| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"Thomas Keske" |
| Date: |
31 Oct 2004 02:02:51 PM |
| Object: |
Who is Best for Our Future? |
Earlier this year, there had been some fear that
the Bush administration would capture Osama bin Laden,
then hold him secretly, revealing the capture just before
the election, as an "October Surprise".
Apparently, that was assuming too much comptence on
the part of the Bush administration- that they would be
able to capture him.
If anything, Osama bin Laden's recent public statement demonstrates
that the Bush administration has been mishandling the war on terrorism,
wasting a huge amount of resources on the war in Iraq, instead
of focusing on the pursuit of Al Quaeda, which has itself been in
serious pursuit of nuclear weapons, and which constitutes the
far more serious threat to the country.
Picking the wrong battle can be a losing proposition, regardless
of whether you win the battle, or not.
Before the Iraq war, Bush had stated empatically, as if fact,
that Sadam Hussein was going to have nuclear weapons
within six months. In retrospect, this was not a question
of Bush merely being mislead by bad intelligence, or a case
of Bush merely "misleading" the American people. It appears
to be a case of President Bush telling a deliberate and
outright lie to the American public, to make sure that they
supported his own pet war, which appears to have much
more to do with oil and with his own personal vendetta,
than it does with real American interests.
It is a small wonder that any U.S. politicans might
have changed their positions on the war- many American
citizens have changed their positions, also, when they
came to realize that the original rationalization for the
war had been built upon deliberately manufactured
propaganda.
If it is in the style of Bush to try to install a puppet
government, to ensure cheap oil from a country that
has the second-largest oil reserves in the world,
then even that has been a failure. Iraq oil production
is down 25-33% as a direct result of the war's disruption.
It is this type of policy- trying to exploit another nation's
resources, instead of taking seriously the need to develop
alternate energy solutions of our own- that has exposed
the United States to the ultimate threat of nuclear terror.
The incompetent conduct of the war is also escalating
tensions that are highly likely to lead to terror. In one
revealing incident, an American soldier described how he
and others were instructed to stop traffic by raising their
hands. To Iraqis, raising of the hands signals "hello",
not "stop". The soldier described how this instruction
lead to the shooting and killing of dozens of civilians in
a 24-hour period.
The mainstream media at home has not focused enough on such
incidents, but in other parts of the world, such incidents
will reverberate and provide a background for easy recruitment
by terrorist organizations.
The media has not sufficiently grilled President Bush on
his future plans. If he is reelected, does he or does he not
plan a series of additional wars with Syria, Iran, North Korea?
Is this privileged information, on a "need to know" basis?
Could we trust in the answer, even if one were provided?
The amount of expense and trouble incurred in Iraq alone
makes it clear that further adventures would likely bankrupt
the country. Our real security depends, among other
things, on our economic viability. History is littered
with fallen empires that fell too far into debt, due to the
financing of overly ambitious wars.
We should be picking up newspapers, everyday,
and reading about the latest in Israeli-Palestinian
negotiations, no matter how difficult that might be.
It once seemed impossible in Northern Ireland, as
well, but it was not impossible. We are not on the
road to peace, by picking up newspapers everyday
and reading about the latest U.S. soldiers or Iraqis
civilians who have been killed.
We should be picking up newspapers everyday,
and reading about the latest government programs
to research alternate energy sources, not reading
about the latest oil pipeline that has been bombed.
When America chooses its leader, it deserves the
leader that it chooses, and all the consequences,
direct and indirect, that will flow from that choice.
Tom Keske
.
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Who is Best for Our Future? |
31 Oct 2004 04:05:57 PM |
|
|
"Thomas Keske" <TKeske@Comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Lxbhd.338324$3l3.195404@attbi_s03...
Earlier this year, there had been some fear that
the Bush administration would capture Osama bin Laden,
then hold him secretly, revealing the capture just before
the election, as an "October Surprise".
Apparently, that was assuming too much comptence on
the part of the Bush administration- that they would be
able to capture him.
If anything, Osama bin Laden's recent public statement demonstrates
that the Bush administration has been mishandling the war on terrorism,
wasting a huge amount of resources on the war in Iraq, instead
of focusing on the pursuit of Al Quaeda, which has itself been in
serious pursuit of nuclear weapons, and which constitutes the
far more serious threat to the country.
