house arrest at his home in Islamabad and has been unable to speak to the media.

Family members of nuclear scientists who are being detained for questioning accused the government of making them scapegoats in response to U.S. pressure.

One of those in custody is Mohammed Farooq, who was in charge of foreign procurement for the nuclear program throughout the 1990s. His son Asim said his father was being pressured to testify against Khan even though he had done nothing wrong.

"He's being arrested just because he was close to Dr. Khan," the younger Farooq said.

There have been public demonstrations supporting Khan, and opposition political leaders claimed he and the other scientists were being targeted to prevent repercussions against the country's military leadership.

"The government is trying to wash their hands off by sacrificing people who made the bomb for the country," said Chaudhry Nisar, the leader of an opposition group.

Pakistani officials allege that Khan was driven at least in part by a desire for wealth, a contention that followed recent Pakistani newspaper articles saying the scientist had amassed a fortune in real estate on a meager government salary.

The scenario described by Pakistani officials is that Khan used his position of trust to evade tight security at the country's nuclear installations and disguise his personal proliferation agenda from the military.

"Everybody knew ours was a covert program, and every successive government and security agencies overlooked allegations about Dr. Khan's assets in the interest of the program and because of the trust in this person," a senior official told Pakistani reporters Sunday night.

Pakistan's nuclear program was born in fear and secrecy three decades ago. On May 18, 1974, India detonated its first atomic weapon in the Rajasthani desert about 100 miles from Pakistan.

Pakistani Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the father of Benazir Bhutto, had launched a nuclear effort in 1972. After the Indian test, he ordered a crash program to match his much larger neighbor.

Khan soon took on a pivotal role. Trained as a metallurgist, he was working for a Dutch engineering firm that was a major subcontractor for a European consortium building an advanced nuclear-fuel-enrichment plant. He was on holiday in Pakistan in 1975 when the prime minister asked him to take charge of Pakistan's uranium-enrichment program.

When Khan agreed, Bhutto "thumped his fist on the table and said, 'I will see the Hindu bastards now,' " according to an account in "India's Nuclear Bomb," a book by George Perkovich of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.

A Dutch court convicted Khan of stealing the centrifuge designs from the European consortium, Urenco, and sentenced him in absentia to four years. His conviction was later overturned on a technicality by an appeals court.

Pakistan did not have the technical base to support an atomic development program. So Khan initiated a huge clandestine effort to acquire the components and materials necessary to develop the process to produce fissile material for an atomic weapon. He eventually passed the technology and contacts he used to build Pakistan's program to Iran and Libya, diplomats and intelligence officials said.

Pakistan also lacked the financial resources to build a bomb from scratch. Experts said it turned to fellow Muslim countries for help in creating what would become known as the "Islamic bomb."

"Libya, Saudi Arabia and Iran were primary funders," said Pervez Hoodbhoy, a professor of nuclear physics at Qaid-e-Azam University in Islamabad and an outspoken critic of nuclear weapons.

By the early 1980s, Pakistan was making progress on its bomb.

The extent of U.S. knowledge was laid out in a secret State Department briefing memo dated June 23, 1983.

"There is unambiguous evidence that Pakistan is actively pursuing a nuclear weapons program," said the memo, which was declassified and later published by the National Security Archive, a nonprofit group in Washington.

Three years later, Khan boasted in an interview with a Pakistani newspaper that Pakistan had a nuclear bomb.

By most accounts, Pakistani technology was first passed to Iran in 1989.

What remains unclear is who initiated the offer and who profited from it.

Two former senior Pakistani officials said in separate interviews last summer that Beg, the general, secretly offered to sell the technology to Iran. They said Benazir Bhutto, prime minister at the time, blocked the sale after learning of it from an Iranian leader.

Khan has admitted that he began selling technology to Iran in 1989, but the Pakistani officials said he claimed to have stopped two years later.

However, diplomats said the IAEA has evidence of Pakistani assistance to Iran as late as 1996. Relations between the countries soured about that time because of Pakistan's support for the Taliban in Afghanistan. Iran's Shiite Muslim leadership opposed the Taliban's Sunni extremism.

Some intelligence officials and experts said, however, that Pakistani assistance to Iran's covert program continued despite the troubled relations.

In May 1998, Pakistan successfully tested its first atomic weapon. Khan became an overnight hero, dubbed the father of the Islamic bomb.

What was unknown was the extent of his assistance to other countries.

Despite suspicions that its technology had leaked to Iran and North Korea, Pakistani leaders consistently denied providing help to outside nuclear programs.

In an interview with The Times last summer, Musharraf insisted that Pakistan had never provided nuclear help to Iran, before or after he took office.

But hard proof of Pakistan's role in helping Iran began to emerge last year, after IAEA inspectors were permitted into Iran's nuclear facilities. The advanced centrifuge program that they discovered was clearly based on Urenco designs Khan had stolen nearly 30 years earlier, according to diplomats and intelligence officials.

In addition, they said, components of some centrifuges appeared to have come directly from Pakistan. One diplomat said Iran told the IAEA it had complained to Pakistani scientists that some of the machines it had bought did not work properly.

The secret relationship began to unravel further in November. In response to an IAEA demand, Iran turned over a complete history of its nuclear program. Among the information was a list of middlemen and scientists with links to Pakistan and Khan, according to diplomats who have seen the material.

IAEA inspectors and officials have been unable to determine how much Iran paid for the nuclear technology and designs. But two diplomats familiar with the inquiry said that "tens of millions of dollars" were suspected to have been paid to Pakistani scientists and middlemen.

One of the diplomats said some money was funneled back to secret accounts in Pakistan through the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, which was founded by a Pakistani and collapsed in 1991 under massive fraud.

A Senate report in 1992 by John F. Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat and current presidential candidate, said there was "good reason" to conclude that BCCI helped finance the Pakistani nuclear program. The bank also contributed $17 million to the nuclear research program, according to Perkovich's book.

Some diplomats in Vienna said they suspected the Iranian payments were used to keep Pakistan's nuclear program afloat in the early 1990s, when U.S. sanctions were squeezing the country's finances.

Arms technology rather than money apparently was behind the transfer of centrifuge technology to North Korea, according to interviews with sources in Europe, the U.S. and Asia.

As Pakistan neared completion of its bomb, efforts to develop a delivery system intensified. In late 1993, Khan approached Benazir Bhutto a few days before she was headed to North Korea for a meeting with its leader, Kim Jong Il.

"If you are going to North Korea, it would be very good if you could talk to Kim Jong Il about helping us with this nuclear project," Khan said, according to the two former Pakistani officials.

Khan explained that he wanted designs for long-range missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads. Bhutto agreed, the officials said, telling aides that she hoped she could reduce the military's pressure on her government by helping Khan. She returned from Pyongyang, the North Korean capital, with computer disks containing plans for missiles.

The former officials said Bhutto denied trading nuclear technology for the designs, saying instead that Pakistan paid for them. Later, U.S. intelligence and other sources reported that Pakistani nuclear technology was being traded to North Korea for missiles because Pakistan did not have the money to pay.

The senior Pakistani official said that in his confession, Khan said his dealings with North Korea lasted from the early 1990s to 1997. But U.S. intelligence officials believe transfers were made as recently as 2000.

Libya, on the other hand, appears to have paid substantial sums for Pakistan's centrifuge technology, according to diplomats familiar with the discoveries in the North African country.

"Best guess is that the Libyans paid $40 million or more for centrifuges, components and designs," said a diplomat who has seen documents provided by Libya.

While Iran had withheld some information about its dealings with Pakistan, diplomats said that Libya provided a more comprehensive look at how the network operated and who some of its players were.

The Libyan program started in the early 1990s, using a Pakistani-designed centrifuge known as the G-1. Diplomats familiar with the Libyan disclosures said some of the centrifuges were used and had been flown to Libya from Pakistan.

Later, they said, Libya switched to a more advanced Pakistani centrifuge design, the G-2. Plans for these machines were among the documents provided to U.S. and IAEA officials by the Libyans.

The second-generation machines were being manufactured at a plant in Malaysia through an arrangement made by Khan, according to the diplomats. Components from the plant were intercepted on the way to Libya in October by U.S. authorities.

Details about the Malaysian plant remain sketchy. The Pakistani official told reporters Sunday that a man linked to Khan was in custody in Malaysia and that Khan had admitted meeting with Iranian scientists in Malaysia.

A diplomat in Vienna said the plant was involved in the oil and gas industry and was part of a larger Malaysian company whose name he did not know.

The Pakistani official who described Khan's confession said the nuclear transfers stopped after Musharraf created the National Command Authority to take control of the country's nuclear arsenal in early 2002.

Musharraf is expected to address the country later this week, after the religious holidays. The question now, according to U.S. officials and experts, is whether he will say the investigation will continue or is finished.

"It's incomprehensible to me that there wasn't collusion between these scientists and their superiors, though not necessarily Musharraf himself," said Perkovich, the Carnegie Endowment expert. "But, given that Musharraf and the military run the country, we should be skeptical that the investigation will follow all the leads into the military."



This:
A diplomat in Vienna said the plant was involved in the oil and gas industry and was part of a larger Malaysian company whose name he did not know.
Is most prolly PETRONAS!
In short, WE ARE SCREWED! LOL!

[da-hype]

http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

/me loves this topic.....

1st of all? who cares if they have weapons of WMD. all the US is tyring to do i scare their people... so bush will get votes and put another republican in office.

take a look at this... http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/wmd_state.htm

all these countries have it... i don't see what the big deal is?
The US alone has 5 times more that europe combined...

this is just another way bush want to get votes... or money to attack another poor country. let me remind you of all the intereting quotes said b4 the iraqi war....


Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-CT, September 4, 2002

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

Dick Cheney August 26, 2002

If we wait for the danger to become clear, it could be too late.

Sen. Joseph Biden D-Del., September 4, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

George W. Bush September 12, 2002

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.

Ari Fleischer December 2, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.

Ari Fleischer January 9, 2003

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.

George W. Bush January 28, 2003

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.

Colin Powell February 5, 2003

Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, February 5, 2003

We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.

George Bush February 8, 2003

So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? I think our judgment has to be clearly not.

Colin Powell March 8, 2003

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

George Bush March 18, 2003

We are asked to accept Saddam decided to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd.

Tony Blair, Prime Minister 18 March, 2003

Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.

Ari Fleisher March 21, 2003

There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.

Gen. Tommy Franks March 22, 2003

I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.

Kenneth Adelman, Defense Policy Board , March 23, 2003

One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.

Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark March 22, 2003

We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.

Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003



Saddam's removal is necessary to eradicate the threat from his weapons of mass destruction

Jack Straw,
Foreign Secretary 2 April, 2003

Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty.

Neocon scholar Robert Kagan April 9, 2003

I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found.

Ari Fleischer April 10, 2003

We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.

George Bush April 24, 2003

Before people crow about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, I suggest they wait a bit.

Tony Blair 28 April, 2003


There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country. Donald Rumsfeld April 25, 2003

We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.

George Bush May 3, 2003

I am confident that we will find evidence that makes it clear he had weapons of mass destruction.

Colin Powell May 4, 2003

I never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.

Donald Rumsfeld May 4, 2003

I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program.

George W. Bush May 6, 2003

U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.

Condoleeza Rice May 12, 2003

I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago -- I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago -- whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they're still hidden.

Maj. Gen. David Petraeus,
Commander 101st Airborne May 13, 2003

Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found.

Gen. Michael Hagee,
Commandant of the Marine Corps May 21, 2003

Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction.

Gen. Richard Myers,
Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff May 26, 2003

They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.

Donald Rumsfeld May 27, 2003

For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.

Paul Wolfowitz May 28, 2003



and where are the weapons again??? even if they had it... The US gave it to iraq.

[da-hype]

http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

/me loves this topic.....

1st of all? who cares if they have weapons of WMD. all the US is tyring to do i scare their people... so bush will get votes and put another republican in office.

take a look at this... http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/wmd_state.htm

all these countries have it... i don't see what the big deal is?
The US alone has 5 times more that europe combined...

this is just another way bush want to get votes... or money to attack another poor country. let me remind you of all the intereting quotes said b4 the iraqi war....


Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-CT, September 4, 2002

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

Dick Cheney August 26, 2002

If we wait for the danger to become clear, it could be too late.

Sen. Joseph Biden D-Del., September 4, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

George W. Bush September 12, 2002

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.

Ari Fleischer December 2, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.

Ari Fleischer January 9, 2003

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.

George W. Bush January 28, 2003

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.

Colin Powell February 5, 2003

Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, February 5, 2003

We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.

George Bush February 8, 2003

So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? I think our judgment has to be clearly not.

Colin Powell March 8, 2003

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

George Bush March 18, 2003

We are asked to accept Saddam decided to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd.

Tony Blair, Prime Minister 18 March, 2003

Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.

Ari Fleisher March 21, 2003

There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.

Gen. Tommy Franks March 22, 2003

I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.

Kenneth Adelman, Defense Policy Board , March 23, 2003

One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.

Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark March 22, 2003

We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.

Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003



Saddam's removal is necessary to eradicate the threat from his weapons of mass destruction

Jack Straw,
Foreign Secretary 2 April, 2003

Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty.

Neocon scholar Robert Kagan April 9, 2003

I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found.

Ari Fleischer April 10, 2003

We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.

George Bush April 24, 2003

Before people crow about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, I suggest they wait a bit.

Tony Blair 28 April, 2003


There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country. Donald Rumsfeld April 25, 2003

We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.

George Bush May 3, 2003

I am confident that we will find evidence that makes it clear he had weapons of mass destruction.

Colin Powell May 4, 2003

I never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.

Donald Rumsfeld May 4, 2003

I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program.

George W. Bush May 6, 2003

U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.

Condoleeza Rice May 12, 2003

I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago -- I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago -- whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they're still hidden.

Maj. Gen. David Petraeus,
Commander 101st Airborne May 13, 2003

Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found.

Gen. Michael Hagee,
Commandant of the Marine Corps May 21, 2003

Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction.

Gen. Richard Myers,
Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff May 26, 2003

They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.

Donald Rumsfeld May 27, 2003

For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.

Paul Wolfowitz May 28, 2003



and where are the weapons again??? even if they had it... The US gave it to iraq.

[qedx]

petronas makes weapons of mass destruction! way to go!

[qedx]

petronas makes weapons of mass destruction! way to go!

[__earth]

da-hype, you are digressing and not seeing the point. in fact, this is not even about Iraq or the question of whether Pakistan has nuclear capability or not. Pakistan is a known nuclear power - we know that

The crux is information from the probe. It's not about who has what, it is about how it got to Iran in the first place. Through the probe, we know Pakistan played a part in the technology transfer. Plus the centrifuge was manufactured in the most unexpected place.

Who cares about UK, Russia, France, or Iraq and all the other nuclear powers. The thing is, Malaysia is somehow an active participant in the nuclear black market. whether the Msian government is involved or its just some private entity, the yellow brick leads to Malaysia.

and, what does Bush has to do with this? omg, be objective man. dont point the gun at random.

[__earth]

da-hype, you are digressing and not seeing the point. in fact, this is not even about Iraq or the question of whether Pakistan has nuclear capability or not. Pakistan is a known nuclear power - we know that

The crux is information from the probe. It's not about who has what, it is about how it got to Iran in the first place. Through the probe, we know Pakistan played a part in the technology transfer. Plus the centrifuge was manufactured in the most unexpected place.

Who cares about UK, Russia, France, or Iraq and all the other nuclear powers. The thing is, Malaysia is somehow an active participant in the nuclear black market. whether the Msian government is involved or its just some private entity, the yellow brick leads to Malaysia.

and, what does Bush has to do with this? omg, be objective man. dont point the gun at random.

[da-hype]

da-hype, you are digressing and not seeing the point.

The crux is, the centrifuge was manufactured in the most unexpected place. Who cares about UK, Russia, France and all the other nuclear powers. The thing is, Malaysia is somehow a active participant in the nuclear black market. whether the Msian government is involved or its just some private entity, the yellow brick leads to Malaysia.


omg... i think i should start speaking urdu or arabic here. maybe more people would understand.

i meant.. "who cares if it leads to us?"

why is the US making a big deal? are there un sanctions on m'sia saying we can't have them?

are there sanctions on pakistan india or iran? last i checked there are none.

so what pakistan is selling info to iran malaysia or god knows where else. rusia does it. france does it. that's my point

[da-hype]

da-hype, you are digressing and not seeing the point.

The crux is, the centrifuge was manufactured in the most unexpected place. Who cares about UK, Russia, France and all the other nuclear powers. The thing is, Malaysia is somehow a active participant in the nuclear black market. whether the Msian government is involved or its just some private entity, the yellow brick leads to Malaysia.


omg... i think i should start speaking urdu or arabic here. maybe more people would understand.

i meant.. "who cares if it leads to us?"

why is the US making a big deal? are there un sanctions on m'sia saying we can't have them?

are there sanctions on pakistan india or iran? last i checked there are none.

so what pakistan is selling info to iran malaysia or god knows where else. rusia does it. france does it. that's my point

[__earth]

you dont get it. It's malaysia that provide the centrifuge.

[__earth]

you dont get it. It's malaysia that provide the centrifuge.

[da-hype]

what ever floats your boat.

[da-hype]

what ever floats your boat.

[Thirdshifter]

I see what da-Hype is trying to say. Let me reformulate his words to be easily understood without going to the extent of translating it into Urdu as of yet :D

The point he's making is, Whats the big deal if Malaysia has the capability to built,supply or train any country to equip themselves with nuclear arms as long as theire is no Treaty, cease-fire or restrictions has been signed.

I have to agree with this too. The USA has gone beyond its call to police the world.

[Thirdshifter]

I see what da-Hype is trying to say. Let me reformulate his words to be easily understood without going to the extent of translating it into Urdu as of yet :D

The point he's making is, Whats the big deal if Malaysia has the capability to built,supply or train any country to equip themselves with nuclear arms as long as theire is no Treaty, cease-fire or restrictions has been signed.

I have to agree with this too. The USA has gone beyond its call to police the world.

[__earth]

I see what da-Hype is trying to say. Let me reformulate his words to be easily understood without going to the extent of translating it into Urdu as of yet :D

The point he's making is, Whats the big deal if Malaysia has the capability to built,supply or train any country to equip themselves with nuclear arms as long as theire is no Treaty, cease-fire or restrictions has been signed.

I have to agree with this too. The USA has gone beyond its call to police the world.

hehe. If it were translated into urdu, i've would have been lost.

well, answering that, there is a restriction. ASEAN is a ZOPFAN region.

yeah, i agree that the US has gone too far in policing the world.