Picking the wrong battle can be a losing proposition, regardless
of whether you win the battle, or not.
There was good information that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction. The UN
had already tols the US to get rougher this time if Saddam didn't comply with the
treaties.
Congress OK'd the warfare option.
Sounds like other propoganda has gotten to you my man.
Before the Iraq war, Bush had stated empatically, as if fact,
that Sadam Hussein was going to have nuclear weapons
within six months. In retrospect, this was not a question
of Bush merely being mislead by bad intelligence, or a case
of Bush merely "misleading" the American people. It appears
to be a case of President Bush telling a deliberate and
outright lie to the American public, to make sure that they
supported his own pet war, which appears to have much
more to do with oil and with his own personal vendetta,
than it does with real American interests.
Speculative hypothesis based on what? The way it looks to you or some *****
propoganda? how does it appear that Bush was telling a deliberate and outright
lie? Where you coming from, fantasy land?
It is a small wonder that any U.S. politicans might
have changed their positions on the war- many American
citizens have changed their positions, also, when they
came to realize that the original rationalization for the
war had been built upon deliberately manufactured
propaganda.
Didn't everyone change their opinion about the war when the information was shown
to be false? Or is only your prefered butt buddies style of change acceptable?
But you are correct, politicians, including Bush, changed their positions on the
justification for the war.
If it is in the style of Bush to try to install a puppet
government, to ensure cheap oil from a country that
has the second-largest oil reserves in the world,
then even that has been a failure. Iraq oil production
is down 25-33% as a direct result of the war's disruption.
***** lies. You are the one telling deliberate lies brother.
It is this type of policy- trying to exploit another nation's
resources, instead of taking seriously the need to develop
alternate energy solutions of our own- that has exposed
the United States to the ultimate threat of nuclear terror.
Bush was not trying to exploit another nation's resources.
The incompetent conduct of the war is also escalating
tensions that are highly likely to lead to terror. In one
revealing incident, an American soldier described how he
and others were instructed to stop traffic by raising their
hands. To Iraqis, raising of the hands signals "hello",
not "stop". The soldier described how this instruction
lead to the shooting and killing of dozens of civilians in
a 24-hour period.
The conduct of the war was not incopetent, it being carried out about as well as
any other nation trying to do the same.
The mainstream media at home has not focused enough on such
incidents, but in other parts of the world, such incidents
will reverberate and provide a background for easy recruitment
by terrorist organizations.
By counter-analogy if in some cities the police bust rapists and murders and put
them in jail this will recruit other people to become rapists and murderers
therefore we should let crimminals go free. Think about the ***** your saying
man. Kill more terrorists.
The media has not sufficiently grilled President Bush on
his future plans. If he is reelected, does he or does he not
plan a series of additional wars with Syria, Iran, North Korea?
Cross your fingers!
Is this privileged information, on a "need to know" basis?
Could we trust in the answer, even if one were provided?
If it justifies the need to know basis protocal.
The amount of expense and trouble incurred in Iraq alone
makes it clear that further adventures would likely bankrupt
the country. Our real security depends, among other
things, on our economic viability. History is littered
with fallen empires that fell too far into debt, due to the
financing of overly ambitious wars.
A few billion? Jeeez, thats squat compared to the trillions invested in the
domestic economy.
We should be picking up newspapers, everyday,
and reading about the latest in Israeli-Palestinian
negotiations, no matter how difficult that might be.
It once seemed impossible in Northern Ireland, as
well, but it was not impossible. We are not on the
road to peace, by picking up newspapers everyday
and reading about the latest U.S. soldiers or Iraqis
civilians who have been killed.
Here is about the only paragraph in your stupid post that seems true so far.
We should be picking up newspapers everyday,
and reading about the latest government programs
to research alternate energy sources, not reading
about the latest oil pipeline that has been bombed.
When America chooses its leader, it deserves the
leader that it chooses, and all the consequences,
direct and indirect, that will flow from that choice.
But if the terrorists want to punish you for something that happened in 1982 what
choice have you got but to kill as many as you can. They are going to attack
anyway even if you get nice and put some flowers in your hair, so kill em quick
an hard my man!
Tom Keske
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chickenlips" |
|
| Title: Re: Who is Best for Our Future? |
31 Oct 2004 07:18:47 PM |
|
|
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:deKdnVotf_aa-xjcRVn-1w@comcast.com...
Annoint your Fundy Bald Head with Crisco. Say 5 Hail
Billy Grahams and 4 Hail Jimmy Swaggarts. I absolve
you of your insanity. Go and Google no more.
"Thomas Keske" <TKeske@Comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Lxbhd.338324$3l3.195404@attbi_s03...
Earlier this year, there had been some fear that
the Bush administration would capture Osama bin Laden,
then hold him secretly, revealing the capture just before
the election, as an "October Surprise".
Apparently, that was assuming too much comptence on
the part of the Bush administration- that they would be
able to capture him.
If anything, Osama bin Laden's recent public statement demonstrates
that the Bush administration has been mishandling the war on terrorism,
wasting a huge amount of resources on the war in Iraq, instead
of focusing on the pursuit of Al Quaeda, which has itself been in
serious pursuit of nuclear weapons, and which constitutes the
far more serious threat to the country.
Picking the wrong battle can be a losing proposition, regardless
of whether you win the battle, or not.
There was good information that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction.
The UN
had already tols the US to get rougher this time if Saddam didn't comply
with the
treaties.
Congress OK'd the warfare option.
Sounds like other propoganda has gotten to you my man.
Before the Iraq war, Bush had stated empatically, as if fact,
that Sadam Hussein was going to have nuclear weapons
within six months. In retrospect, this was not a question
of Bush merely being mislead by bad intelligence, or a case
of Bush merely "misleading" the American people. It appears
to be a case of President Bush telling a deliberate and
outright lie to the American public, to make sure that they
supported his own pet war, which appears to have much
more to do with oil and with his own personal vendetta,
than it does with real American interests.
Speculative hypothesis based on what? The way it looks to you or some
*****
propoganda? how does it appear that Bush was telling a deliberate and
outright
lie? Where you coming from, fantasy land?
It is a small wonder that any U.S. politicans might
have changed their positions on the war- many American
citizens have changed their positions, also, when they
came to realize that the original rationalization for the
war had been built upon deliberately manufactured
propaganda.
Didn't everyone change their opinion about the war when the information
was shown
to be false? Or is only your prefered butt buddies style of change
acceptable?
But you are correct, politicians, including Bush, changed their positions
on the
justification for the war.
If it is in the style of Bush to try to install a puppet
government, to ensure cheap oil from a country that
has the second-largest oil reserves in the world,
then even that has been a failure. Iraq oil production
is down 25-33% as a direct result of the war's disruption.
***** lies. You are the one telling deliberate lies brother.
It is this type of policy- trying to exploit another nation's
resources, instead of taking seriously the need to develop
alternate energy solutions of our own- that has exposed
the United States to the ultimate threat of nuclear terror.
Bush was not trying to exploit another nation's resources.
The incompetent conduct of the war is also escalating
tensions that are highly likely to lead to terror. In one
revealing incident, an American soldier described how he
and others were instructed to stop traffic by raising their
hands. To Iraqis, raising of the hands signals "hello",
not "stop". The soldier described how this instruction
lead to the shooting and killing of dozens of civilians in
a 24-hour period.
The conduct of the war was not incopetent, it being carried out about as
well as
any other nation trying to do the same.
The mainstream media at home has not focused enough on such
incidents, but in other parts of the world, such incidents
will reverberate and provide a background for easy recruitment
by terrorist organizations.
By counter-analogy if in some cities the police bust rapists and murders
and put
them in jail this will recruit other people to become rapists and
murderers
therefore we should let crimminals go free. Think about the ***** your
saying
man. Kill more terrorists.
The media has not sufficiently grilled President Bush on
his future plans. If he is reelected, does he or does he not
plan a series of additional wars with Syria, Iran, North Korea?
Cross your fingers!
Is this privileged information, on a "need to know" basis?
Could we trust in the answer, even if one were provided?
If it justifies the need to know basis protocal.