[__earth]

I see what da-Hype is trying to say. Let me reformulate his words to be easily understood without going to the extent of translating it into Urdu as of yet :D

The point he's making is, Whats the big deal if Malaysia has the capability to built,supply or train any country to equip themselves with nuclear arms as long as theire is no Treaty, cease-fire or restrictions has been signed.

I have to agree with this too. The USA has gone beyond its call to police the world.

hehe. If it were translated into urdu, i've would have been lost.

well, answering that, there is a restriction. ASEAN is a ZOPFAN region.

yeah, i agree that the US has gone too far in policing the world.

Interesting, we should definitely check on other news sources. The New York Times did mention a subset of what the LA times mentioned about the Malaysian company (supposedly Petronas). Do note that centrifuge may be used to separate oil components (or something related). The point is that many things have dual (or more) uses.

And it doesn't surprise me that there are some scientist/engineers in Petronas who are willing to make a profit by selling information on the centrifudge.

It is common knowlegde that the US has tons of WMD (all well stored and secured). But the US has not used it (with the exception of Hiroshima and Nagasaki). For those concern about this, do you think the world would be safer if the some groups like al-Qaeda possesses WMD or an established nation like the US having them just for defensive purposes?
You should instead be worried about Russia with many nuclear sites and WMD labs poorly guarded. Often times I wonder why the US government is so paranoid about some foreign scientist in Pakistan or China leaking WMD to terrorist when they are spending so little to secure the WMD sites in the former Soviet Union.

Interesting, we should definitely check on other news sources. The New York Times did mention a subset of what the LA times mentioned about the Malaysian company (supposedly Petronas). Do note that centrifuge may be used to separate oil components (or something related). The point is that many things have dual (or more) uses.

And it doesn't surprise me that there are some scientist/engineers in Petronas who are willing to make a profit by selling information on the centrifudge.

It is common knowlegde that the US has tons of WMD (all well stored and secured). But the US has not used it (with the exception of Hiroshima and Nagasaki). For those concern about this, do you think the world would be safer if the some groups like al-Qaeda possesses WMD or an established nation like the US having them just for defensive purposes?
You should instead be worried about Russia with many nuclear sites and WMD labs poorly guarded. Often times I wonder why the US government is so paranoid about some foreign scientist in Pakistan or China leaking WMD to terrorist when they are spending so little to secure the WMD sites in the former Soviet Union.

[da-hype]

i honestly think... if the US would change it's foreign policies and stop giving huge seport to Israel... this would reduce the demand for such weapons.. especially buy terrorist groups. There would be no osama bin laden is the US was not involved in the 1st gulf war.. and there would not have been sept 11 either.

[da-hype]

i honestly think... if the US would change it's foreign policies and stop giving huge seport to Israel... this would reduce the demand for such weapons.. especially buy terrorist groups. There would be no osama bin laden is the US was not involved in the 1st gulf war.. and there would not have been sept 11 either.

[Thirdshifter]

i honestly think... if the US would change it's foreign policies and stop giving huge seport to Israel... this would reduce the demand for such weapons.. especially buy terrorist groups. There would be no osama bin laden is the US was not involved in the 1st gulf war.. and there would not have been sept 11 either.

Who said so? Last time i checked it was egypt and few other Israel neigbours that attacked Israel in 1967 and unfortunaltly or fotunatly? Israel kicked their butts. A well deserved butt kicking i must add. Egypt trusted it's Comunist Allies, The U.S.S.R to back them up. Never happened. Few years later their Allies went to wage war agaisnt their fellow Muslims in Afganistan. The will of Allah? heh.

To justify the needs of a terorist group is profoundly dumb and not-logical. Al- Qaedda not only wants to kill all 'Infedels' but they want to destroy all Moderate Islam nations. Malaysia, Pakistan, Iraq, Indonesia, Turkey, Brunei are on their hit list.

The Islamic Militant Fundementalist Retardist and Bodoh bahalulism should go..

Lets make an effort to educate our fellow Human beings in The middle east that retaliation is not a solution to their problems. I don't think there's any justification of killing a felow human. Be it in the Name Of Allah, Jesus, Moses, Abraham, Muhammad, Country, State, Belief, Family or Anything else.

Men killing men would not get us anywhere. If it does. please let me know what it is.

[Thirdshifter]

i honestly think... if the US would change it's foreign policies and stop giving huge seport to Israel... this would reduce the demand for such weapons.. especially buy terrorist groups. There would be no osama bin laden is the US was not involved in the 1st gulf war.. and there would not have been sept 11 either.

Who said so? Last time i checked it was egypt and few other Israel neigbours that attacked Israel in 1967 and unfortunaltly or fotunatly? Israel kicked their butts. A well deserved butt kicking i must add. Egypt trusted it's Comunist Allies, The U.S.S.R to back them up. Never happened. Few years later their Allies went to wage war agaisnt their fellow Muslims in Afganistan. The will of Allah? heh.

To justify the needs of a terorist group is profoundly dumb and not-logical. Al- Qaedda not only wants to kill all 'Infedels' but they want to destroy all Moderate Islam nations. Malaysia, Pakistan, Iraq, Indonesia, Turkey, Brunei are on their hit list.

The Islamic Militant Fundementalist Retardist and Bodoh bahalulism should go..

Lets make an effort to educate our fellow Human beings in The middle east that retaliation is not a solution to their problems. I don't think there's any justification of killing a felow human. Be it in the Name Of Allah, Jesus, Moses, Abraham, Muhammad, Country, State, Belief, Family or Anything else.

Men killing men would not get us anywhere. If it does. please let me know what it is.

[da-hype]

It was egypt syria and jordon. and yes they did kick all those countires butts in 6 days. But who was helping them?

1 reason osama is pissed at the US.. was because of the US involement in the 1 iraq war. and that they were on holy land.

Till today Israel get's like 8 billion a year from the US for millitry seport.
Till to day Israel gets weapons from countries like the US... modifies them.. and sells them to contires like india. making israel the county with the most WMD in the middle east and the bigest technology exporter in the middle east.

and when israel goes into palestine... no biggy... but when iraq does something.. everyone jumps to their feet. OR when Dr. M said "the jews rule the world by proxy" .... The US gets pissed.

and if you were from palestine.. the palestinian army ain't fighting back ( for what ever reason) and the israelies are killing your people.. what do u do? suiside bombing!!

osama was against US involment in iraq from day 1. he told the king that he and his people (afgans) could take out the iraq like they did the russians. but the soudi's king refused and brought in the americans. osama wanted the problem to be solved within the arab community.


To justify the needs of a terorist group is profoundly dumb and not-logical. Al- Qaedda not only wants to kill all 'Infedels' but they want to destroy all Moderate Islam nations. Malaysia, Pakistan, Iraq, Indonesia, Turkey, Brunei are on their hit list.


in some was yes.. and in some ways no.. i don't think terrorism is the answer.. and yes there are other ways... but when the US says' things like osama's people was seen in malaysia and stuff... yes maybe... but look. the bin laden family is originally a constuction company... u saying they can't come to m'sia and get jobs? I don't think osama's plan is destory moderat islamic nations... he just wants the US to stay away and not use these countries like their toys. they did it to iran once (took the king of iran out of power... put in the shah.. then took the shah out.) and iraq... (put saddam in power.. gave him weapons to kill iranians... now they took him out)

/me it's late... i forgot where i'm going with this. HAHAHAHA

[da-hype]

It was egypt syria and jordon. and yes they did kick all those countires butts in 6 days. But who was helping them?

1 reason osama is pissed at the US.. was because of the US involement in the 1 iraq war. and that they were on holy land.

Till today Israel get's like 8 billion a year from the US for millitry seport.
Till to day Israel gets weapons from countries like the US... modifies them.. and sells them to contires like india. making israel the county with the most WMD in the middle east and the bigest technology exporter in the middle east.

and when israel goes into palestine... no biggy... but when iraq does something.. everyone jumps to their feet. OR when Dr. M said "the jews rule the world by proxy" .... The US gets pissed.

and if you were from palestine.. the palestinian army ain't fighting back ( for what ever reason) and the israelies are killing your people.. what do u do? suiside bombing!!

osama was against US involment in iraq from day 1. he told the king that he and his people (afgans) could take out the iraq like they did the russians. but the soudi's king refused and brought in the americans. osama wanted the problem to be solved within the arab community.


To justify the needs of a terorist group is profoundly dumb and not-logical. Al- Qaedda not only wants to kill all 'Infedels' but they want to destroy all Moderate Islam nations. Malaysia, Pakistan, Iraq, Indonesia, Turkey, Brunei are on their hit list.


in some was yes.. and in some ways no.. i don't think terrorism is the answer.. and yes there are other ways... but when the US says' things like osama's people was seen in malaysia and stuff... yes maybe... but look. the bin laden family is originally a constuction company... u saying they can't come to m'sia and get jobs? I don't think osama's plan is destory moderat islamic nations... he just wants the US to stay away and not use these countries like their toys. they did it to iran once (took the king of iran out of power... put in the shah.. then took the shah out.) and iraq... (put saddam in power.. gave him weapons to kill iranians... now they took him out)

/me it's late... i forgot where i'm going with this. HAHAHAHA

[da-hype]

Lets make an effort to educate our fellow Human beings in The middle east that retaliation is not a solution to their problems. I don't think there's any justification of killing a felow human. Be it in the Name Of Allah, Jesus, Moses, Abraham, Muhammad, Country, State, Belief, Family or Anything else

i agree..