The amount of expense and trouble incurred in Iraq alone
makes it clear that further adventures would likely bankrupt
the country. Our real security depends, among other
things, on our economic viability. History is littered
with fallen empires that fell too far into debt, due to the
financing of overly ambitious wars.
A few billion? Jeeez, thats squat compared to the trillions invested in
the
domestic economy.
We should be picking up newspapers, everyday,
and reading about the latest in Israeli-Palestinian
negotiations, no matter how difficult that might be.
It once seemed impossible in Northern Ireland, as
well, but it was not impossible. We are not on the
road to peace, by picking up newspapers everyday
and reading about the latest U.S. soldiers or Iraqis
civilians who have been killed.
Here is about the only paragraph in your stupid post that seems true so
far.
We should be picking up newspapers everyday,
and reading about the latest government programs
to research alternate energy sources, not reading
about the latest oil pipeline that has been bombed.
When America chooses its leader, it deserves the
leader that it chooses, and all the consequences,
direct and indirect, that will flow from that choice.
But if the terrorists want to punish you for something that happened in
1982 what
choice have you got but to kill as many as you can. They are going to
attack
anyway even if you get nice and put some flowers in your hair, so kill em
quick
an hard my man!
Tom Keske
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chickenlips" |
|
| Title: Re: Who is Best for Our Future? |
31 Oct 2004 02:12:09 PM |
|
|
"Thomas Keske" <TKeske@Comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Lxbhd.338324$3l3.195404@attbi_s03...
Earlier this year, there had been some fear that
the Bush administration would capture Osama bin Laden,
then hold him secretly, revealing the capture just before
the election, as an "October Surprise".
Apparently, that was assuming too much comptence on
the part of the Bush administration- that they would be
able to capture him.
If anything, Osama bin Laden's recent public statement demonstrates
that the Bush administration has been mishandling the war on terrorism,
wasting a huge amount of resources on the war in Iraq, instead of
focusing on the pursuit of Al Quaeda, which has itself been in serious
pursuit of nuclear weapons, and which constitutes the far more serious
threat to the country.
Picking the wrong battle can be a losing proposition, regardless
of whether you win the battle, or not.
Before the Iraq war, Bush had stated empatically, as if fact,
that Sadam Hussein was going to have nuclear weapons
within six months. In retrospect, this was not a question
of Bush merely being mislead by bad intelligence, or a case
of Bush merely "misleading" the American people. It appears
to be a case of President Bush telling a deliberate and outright lie to
the American public, to make sure that they
supported his own pet war, which appears to have much
more to do with oil and with his own personal vendetta,
than it does with real American interests.
It is a small wonder that any U.S. politicans might have changed their
positions on the war- many American
citizens have changed their positions, also, when they
came to realize that the original rationalization for the
war had been built upon deliberately manufactured
propaganda.
If it is in the style of Bush to try to install a puppet government, to
ensure cheap oil from a country that
has the second-largest oil reserves in the world,
then even that has been a failure. Iraq oil production
is down 25-33% as a direct result of the war's disruption.
It is this type of policy- trying to exploit another nation's
resources, instead of taking seriously the need to develop
alternate energy solutions of our own- that has exposed
the United States to the ultimate threat of nuclear terror.
The incompetent conduct of the war is also escalating
tensions that are highly likely to lead to terror. In one
revealing incident, an American soldier described how he
and others were instructed to stop traffic by raising their
hands. To Iraqis, raising of the hands signals "hello",
not "stop". The soldier described how this instruction
lead to the shooting and killing of dozens of civilians in
a 24-hour period.
The mainstream media at home has not focused enough on such
incidents, but in other parts of the world, such incidents
will reverberate and provide a background for easy recruitment
by terrorist organizations.
The media has not sufficiently grilled President Bush on his future plans.
If he is reelected, does he or does he not
plan a series of additional wars with Syria, Iran, North Korea?
Is this privileged information, on a "need to know" basis?
Could we trust in the answer, even if one were provided?
The amount of expense and trouble incurred in Iraq alone
makes it clear that further adventures would likely bankrupt
the country. Our real security depends, among other
things, on our economic viability. History is littered
with fallen empires that fell too far into debt, due to the
financing of overly ambitious wars.
We should be picking up newspapers, everyday,
and reading about the latest in Israeli-Palestinian
negotiations, no matter how difficult that might be.
It once seemed impossible in Northern Ireland, as
well, but it was not impossible. We are not on the
road to peace, by picking up newspapers everyday
and reading about the latest U.S. soldiers or Iraqis
civilians who have been killed.
We should be picking up newspapers everyday,
and reading about the latest government programs
to research alternate energy sources, not reading
about the latest oil pipeline that has been bombed.
When America chooses its leader, it deserves the
leader that it chooses, and all the consequences,
direct and indirect, that will flow from that choice.
Tom Keske
Amen.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Who is Best for Our Future? |
31 Oct 2004 03:50:56 PM |
|
|
"Chickenlips" <peck@peck.peck> wrote in message
news:jZidnR8Se5OD2hjcRVn-rw@comcast.com...
Tom Keske
Amen.
The 1982 Invasion of Lebanon, dubbed Operation Peace for Galilee, began June 6,
1982, when the Israel Defence Force invaded southern Lebanon in response to the
Abu Nidal organization's assassination attempt against Israel's ambassador to the
United Kingdom, Shlomo Argov.
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/1982_Lebanon_war
Created by a split from the Fatah in 1974, the Abu Nidal Organization (officially
named Fatah - the Revolutionary Council) is an international organization named
for its founder Abu Nidal. The group is also known as the Arab Revolutionary
Brigades, Black September and the Revolutionary Organization of Socialist
Muslims. It has an estimated members of several hundred.
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Abu_Nidal_organization
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre
---------------------------------------
International intervention: 1982–84
An interim cease-fire brokered by the United States in 1981 between Syria, the
PLO, and Israel was respected for almost a year. Several incidents, cross fire
between the two parties, led to the June 6, 1982, Israeli ground invasion of
Lebanon. The Israelis labeled the invasion Operation Peace for Galilee, with a
view toward paving the way for an Israeli-Lebanese peace agreement. With these
aims in mind, Israeli forces drove 25 miles into Lebanon, moving into East Beirut
with the support of Maronite Christian leaders and militia.
At first, distressed with the PLOs existence, a few Lebanese welcomed the
Israelis, but as the occupation grew from weeks to months, popular resentment
against Israel grew. This was because, during the invasion, Israel implemented a
policy of shelling targets suspected of being PLO, including refugee camps and
towns. It is estimated that during the entire campaign 19,000 were killed and
30,000 were wounded. (Israeli citizens were also unhappy with the war, as losses
were heavy (486), and the goals were not clear.). On June 13, Israel laid seige
to Beirut, shelling and bombing PLO targets in the city. Lebanese police estimate
at least 6,700 were killed in Beirut, 80 percent civilians [1]
(http://www.chomsky.info/books/fateful01.htm), [2]
(http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2002/MOUTGawrych.htm).
Within six months, Israel withdrew from most of Lebanon, but they left troops
behind in a ten mile wide security zone along the Israeli-Lebanese border. With
their allies, the South Lebanon Army, Israel hoped to prevent future assaults.
A multinational force landed in Beirut on August 20, 1982 to oversee the PLO
withdrawal from Lebanon and U.S. mediation resulted in the evacuation of Syrian
troops and PLO fighters from Beirut. The agreement also provided for the
deployment of a multinational force comprised of U.S. Marines along with French
and Italian units. A new President, Bachir Gemayel, was elected with acknowledged
Israeli backing. On September 14, however, he was assassinated. The next day,
Israeli troops crossed into West Beirut to secure Muslim militia strongholds and
stood back as Lebanese Christian militias massacred approximately 300-3,000
Palestinian civilians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Then Israeli
Minister of Defense Ariel Sharon was held indirectly responsible for the massacre
by the Kahan Commission and later resigned. With U.S. backing, Amine Gemayel,
chosen by the Lebanese parliament to succeed his brother as president, focused
anew on securing the withdrawal of Israeli and Syrian forces.