[da-hype]

Lets make an effort to educate our fellow Human beings in The middle east that retaliation is not a solution to their problems. I don't think there's any justification of killing a felow human. Be it in the Name Of Allah, Jesus, Moses, Abraham, Muhammad, Country, State, Belief, Family or Anything else

i agree..

[z]

what was malaysia's response to the article?

i remember reading the news and the article gave me (on first read) the impression that malaysia is a proponent and supplier of WMD.

such articles could very well be misleading american readers to believing that malaysia is part of a global "axis of evil."

[z]

what was malaysia's response to the article?

i remember reading the news and the article gave me (on first read) the impression that malaysia is a proponent and supplier of WMD.

such articles could very well be misleading american readers to believing that malaysia is part of a global "axis of evil."

[budakkerek]

ZOPFAN means Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality

are we really that?

[budakkerek]

ZOPFAN means Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality

are we really that?

[Thirdshifter]

Fine, Osama has his reasons. The only thing i find amusing is, this Dude used Islam as an excuse.

In Islam code of wars. Children, Women and the Elderly (Civilians) should be avoided at all cause. Osama and it's group on the other hand target these people in particular. So does most of the Suicide Bombings in Israel. Busses and Crowded restaurant are easy hits. I rarely hear on the news a Suicide bomber blew himself in front of an Army Outpost, etc.

As for USA funding Israel. That's true. But USA is also granting Egypts billions of dollars every year just to keep egypt from attacking Israel again.

Lets face the reality, The arabs are no Saint. Just look at them, All of them are monarchy holding tight to their self apointed power. Maybe when Muslims in that region realized that it is their leaders that are manipulating them.. Middle east would be a more welcoming place to be inhibited by Humans.

[Thirdshifter]

Fine, Osama has his reasons. The only thing i find amusing is, this Dude used Islam as an excuse.

In Islam code of wars. Children, Women and the Elderly (Civilians) should be avoided at all cause. Osama and it's group on the other hand target these people in particular. So does most of the Suicide Bombings in Israel. Busses and Crowded restaurant are easy hits. I rarely hear on the news a Suicide bomber blew himself in front of an Army Outpost, etc.

As for USA funding Israel. That's true. But USA is also granting Egypts billions of dollars every year just to keep egypt from attacking Israel again.

Lets face the reality, The arabs are no Saint. Just look at them, All of them are monarchy holding tight to their self apointed power. Maybe when Muslims in that region realized that it is their leaders that are manipulating them.. Middle east would be a more welcoming place to be inhibited by Humans.

[da-hype]

Fine, Osama has his reasons. The only thing i find amusing is, this Dude used Islam as an excuse.

In Islam code of wars. Children, Women and the Elderly (Civilians) should be avoided at all cause. Osama and it's group on the other hand target these people in particular. So does most of the Suicide Bombings in Israel. Busses and Crowded restaurant are easy hits. I rarely hear on the news a Suicide bomber blew himself in front of an Army Outpost, etc.

As for USA funding Israel. That's true. But USA is also granting Egypts billions of dollars every year just to keep egypt from attacking Israel again.

Lets face the reality, The arabs are no Saint. Just look at them, All of them are monarchy holding tight to their self apointed power. Maybe when Muslims in that region realized that it is their leaders that are manipulating them.. Middle east would be a more welcoming place to be inhibited by Humans.

totally agree with you. the US is funding the egypts... to sit down and shut up... but israel is seposed "sit down and shut up" but the aren't. and everybody allow them to do what ever they want.

and yes is sitll does not give osama the right to use "in the name of islam" but bush also says "god is with us and bla bla" both sides are kind of using gods name.

and yes the arabs are no saints... if the US really wanted peace in the middle east. they should start with saudi arabia. (ruled buy the most corrupt and greedy family in the world)

but that's not what the US wants. they want that that region to me in total kaos (my opinion), for what ever reason. (god knows)

but going back to osama... if the arabs are really opressed... their wife's being killed childeren being killed.. and the goverment's not doing anything... and israel is breaking laws..are you going to play by the book too? :twisted:

[da-hype]

Fine, Osama has his reasons. The only thing i find amusing is, this Dude used Islam as an excuse.

In Islam code of wars. Children, Women and the Elderly (Civilians) should be avoided at all cause. Osama and it's group on the other hand target these people in particular. So does most of the Suicide Bombings in Israel. Busses and Crowded restaurant are easy hits. I rarely hear on the news a Suicide bomber blew himself in front of an Army Outpost, etc.

As for USA funding Israel. That's true. But USA is also granting Egypts billions of dollars every year just to keep egypt from attacking Israel again.

Lets face the reality, The arabs are no Saint. Just look at them, All of them are monarchy holding tight to their self apointed power. Maybe when Muslims in that region realized that it is their leaders that are manipulating them.. Middle east would be a more welcoming place to be inhibited by Humans.

totally agree with you. the US is funding the egypts... to sit down and shut up... but israel is seposed "sit down and shut up" but the aren't. and everybody allow them to do what ever they want.

and yes is sitll does not give osama the right to use "in the name of islam" but bush also says "god is with us and bla bla" both sides are kind of using gods name.

and yes the arabs are no saints... if the US really wanted peace in the middle east. they should start with saudi arabia. (ruled buy the most corrupt and greedy family in the world)

but that's not what the US wants. they want that that region to me in total kaos (my opinion), for what ever reason. (god knows)

but going back to osama... if the arabs are really opressed... their wife's being killed childeren being killed.. and the goverment's not doing anything... and israel is breaking laws..are you going to play by the book too? :twisted:

[__earth]

we can't say thst israel is the only side that breaks the rule.
It is only understandable to see Israel using harsh methods to fight off Hamas and all the anti Israel extremists.

Sometimes, I see the Arabs, especially the Palestinians as being impossible to peace negotiation. Even in the news, we are already seeing Sharon making compromise on certain issue like the jewish settlement and all.
Hamas however is still in the intifada.

[__earth]

we can't say thst israel is the only side that breaks the rule.
It is only understandable to see Israel using harsh methods to fight off Hamas and all the anti Israel extremists.

Sometimes, I see the Arabs, especially the Palestinians as being impossible to peace negotiation. Even in the news, we are already seeing Sharon making compromise on certain issue like the jewish settlement and all.
Hamas however is still in the intifada.

[Thirdshifter]

such articles could very well be misleading american readers to believing that malaysia is part of a global "axis of evil."

Since Iraq has been liberated, there's only two left from the Axis. N Korea and Iran. Maybe Bush wil come up with a new name. The double-Trouble? The Twin terrors? Ermm

Anyway i also think there's no reason to have any WMD. It is sad that USA has to stock up on its WMD> It's just rivalary i guess. Everyone wants one.

[Thirdshifter]

such articles could very well be misleading american readers to believing that malaysia is part of a global "axis of evil."

Since Iraq has been liberated, there's only two left from the Axis. N Korea and Iran. Maybe Bush wil come up with a new name. The double-Trouble? The Twin terrors? Ermm

Anyway i also think there's no reason to have any WMD. It is sad that USA has to stock up on its WMD> It's just rivalary i guess. Everyone wants one.

[topdog]

da-hype, i don't know much about u.s.-mid east affairs but this much i know:

bush may be an a-hole, but equating bush to bin laden is absurd! simple question: how many arabs do you see emigrating to the states? now, contrast this to how many americans you see emigrating to arab countries?

blaming america for all the crap going on in the middle east, while simultaneously understating arab leaders' not-so-glowing track record, does not help your argument.

[topdog]

da-hype, i don't know much about u.s.-mid east affairs but this much i know:

bush may be an a-hole, but equating bush to bin laden is absurd! simple question: how many arabs do you see emigrating to the states? now, contrast this to how many americans you see emigrating to arab countries?

blaming america for all the crap going on in the middle east, while simultaneously understating arab leaders' not-so-glowing track record, does not help your argument.

[da-hype]

da-hype, i don't know much about u.s.-mid east affairs but this much i know:

bush may be an a-hole, but equating bush to bin laden is absurd! simple question: how many arabs do you see emigrating to the states? now, contrast this to how many americans you see emigrating to arab countries?

blaming america for all the crap going on in the middle east, while simultaneously understating arab leaders' not-so-glowing track record, does not help your argument.

i really might want to read more about that bud. there are alot of americans living in the middle east, especially in egypt.. UAE.. bahrain and so on. migration does not prove anything.

Even the best "american" university in the middle east is located in cairo.

My point is... the US government years b4 bush and and maybe even bush now.. all they do i mess up countries poilitical sceen.

Taking the government of iran out.. and putting in the sha...then taking him out.. an putting saddam in power.. giving saddam weapons to kill iranians.. then secretly giving the iranians weapons to kill iraqies... then after the long war donald rumpsfeld (miss spelt i think) going to iraq to shake saddams hand for using chemical weapons (thath th US gave) on iranian. and now taking saddam out of power? hmmmm is that right?? Don't you think that would cause hate?

what's the death tol from that war anyway? and the 2 iraq wars?

and how many people did osama kill? only thing about osama is.. he's not a goverment funded group. like the CIA (again i'm not saying osama is doing the right thing)

...maybe you don't see the big picture.. but..how many countires did england colonize? 64 right? how many of those countires beside malaysia and singapore are actually doing economically well? (note: the english applied their governemnt system in almost all 64 countires)

now go back to iraq... you think "democacy" will work? what are the odds?
2ndly stop watching US news.. it sucks...cause if the people of iraq really2 hated saddam... don't you think they would have taken him out of power? common now... if his soildiers hated him.. they would have turned around and said "why am i taking orders from this fool" and might have shot him themselves.



we can't say thst israel is the only side that breaks the rule.
It is only understandable to see Israel using harsh methods to fight off Hamas and all the anti Israel extremists.


i know both sides break the rules. but how does hamas do it and how does israel do it? israels does it with tanks, guns and god know what else. hamas does it with suiside bombing. Israel does it with US seport.. what about hamas? Did you know israel is building a wall (like the great wall of china) on muslim seattlements? is that right? and israel IS not the only country that tried to make pease... palistine did too. the US media always just shows 1 side of the story. CNN , Fox, AOL and so on are owened by Time warner (a jew) don't you think there will be a bias on what they show?