On May 17, 1983, Lebanon, Israel, and the United States signed an agreement on
Israeli withdrawal that was conditioned on the departure of Syrian troops. Syria
opposed the agreement and declined to discuss the withdrawal of its troops,
effectively stalemating further progress. In August 1983, Israel withdrew from
the Shuf (southeast of Beirut), thus removing the buffer between the Druze and
the Christian militias and triggering another round of brutal fighting. By
September, the Druze had gained control over most of the Shuf, and Israeli forces
had pulled out from all but the southern security zone, where they remained until
May 2000. The virtual collapse of the Lebanese Army in February 1984, following
the defection of many Muslim and Druze units to militias, was a major blow to the
government. With the U.S. Marines looking ready to withdraw, Syria and Muslim
groups stepped up pressure on Gemayal. On March 5 the Lebanese Government
canceled the May 17 agreement; the Marines departed a few weeks later.
This period of chaos witnessed the beginning of retaliatory attacks launched
against U.S. and Western interests. They included the April 18, 1983 suicide
attack at the U.S. Embassy in West Beirut (63 dead), the bombing of the
headquarters of U.S. and French forces on October 23, 1983 (298 dead), the
assassination of American University of Beirut, President Malcolm Kerr on January
18, 1984, and the bombing of the U.S. Embassy annex in East Beirut on September
20, 1984 (9 dead).
It also saw the rise of radicalism amongst the country's different factions. In
1982 Hizballah emerged from a loose coalition of Shi'a groups, supported by 1500
Iranian Revolutionary Guards (see: Hezbollah.)
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/History_of_Lebanon
----------------------------------------
On September 1, 1982, as the last PLO guerrillas were shipping out of Beirut,
President Reagan announced his "Reagan Plan" for solving the Arab-Israeli
conflict. It called for an immediate freeze on Israeli settlement construction in
the West Bank and Gaza, advocated Palestinian self rule "in association with
Jordan," and explicitly ruled out Israeli annexation of the Palestinian occupied
territories. Reagan affirmed UN Resolution 242, emphasizing that it was his
understanding that the resolution called for the withdrawal of Israeli forces
from the territories (as well as the Sinai, which was, as far as the Israelis
read the resolution, a demand Israel believed it had met under the Camp David
Treaty when it returned the Sinai to Egypt in 1982.
The plan outraged President Asad because it failed to even mention Syria or its
own Israeli occupied Golan Heights. The Israelis, obviously, were also outraged.
A shocked Begin called it "the saddest day of my life." The plan was a bungled,
half baked attempt to mollify the Arabs based on a State Department draft brief
which had never been meant to go public.
On September 8, 1982, the Arabs issued the "Fez Plan," calling for complete
Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, and a
Palestinian state under the leadership of the PLO in exchange for which Arabs
will recognize Israel's right to exist. (Khouri, p. 437)
Any doubts that the Israeli Labor Party was less expansionist than Likud were
dispelled in December by Uzi Shimoni, head of the party's propaganda branch, when
he advocated the return of some highly populated Arab areas of the West Bank to
Jordan (not to the Palestinians) so that Israel would not have to deal with the
Arab "demographic problem" (Chomsky, 112).
The 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon sowed the seeds of the first Palestinian
intifada or "uprising" which began in 1987. Arafat’s humiliating departure from
Beirut sent the message to residents of the occupied Palestinian territories that
if they wanted to be free, they would have to do the job themselves.
By year's end, 2,500 Islamists suspected of plotting the overthrow of the
Egyptian government were in jail along with most of the 1,600 arrested by
President Anwar Sadat in the security sweep shortly before his assassination in
1981. One group of 302 individuals arrested after the Asyut uprising following
Sadat's death went on trial, the largest trial in Egyptian history. Sheikh Umar
abd-al-Rahman (who would later be jailed in the United States for his role in the
1993 bombing of the World Trade Center) was among the defendants. He was
acquitted along with 173 others. Sentences for those convicted were lighter than
expected.
By 1982, the jihad to oust the Soviets from Afghanistan was fully underway with
the mujihadeen ("jihad fighters") receiving $600 million per year from the CIA
and the same from the Gulf states. (Gilles Kepel, Jihad: The Trail of Political
Islam (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2002), 143. See also al-Qaeda and Usama bin
Laden).
In Saudi Arabia in 1982, King Khalid died and was succeeded by his half brother
Fahd.
http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/war_in_lebanon.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