[da-hype]

da-hype, i don't know much about u.s.-mid east affairs but this much i know:

bush may be an a-hole, but equating bush to bin laden is absurd! simple question: how many arabs do you see emigrating to the states? now, contrast this to how many americans you see emigrating to arab countries?

blaming america for all the crap going on in the middle east, while simultaneously understating arab leaders' not-so-glowing track record, does not help your argument.

i really might want to read more about that bud. there are alot of americans living in the middle east, especially in egypt.. UAE.. bahrain and so on. migration does not prove anything.

Even the best "american" university in the middle east is located in cairo.

My point is... the US government years b4 bush and and maybe even bush now.. all they do i mess up countries poilitical sceen.

Taking the government of iran out.. and putting in the sha...then taking him out.. an putting saddam in power.. giving saddam weapons to kill iranians.. then secretly giving the iranians weapons to kill iraqies... then after the long war donald rumpsfeld (miss spelt i think) going to iraq to shake saddams hand for using chemical weapons (thath th US gave) on iranian. and now taking saddam out of power? hmmmm is that right?? Don't you think that would cause hate?

what's the death tol from that war anyway? and the 2 iraq wars?

and how many people did osama kill? only thing about osama is.. he's not a goverment funded group. like the CIA (again i'm not saying osama is doing the right thing)

...maybe you don't see the big picture.. but..how many countires did england colonize? 64 right? how many of those countires beside malaysia and singapore are actually doing economically well? (note: the english applied their governemnt system in almost all 64 countires)

now go back to iraq... you think "democacy" will work? what are the odds?
2ndly stop watching US news.. it sucks...cause if the people of iraq really2 hated saddam... don't you think they would have taken him out of power? common now... if his soildiers hated him.. they would have turned around and said "why am i taking orders from this fool" and might have shot him themselves.



we can't say thst israel is the only side that breaks the rule.
It is only understandable to see Israel using harsh methods to fight off Hamas and all the anti Israel extremists.


i know both sides break the rules. but how does hamas do it and how does israel do it? israels does it with tanks, guns and god know what else. hamas does it with suiside bombing. Israel does it with US seport.. what about hamas? Did you know israel is building a wall (like the great wall of china) on muslim seattlements? is that right? and israel IS not the only country that tried to make pease... palistine did too. the US media always just shows 1 side of the story. CNN , Fox, AOL and so on are owened by Time warner (a jew) don't you think there will be a bias on what they show?

[__earth]

...maybe you don't see the big picture.. but..how many countires did england colonize? 64 right? how many of those countires beside malaysia and singapore are actually doing economically well? (note: the english applied their governemnt system in almost all 64 countires)
sorry but could you clarify on this one?

now go back to iraq... you think "democacy" will work? what are the odds?
2ndly stop watching US news.. it sucks...cause if the people of iraq really2 hated saddam... don't you think they would have taken him out of power? common now... if his soildiers hated him.. they would have turned around and said "why am i taking orders from this fool" and might have shot him themselves.

think of fascism. if you think saddam is beloved, that's wrong. surely you know about the kurds and the shiites. both of the ethnics combined are accounted more than 50% of the total population.

dont get me wrong. I am against the war. but that doesnt make saddam as the good guy.

know both sides break the rules. but how does hamas do it and how does israel do it? israels does it with tanks, guns and god know what else. hamas does it with suiside bombing. Israel does it with US seport.. what about hamas? Did you know israel is building a wall (like the great wall of china) on muslim seattlements? is that right? and israel IS not the only country that tried to make pease... palistine did too. the US media always just shows 1 side of the story. CNN , Fox, AOL and so on are owened by Time warner (a jew) don't you think there will be a bias on what they show?

two wrongs doesn't make a right. if I were the leader of the israel, of course i would use everything in my power to suppress the intifada.
if somebody wanna kill you with a knife, and you had a gun, of course you'd use the gun right?

somebody needs to stop. israel stops once but the palestinians doesn't want to. remember when yasser arafat sacked his PM in the middle of a peace negotiation just because his pm "compromised" too much?

[__earth]

...maybe you don't see the big picture.. but..how many countires did england colonize? 64 right? how many of those countires beside malaysia and singapore are actually doing economically well? (note: the english applied their governemnt system in almost all 64 countires)
sorry but could you clarify on this one?

now go back to iraq... you think "democacy" will work? what are the odds?
2ndly stop watching US news.. it sucks...cause if the people of iraq really2 hated saddam... don't you think they would have taken him out of power? common now... if his soildiers hated him.. they would have turned around and said "why am i taking orders from this fool" and might have shot him themselves.

think of fascism. if you think saddam is beloved, that's wrong. surely you know about the kurds and the shiites. both of the ethnics combined are accounted more than 50% of the total population.

dont get me wrong. I am against the war. but that doesnt make saddam as the good guy.

know both sides break the rules. but how does hamas do it and how does israel do it? israels does it with tanks, guns and god know what else. hamas does it with suiside bombing. Israel does it with US seport.. what about hamas? Did you know israel is building a wall (like the great wall of china) on muslim seattlements? is that right? and israel IS not the only country that tried to make pease... palistine did too. the US media always just shows 1 side of the story. CNN , Fox, AOL and so on are owened by Time warner (a jew) don't you think there will be a bias on what they show?

two wrongs doesn't make a right. if I were the leader of the israel, of course i would use everything in my power to suppress the intifada.
if somebody wanna kill you with a knife, and you had a gun, of course you'd use the gun right?

somebody needs to stop. israel stops once but the palestinians doesn't want to. remember when yasser arafat sacked his PM in the middle of a peace negotiation just because his pm "compromised" too much?

[da-hype]

think of fascism. if you think saddam is beloved, that's wrong. surely you know about the kurds and the shiites. both of the ethnics combined is more than 50% of the total population.


what's your point? just cause they are helping the US makes them the good guys? and where the hell did u get 50%? last i checked the were the minority

http://www.worldpress.org/profiles/Iraq.cfm?startat2=13

Ethnic groups: Arab 75%-80%, Kurdish 15%-20%, Turkoman, Assyrian or other 5%

FYI Shi'a is not an ethnic group.

and since they are the minority... democracy don't work that way.. majority wins.


...maybe you don't see the big picture.. but..how many countires did england colonize? 64 right? how many of those countires beside malaysia and singapore are actually doing economically well? (note: the english
applied their governemnt system in almost all 64 countires)


what i mean is... what are the chance the US would do good iraq? the british obviouly failed.

[da-hype]

think of fascism. if you think saddam is beloved, that's wrong. surely you know about the kurds and the shiites. both of the ethnics combined is more than 50% of the total population.


what's your point? just cause they are helping the US makes them the good guys? and where the hell did u get 50%? last i checked the were the minority

http://www.worldpress.org/profiles/Iraq.cfm?startat2=13

Ethnic groups: Arab 75%-80%, Kurdish 15%-20%, Turkoman, Assyrian or other 5%

FYI Shi'a is not an ethnic group.

and since they are the minority... democracy don't work that way.. majority wins.


...maybe you don't see the big picture.. but..how many countires did england colonize? 64 right? how many of those countires beside malaysia and singapore are actually doing economically well? (note: the english
applied their governemnt system in almost all 64 countires)


what i mean is... what are the chance the US would do good iraq? the british obviouly failed.

[__earth]

what's your point? just cause they are helping the US makes them the good guys? and where the hell did u get 50%? last i checked the were the minority

my point is, the majority hates saddam. alright, the shiite is not an ethnic but shiite is the majority. In fact, the political power in Iraq right now is in the hand of the shiite.

taken from your source:
Religions: Muslim 97% (Shi'a 60%-65%, Sunni 32%-37%), Christian or other 3%

clearly, the shiite is the majority.

and no. I mean just because saddam wasn't removed by the people doesnt mean the people love him - the opposite of this:
cause if the people of iraq really2 hated saddam... don't you think they would have taken him out of power? common now... if his soildiers hated him.. they would have turned around and said "why am i taking orders from this fool" and might have shot him themselves.

[__earth]

what's your point? just cause they are helping the US makes them the good guys? and where the hell did u get 50%? last i checked the were the minority

my point is, the majority hates saddam. alright, the shiite is not an ethnic but shiite is the majority. In fact, the political power in Iraq right now is in the hand of the shiite.

taken from your source:
Religions: Muslim 97% (Shi'a 60%-65%, Sunni 32%-37%), Christian or other 3%

clearly, the shiite is the majority.

and no. I mean just because saddam wasn't removed by the people doesnt mean the people love him - the opposite of this:
cause if the people of iraq really2 hated saddam... don't you think they would have taken him out of power? common now... if his soildiers hated him.. they would have turned around and said "why am i taking orders from this fool" and might have shot him themselves.

[topdog]

da-hype, most of your arguments have been beaten to death here (http://www.counterpunch.org). i used to love reading articles on that site, to try to understand what the hell's going on, but i've since learnt that i don't understand a single thing. and frankly, i don't care. i don't even know what's going on in my own country (you know, remember anwar?), so i'm not going to pretend to know who's the bad guys and who's the good guys in this american-israeli-arab nonsense.

i can tell you that's probably how most americans feel, rightly or wrongly.

you feel very strongly about this and you obviously think that U.S. governments through the years is the devil incarnate. fine. but have you ever actually talked to real iraqis to find out what they really feel about the whole saddam bs? could it be possible that they hated saddam and wanted him gone but didn't have the power to do so? could it be that removing saddam was a good thing (regardless of bush's real intentions?)

[topdog]

da-hype, most of your arguments have been beaten to death here (http://www.counterpunch.org). i used to love reading articles on that site, to try to understand what the hell's going on, but i've since learnt that i don't understand a single thing. and frankly, i don't care. i don't even know what's going on in my own country (you know, remember anwar?), so i'm not going to pretend to know who's the bad guys and who's the good guys in this american-israeli-arab nonsense.

i can tell you that's probably how most americans feel, rightly or wrongly.

you feel very strongly about this and you obviously think that U.S. governments through the years is the devil incarnate. fine. but have you ever actually talked to real iraqis to find out what they really feel about the whole saddam bs? could it be possible that they hated saddam and wanted him gone but didn't have the power to do so? could it be that removing saddam was a good thing (regardless of bush's real intentions?)

[Thirdshifter]

Hmm a lot of useless facts i nthis arguement. First Saddam was running a Secular dictatorship. Converting everyone into Sunni wasn't his agenda. His Vice was a Christian just for the record. Even Malaysia is not close to the kind of secularism Saddam was practicing. However he is a brutal Dictator none the less.

So here's my view on this awfully off topic Thread. The Arabs, throught the years, Similar to Malaysia. Have been indoctrined to believe certain part of the hoistory. Some date back as far as the 7th century, On what happened when the Sunni's (Muhammads companions) Vs. Syia's (Muhammads Family). Both Side has their on version and both claim victims. In Malaysia for an example, In form 3 history books. We have learnt that UMNO has "saved" Malsyai from the opressor (british). UMNO takes full credit of this circumstances. Some believe this strongly and ofcourse would evidently be very pro-goverment. Saddam, And many other Arab Dictators use this method too.

In Islam we have been engineered to beleive every Muslim is our brother. Brother? what a strong relationship. So Basically Osama is my brother. I should defend him, rather then giving the non-Muslims (infedels) a victory.

Islam has longed preeched for triumpth and glory. Maybe for a second we Muslims whould go back to the book and see what does it really mean.

My $0.02

Futher flamin and blantant trollings would only get this thread locked.

Please, continue in an orderly fashion?

[Thirdshifter]

Hmm a lot of useless facts i nthis arguement. First Saddam was running a Secular dictatorship. Converting everyone into Sunni wasn't his agenda. His Vice was a Christian just for the record. Even Malaysia is not close to the kind of secularism Saddam was practicing. However he is a brutal Dictator none the less.

So here's my view on this awfully off topic Thread. The Arabs, throught the years, Similar to Malaysia. Have been indoctrined to believe certain part of the hoistory. Some date back as far as the 7th century, On what happened when the Sunni's (Muhammads companions) Vs. Syia's (Muhammads Family). Both Side has their on version and both claim victims. In Malaysia for an example, In form 3 history books. We have learnt that UMNO has "saved" Malsyai from the opressor (british). UMNO takes full credit of this circumstances. Some believe this strongly and ofcourse would evidently be very pro-goverment. Saddam, And many other Arab Dictators use this method too.

In Islam we have been engineered to beleive every Muslim is our brother. Brother? what a strong relationship. So Basically Osama is my brother. I should defend him, rather then giving the non-Muslims (infedels) a victory.

Islam has longed preeched for triumpth and glory. Maybe for a second we Muslims whould go back to the book and see what does it really mean.

My $0.02

Futher flamin and blantant trollings would only get this thread locked.

Please, continue in an orderly fashion?

[qedx]

while we're talking on the middle east: whats your take on sharon's decision to relocate Jewish settlements out of Gaza

[qedx]

while we're talking on the middle east: whats your take on sharon's decision to relocate Jewish settlements out of Gaza

[__earth]

constructive.

[__earth]

constructive.

[Thirdshifter]

while we're talking on the middle east: whats your take on sharon's decision to relocate Jewish settlements out of Gaza

I'm a little mixed when it comes to Jewish settlements. As we all know, Israel is a Theocracy. being a Jewish, regardless of where you were born automatically grants you citizenship of Israel if you wish to seek it.

So basically, Almost all jewish is protected by the IDF, a force much much stronger then one would think, Equiped with the latest gadgets, Nuclear Weapons and one of the best Air force I seriously doubt that having settlers in the middle of another country protected by IDF would make any of their neigbours feel safe. Also part of the peace Road map, was to have al the settlements closed.

I see this as a move towards more better days. Lets hope the momentum and the pressure from US would help bring peace to this long disputed land.

[Thirdshifter]

while we're talking on the middle east: whats your take on sharon's decision to relocate Jewish settlements out of Gaza

I'm a little mixed when it comes to Jewish settlements. As we all know, Israel is a Theocracy. being a Jewish, regardless of where you were born automatically grants you citizenship of Israel if you wish to seek it.

So basically, Almost all jewish is protected by the IDF, a force much much stronger then one would think, Equiped with the latest gadgets, Nuclear Weapons and one of the best Air force I seriously doubt that having settlers in the middle of another country protected by IDF would make any of their neigbours feel safe. Also part of the peace Road map, was to have al the settlements closed.

I see this as a move towards more better days. Lets hope the momentum and the pressure from US would help bring peace to this long disputed land.

[da-hype]

topdog...


you feel very strongly about this and you obviously think that U.S. governments through the years is the devil incarnate. fine. but have you ever actually talked to real iraqis to find out what they really feel about the whole saddam bs? could it be possible that they hated saddam and wanted him gone but didn't have the power to do so? could it be that removing saddam was a good thing (regardless of bush's real intentions?)


FYI i have spoken to an iraqi.. a palestinian and an american marine.. that was posted in saudi arabia during the 1st gulf war. he even went back to egypt last year and studied in cairo for a year to learn arabic and middle eastern politics..

AND.... i always attent the democratic party club meeting on campus...

AND.... i've been to egypt.. syria.. saudi... and pakistan so i've seen with my own damn eyes... so b4 you blow me off.. like i don't know what i'm talking about...most books written about the middle east here in the US are written buy authors who've been there like 20 years ago. what do they know about the middle east now? you can't ask someone that has been to malaysia in the 60's about malaysia now can you? you get what i'm saying?

there are always 2 sides of the story. not everyhing shown here in the US is true.

yes saddam has done bad things to his people... you saying america never did? did u know all the nukclear testing done in nevada... has caused lots of deaths and illness to the people in southern utah?
what's the diff with saddam testing his weapons on his people and the american government?

i'm not sayaing the US 100% bad... or the arabs are 100% good.

I'm just saying... look at what US foreing policies have done?
and what is really the diff between bush and osama? i don't see the diff. both are a threat to the world. both use "in the name of god"... both are killing inocent people...both hate each others guts...

in the 70's the CIA was known as a goverment funded terrorist group...
just cause their work for the government.. it's ok?

just cause american intelligence says something... does it make it right? sudan is making cehemical weapons... they bombs the factories... to later find out those factories were making pain asprin...

then they say saddam has WMD.. and can't find them... makes u wonder... about american intellegince... don't u think...

ever wonder why collen powell wants to step down if bush is re-elected...
what u think?

final thought... who does the US think they are.. to go to a country and apply their way of thinking? does it give them to right too? should they? are americans perfect? is their way of life perfect? is their government perfect? if the answer is yes to all this.. then the US is doing the right thing.

[/quote]

[da-hype]

topdog...


you feel very strongly about this and you obviously think that U.S. governments through the years is the devil incarnate. fine. but have you ever actually talked to real iraqis to find out what they really feel about the whole saddam bs? could it be possible that they hated saddam and wanted him gone but didn't have the power to do so? could it be that removing saddam was a good thing (regardless of bush's real intentions?)


FYI i have spoken to an iraqi.. a palestinian and an american marine.. that was posted in saudi arabia during the 1st gulf war. he even went back to egypt last year and studied in cairo for a year to learn arabic and middle eastern politics..

AND.... i always attent the democratic party club meeting on campus...

AND.... i've been to egypt.. syria.. saudi... and pakistan so i've seen with my own damn eyes... so b4 you blow me off.. like i don't know what i'm talking about...most books written about the middle east here in the US are written buy authors who've been there like 20 years ago. what do they know about the middle east now? you can't ask someone that has been to malaysia in the 60's about malaysia now can you? you get what i'm saying?

there are always 2 sides of the story. not everyhing shown here in the US is true.

yes saddam has done bad things to his people... you saying america never did? did u know all the nukclear testing done in nevada... has caused lots of deaths and illness to the people in southern utah?
what's the diff with saddam testing his weapons on his people and the american government?

i'm not sayaing the US 100% bad... or the arabs are 100% good.

I'm just saying... look at what US foreing policies have done?
and what is really the diff between bush and osama? i don't see the diff. both are a threat to the world. both use "in the name of god"... both are killing inocent people...both hate each others guts...

in the 70's the CIA was known as a goverment funded terrorist group...
just cause their work for the government.. it's ok?

just cause american intelligence says something... does it make it right? sudan is making cehemical weapons... they bombs the factories... to later find out those factories were making pain asprin...

then they say saddam has WMD.. and can't find them... makes u wonder... about american intellegince... don't u think...

ever wonder why collen powell wants to step down if bush is re-elected...
what u think?

final thought... who does the US think they are.. to go to a country and apply their way of thinking? does it give them to right too? should they? are americans perfect? is their way of life perfect? is their government perfect? if the answer is yes to all this.. then the US is doing the right thing.

[/quote]

[__earth]

I'm a little mixed when it comes to Jewish settlements. As we all know, Israel is a Theocracy. being a Jewish, regardless of where you were born automatically grants you citizenship of Israel if you wish to seek it.

Israel is not a theocracy. there's not patriach or ayatollah on top. plus, theocracy refers to religion and a jew could embrace judaism (the religion), islam, christianity, or even buddha.
Israel grants citizenship to the jewish ppl, regardless of their religion.

[__earth]

I'm a little mixed when it comes to Jewish settlements. As we all know, Israel is a Theocracy. being a Jewish, regardless of where you were born automatically grants you citizenship of Israel if you wish to seek it.

Israel is not a theocracy. there's not patriach or ayatollah on top. plus, theocracy refers to religion and a jew could embrace judaism (the religion), islam, christianity, or even buddha.
Israel grants citizenship to the jewish ppl, regardless of their religion.

[da-hype]

while we're talking on the middle east: whats your take on sharon's decision to relocate Jewish settlements out of Gaza


think it's a good step forward.

[da-hype]

while we're talking on the middle east: whats your take on sharon's decision to relocate Jewish settlements out of Gaza


think it's a good step forward.

[topdog]

da-hype,

well, now that you've pointed out that you know both sides of the story, i must apologize if i ticked you off. thanks for clarifying.

clearly, you are much more knowldegeable about this than me. i must reiterate too that i'm well aware that the US has its own vested interests in its international policies, and i know full well that they're not perfect.

i did say that i've decided not to care anymore because frankly, it's just too depressing.

please continue this discussion.

[topdog]

da-hype,

well, now that you've pointed out that you know both sides of the story, i must apologize if i ticked you off. thanks for clarifying.

clearly, you are much more knowldegeable about this than me. i must reiterate too that i'm well aware that the US has its own vested interests in its international policies, and i know full well that they're not perfect.

i did say that i've decided not to care anymore because frankly, it's just too depressing.

please continue this discussion.

[Thirdshifter]

Israel grants citizenship to the jewish ppl, regardless of their religion.

Erm, So is whitney houston and bobby brown jewish or blacks? Jewish is the reference to the people who practise Judaism. In Israel, the majority of Jewish are Semites (thats a race).

Also, Israel is a theocracy in disguise of a democracy. Israel constitution have Jurisdictions That rivals the apartheids. But in a more jewish Manner, so to speak.

Maybe in another topic.

[Thirdshifter]

Israel grants citizenship to the jewish ppl, regardless of their religion.

Erm, So is whitney houston and bobby brown jewish or blacks? Jewish is the reference to the people who practise Judaism. In Israel, the majority of Jewish are Semites (thats a race).

Also, Israel is a theocracy in disguise of a democracy. Israel constitution have Jurisdictions That rivals the apartheids. But in a more jewish Manner, so to speak.

Maybe in another topic.

[__earth]

to embrace judaism, you have to be a jew. but to be a jew, you don't have to be in judaism that's what unique about judaism. but jew does not refer to judaism as a whole. Furthermore, in the US, there are ton of Christian Jew.
that's why there's no such thing as black jew but there's such thing as christian jew.

and true. another topic altogether.

[__earth]

to embrace judaism, you have to be a jew. but to be a jew, you don't have to be in judaism that's what unique about judaism. but jew does not refer to judaism as a whole. Furthermore, in the US, there are ton of Christian Jew.
that's why there's no such thing as black jew but there's such thing as christian jew.

and true. another topic altogether.

[da-hype]

Israel grants citizenship to the jewish ppl, regardless of their religion.


hmmm
i don't think so.
not all countries give citizenships just cause you where born there.

saudi doesn't.. i think germany doesn't ... and i'm pretty sure your mother has to be from israel for you to be an isreali... (might be wrong.. but i am pretty sure of this)

and jewish is a religion :P

and malaysia does too... regardless of your religion :P

[da-hype]

Israel grants citizenship to the jewish ppl, regardless of their religion.


hmmm
i don't think so.
not all countries give citizenships just cause you where born there.

saudi doesn't.. i think germany doesn't ... and i'm pretty sure your mother has to be from israel for you to be an isreali... (might be wrong.. but i am pretty sure of this)

and jewish is a religion :P

and malaysia does too... regardless of your religion :P

[__earth]

Israel grants citizenship to the jewish ppl, regardless of their religion.


hmmm
i don't think so.
not all countries give citizenships just cause you where born there.

saudi doesn't.. i think germany doesn't ... and i'm pretty sure your mother has to be from israel for you to be an isreali... (might be wrong.. but i am pretty sure of this)

and jewish is a religion :P

and malaysia does too... regardless of your religion :P

da-hype,i think you misread the posts. none of us, thirdshifter or me, talked about jus soli.

about the difference between the jewish ppl and the jewish religion, i might be wrong. :D

but still, dont think that theocracy thing is valid.

[__earth]

Israel grants citizenship to the jewish ppl, regardless of their religion.


hmmm
i don't think so.
not all countries give citizenships just cause you where born there.

saudi doesn't.. i think germany doesn't ... and i'm pretty sure your mother has to be from israel for you to be an isreali... (might be wrong.. but i am pretty sure of this)

and jewish is a religion :P

and malaysia does too... regardless of your religion :P

da-hype,i think you misread the posts. none of us, thirdshifter or me, talked about jus soli.

about the difference between the jewish ppl and the jewish religion, i might be wrong. :D

but still, dont think that theocracy thing is valid.

[da-hype]

ahhh... well this is kind of off the topic... but here's a quote i'd like to share...

I'M AMAZED I WON. I WAS RUNNING AGAINST PEACE, PROSPERITY, AND INCUMBENCY.

- George W. Bush, June 14, 2001
speaking to swedish Prime Minister Garan Persson,
Unaware that a live television camera was still rolling.

makes you wonder....

[da-hype]

ahhh... well this is kind of off the topic... but here's a quote i'd like to share...

I'M AMAZED I WON. I WAS RUNNING AGAINST PEACE, PROSPERITY, AND INCUMBENCY.

- George W. Bush, June 14, 2001
speaking to swedish Prime Minister Garan Persson,
Unaware that a live television camera was still rolling.

makes you wonder....

[__earth]

not to beat this to death but i think both of us are right.

check this out http://www.jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm

[__earth]

not to beat this to death but i think both of us are right.

check this out http://www.jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm

[da-hype]

__earth :


Who is a Jew?
A Jew is any person whose mother was a Jew or any person who has gone through the formal process of conversion to Judaism.

i knew i read that some where :P
yeah that webpage explains it all

[da-hype]

__earth :


Who is a Jew?
A Jew is any person whose mother was a Jew or any person who has gone through the formal process of conversion to Judaism.

i knew i read that some where :P
yeah that webpage explains it all

[jiinjoo]

wow - reading this thread gives me a lot more insight into jews than pakistan nuclear weapon probe :P

While I'm a busy (not lazy) 455 :wink: and hence didn't manage to finish reading the article __earth posted, I did glance through most of the arguments and what I gather is this, that there is no one coherent point that we're trying to make. It's all about pointing fingers at the random stereotype "bad-guys" as seen from the eye of a Malaysian watching the foreign media. US wrong lar, Israel wrong lar, Saddam bad lar, Osama no good lar, etc etc. I would appreciate if folks who have posted to sort of reiterate your point in a shorter intelligent manner? For example I see one point is that US shouldn't be a world police - then who should? Who will be there to control the situation should some ReCom guy become PM, made a couple of nuke heads and point them at other countries? 8O etc etc...

Having nuclear weapons is still a big deal since the cold war is just ended like about 15 years ago? National security is high on many country's agenda (well, you can argue that it is US who coerced it, like the way he manage to put "security" in to APEC (asia-pacific ECONOMIC forum)'s agenda etc.), and money is being poured into keeping the world safe, be it via means of pseudo-criminalizing people (e.g. fingerprinting you when you enter the states) or probing for neuclear weapons. In other words, they have to do it, and we can't cry foul.

Who cares? Everyone does. Speculation about WMD in Iraq might be a legitimacy issue about the "new world order" that US is trying to build (btw, if you can get your hands on this document - "Buidling An American Century" - which the White House is using as their agenda sincethe colapse of Soviet, gimme!). But in real life it is a big issue. If we have nuclear weapons, the foreign policy and hostility of US towards our country, if not our region, will change drastically. Don't forget about our dependency on the global market in many ways. If US, our largest trading partner, decides that we're bad guys someday, we're all screwed.

On the other hand, Violence and Terrorism is wrong. Full stop.

US's foreign policy towards Israel is really another topic that I wish we could offload to another forum. I myself have been critical about the amount of power Israelli Lobby have in the White House. Everyone have their big theory about how to solve our current middle-east crisis. If only it was that straight forward ... :?

One question: Does ZOPFAN prevent member countries to produce nuclear weapons (or any other weapons for that matter?) or just cannot use only?

[jiinjoo]

wow - reading this thread gives me a lot more insight into jews than pakistan nuclear weapon probe :P

While I'm a busy (not lazy) 455 :wink: and hence didn't manage to finish reading the article __earth posted, I did glance through most of the arguments and what I gather is this, that there is no one coherent point that we're trying to make. It's all about pointing fingers at the random stereotype "bad-guys" as seen from the eye of a Malaysian watching the foreign media. US wrong lar, Israel wrong lar, Saddam bad lar, Osama no good lar, etc etc. I would appreciate if folks who have posted to sort of reiterate your point in a shorter intelligent manner? For example I see one point is that US shouldn't be a world police - then who should? Who will be there to control the situation should some ReCom guy become PM, made a couple of nuke heads and point them at other countries? 8O etc etc...

Having nuclear weapons is still a big deal since the cold war is just ended like about 15 years ago? National security is high on many country's agenda (well, you can argue that it is US who coerced it, like the way he manage to put "security" in to APEC (asia-pacific ECONOMIC forum)'s agenda etc.), and money is being poured into keeping the world safe, be it via means of pseudo-criminalizing people (e.g. fingerprinting you when you enter the states) or probing for neuclear weapons. In other words, they have to do it, and we can't cry foul.

Who cares? Everyone does. Speculation about WMD in Iraq might be a legitimacy issue about the "new world order" that US is trying to build (btw, if you can get your hands on this document - "Buidling An American Century" - which the White House is using as their agenda sincethe colapse of Soviet, gimme!). But in real life it is a big issue. If we have nuclear weapons, the foreign policy and hostility of US towards our country, if not our region, will change drastically. Don't forget about our dependency on the global market in many ways. If US, our largest trading partner, decides that we're bad guys someday, we're all screwed.

On the other hand, Violence and Terrorism is wrong. Full stop.

US's foreign policy towards Israel is really another topic that I wish we could offload to another forum. I myself have been critical about the amount of power Israelli Lobby have in the White House. Everyone have their big theory about how to solve our current middle-east crisis. If only it was that straight forward ... :?

One question: Does ZOPFAN prevent member countries to produce nuclear weapons (or any other weapons for that matter?) or just cannot use only?

[z]

so yeah, let's get back to the topic of nuclear weapons and centrifuge.

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2004/2/5/nation/7249796&sec=nation

[z]

so yeah, let's get back to the topic of nuclear weapons and centrifuge.

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2004/2/5/nation/7249796&sec=nation

[__earth]

da-hype, read all of it.

[__earth]

da-hype, read all of it.

[da-hype]

so yeah, let's get back to the topic of nuclear weapons and centrifuge.

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2004/2/5/nation/7249796&sec=nation



all i can say it a dumb allegations. Nobody knows who the end users will be.

Just cause burger king makes burgers... and people get fat off it.. does it mean burger king is wrong or is at fault??

so what we are selling centrifuges?

many US companies were involved in saddam's weapons program. and i don't hear people yelling at them.... just to list a few...

Hewlett-Packard
Worked with Iraq from 1985 to 1990, supplying computers for an arm of the Iraqi government working on the scud and nuclear programs. HP also sent computers to two government agencies that oversaw the nuclear and chemical weapons program. Others sales included radar components and cryptographic equipment

At&t
in 2000 was paid to optimize the products of another company, Huawei. Betweeen 2000 and 2001, Iraq was paying Huawei to spiff up their air defense systems.

Bechtel
From 1988 to 1990, it was helping the Iraqis build a giant petrochemical plant, hand in hand with an Iraqi company known for its military ties.

Caterpillar
Helped Iraq with construction of their nuclear program in the 1980s through the sale of $10 million worth of tractors.

DuPont
In 1989, sold $30,000 worth of specially engineered oil to Iraq which was used in their nuclear program.

Kodak
Also in 1989, sold $172,000 in equipment that was used in Iraq's missile programs.

Hughes Helicopter
Sold sixty helicopters to Iraq in 1983, which the Iraqis modified for military use.

basically...
even the US is selling stuff with very clear millitary stuff to end users which in the end used it for desturction.

So i don't see why malaysia is in the hot seat for selling "a" part...a centrifuge to lybia.

this is all an american government drama... :D :lol:

[da-hype]

so yeah, let's get back to the topic of nuclear weapons and centrifuge.

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2004/2/5/nation/7249796&sec=nation



all i can say it a dumb allegations. Nobody knows who the end users will be.

Just cause burger king makes burgers... and people get fat off it.. does it mean burger king is wrong or is at fault??

so what we are selling centrifuges?

many US companies were involved in saddam's weapons program. and i don't hear people yelling at them.... just to list a few...

Hewlett-Packard
Worked with Iraq from 1985 to 1990, supplying computers for an arm of the Iraqi government working on the scud and nuclear programs. HP also sent computers to two government agencies that oversaw the nuclear and chemical weapons program. Others sales included radar components and cryptographic equipment

At&t
in 2000 was paid to optimize the products of another company, Huawei. Betweeen 2000 and 2001, Iraq was paying Huawei to spiff up their air defense systems.

Bechtel
From 1988 to 1990, it was helping the Iraqis build a giant petrochemical plant, hand in hand with an Iraqi company known for its military ties.

Caterpillar
Helped Iraq with construction of their nuclear program in the 1980s through the sale of $10 million worth of tractors.

DuPont
In 1989, sold $30,000 worth of specially engineered oil to Iraq which was used in their nuclear program.

Kodak
Also in 1989, sold $172,000 in equipment that was used in Iraq's missile programs.

Hughes Helicopter
Sold sixty helicopters to Iraq in 1983, which the Iraqis modified for military use.

basically...
even the US is selling stuff with very clear millitary stuff to end users which in the end used it for desturction.

So i don't see why malaysia is in the hot seat for selling "a" part...a centrifuge to lybia.

this is all an american government drama... :D :lol:

[__earth]

As I was reading today deadtree edition of NYT, I found this.

Malaysian Company Tied To Nuclear Trade Network

The online version is http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/05/international/asia/05MALA.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1075995897-O5J1NQmpBFq6Do/AthhBqg

though the news is basically the same as what The Star reporter - there one further fact written in the article:
Scomi Group's largest shareholder is the son of Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi. The Prime Minister's son, who is 35, has no management role in the company and does not sit on the board.
Scomi's chairman is Tan Sri Asmat Kamaluddin, a former secretary general of Malaysia's international trade ministry.looks like some prominent ppl.

and finally, the conspiracy theory:

"Malaysia was an unwitting participant in all this," an official in the prime minister's office said. But with the tight control that the Malaysian government has traditionally exercised, many Malaysians and foreign diplomats doubt that a sale of this nature would have been possible without the knowledge of at least some senior government officials, probably in the militarysay what you want but I found this rather true.

dont you find this thing as funny?
We watch it in the tv, read it in the paper thinking all of it are happening a thousand miles away. But now, we are actually the player.

talk about malaysia in the international arena!

[__earth]

As I was reading today deadtree edition of NYT, I found this.

Malaysian Company Tied To Nuclear Trade Network

The online version is http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/05/international/asia/05MALA.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1075995897-O5J1NQmpBFq6Do/AthhBqg

though the news is basically the same as what The Star reporter - there one further fact written in the article:
Scomi Group's largest shareholder is the son of Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi. The Prime Minister's son, who is 35, has no management role in the company and does not sit on the board.
Scomi's chairman is Tan Sri Asmat Kamaluddin, a former secretary general of Malaysia's international trade ministry.looks like some prominent ppl.

and finally, the conspiracy theory:

"Malaysia was an unwitting participant in all this," an official in the prime minister's office said. But with the tight control that the Malaysian government has traditionally exercised, many Malaysians and foreign diplomats doubt that a sale of this nature would have been possible without the knowledge of at least some senior government officials, probably in the militarysay what you want but I found this rather true.

dont you find this thing as funny?
We watch it in the tv, read it in the paper thinking all of it are happening a thousand miles away. But now, we are actually the player.

talk about malaysia in the international arena!

[DecentMerson]

Just cause burger king makes burgers... and people get fat off it.. does it mean burger king is wrong or is at fault??


dunno is burger king is wrong or not?? but mc Donalds was faulted for serving too-hot-coffee and too-high-fat-fast-food....

i think somebody should sue fastfood chain store for serving fastfood too quickly!!!

anyway, really long topic....lots of insightful (facts?) or baseless acussation???

but, it's true that the US is manipulating the world's politic.... from Bush, then ceded to Blair, then echo from howard, then from Goh.....u know how it works.... :roll:

[DecentMerson]

Just cause burger king makes burgers... and people get fat off it.. does it mean burger king is wrong or is at fault??


dunno is burger king is wrong or not?? but mc Donalds was faulted for serving too-hot-coffee and too-high-fat-fast-food....

i think somebody should sue fastfood chain store for serving fastfood too quickly!!!

anyway, really long topic....lots of insightful (facts?) or baseless acussation???

but, it's true that the US is manipulating the world's politic.... from Bush, then ceded to Blair, then echo from howard, then from Goh.....u know how it works.... :roll:

[qedx]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=516&ncid=731&e=4&u=/ap/20040205/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_nuclear

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=516&ncid=731&e=5&u=/ap/20040205/ap_on_re_as/malaysia_nuclear

too lazy now. read up :P

[qedx]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=516&ncid=731&e=4&u=/ap/20040205/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_nuclear

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=516&ncid=731&e=5&u=/ap/20040205/ap_on_re_as/malaysia_nuclear

too lazy now. read up :P