[Deel 1004]Adolf Huilie

quote:

President Bush made clear in a private meeting this week that he was concerned about the lack of progress in Iraq and frustrated that the new Iraqi government — and the Iraqi people — had not shown greater public support for the American mission, participants in the meeting said Tuesday.

(...)

More generally, the participants said, the president expressed frustration that Iraqis had not come to appreciate the sacrifices the United States had made in Iraq, and was puzzled as to how a recent anti-American rally in support of Hezbollah in Baghdad could draw such a large crowd. “I do think he was frustrated about why 10,000 Shiites would go into the streets and demonstrate against the United States,” said another person who attended.

quote:

Did Russia have a Hand in Stopping Israel?
by
Melih Can

The war Israel waged against the Hezbollah will go down in history for destroying the Israeli army’s image of invincibility as much as for the massacres of civilians.

Known as the source of Israeli military might and named the “mountain steel,” the Israeli-made Merkava tanks, destroyed one by one by the Hezbollah became a symbol for this crushing defeat. As Israeli tanks took hits, the eyes of Tel Aviv and Washington began to look for the responsible party. While from the beginning of the operation to date, Iran and Syria have been shown as the parties behind Hezbollah’s fire power, we see that the Russian Federation (RF) has been added to this list recently. While the Israeli press holds Russia responsible for its failure in Lebanon, it claims that Russian-made arms were used in Lebanon. Military experts underscore that Hezbollah possesses Russian-made Metis-M anti-tank missiles, RPG-29 rockets, SA missiles, and Strela-2, SAM, etc. missile systems. Possessing very effective, sophisticated arms, Hezbollah appears to be a highly organized army rather than an ordinary militia. As anti-tank missiles strike and fall on their appointd target, Tel Aviv frequently expresses its dissatisfaction with Russia’s contrary approach. However much the parties don’t openly express it, from the beginning the Russia-Israel relationship never went beyond an image of two countries whose stars don’t match. Russia was perceived in the region as a “friend of the Arabs.” The Russians believed Israel was wrong and this belief continues today.

Payback time for Russia...

Finally, this situation has revealed itself again in the post-Cold War period, especially during Putin’s term. In Putin’s campaign against oligarchy, the arrest of many businessmen with Jewish roots, the confiscation of their property, and the demand for the transfer of their money from Israeli banks to Russia suddenly put Putin in the position of an anti-Semitic leader. It didn’t take long for Israel to see this as “the talent of the Arab lobby and supporters of Syria.” Besides this, Russia’s not including Hamas and Hezbollah on its list of terror organizations and, moreover, the statement it made regarding the election victory of Hamas multiplied Tel Aviv’s dissatisfaction many-fold. Putin’s announcement during his visit to Spain on February 9, 2006 that in the near future he was going to invite Hamas leaders to Moscow was the last straw.

Undoubtedly, it’s not correct to limit the support and policies Russia has given to actors in the Middle East, particularly Hezbollah and Hamas, to relations with Israel only. Russia’s name coming to the forefront with latest developments related to Israel-Hezbollah and Israel-Hamas points to only the tip of the iceberg. In spite of its diminishing capabilities and loss of power after the Cold War, Russia continues to follow up on its national interests in the region. Russia wants to continue in its traditional role of selling arms, directly or indirectly, to Middle Eastern governments and organizations. In addition to selling arms to the region, another dimension of this is rectifying the role of Russian businessmen in the region’s energy sector. Saying it has received an inheritance from the former USSR, who was a party in the region’s balance of power, Russia signals that, in spite of US and Israeli initiatives to prevent it, it wants to take its place in the newly forming equation and preserve its former authority, if possible.

Russia turns its direction towards the Middle East because...

In short, Russia is aiming at deeper strategic targets in the Middle East. In this framework, Russia’s foremost target is to turn the Middle East (Afghanistan in Eurasia) into a swamp land for the US and its supporters. The resemblance between the sophisticated arms in the hands of the Iraq and Afghan resistance fighters and those possessed by Hezbollah and other groups can’t be a coincidence. By getting America into trouble along the line of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, Russia is trying to get revenge for the past. Within this framework, Lebanon is being dragged towards becoming a second Iraq. The more Israel strikes, the more this swamp grows. Russia’s qualification to these groups as a power to be consulted with in the solution to the region’s problems pushes Israel deeper into a dead-end and enhances the sympathy for Russia’s in the region.

It appears that a second basic target is to force America to put its attention and energy on countries like Iran and Syria, and with the support of the anti-American block, to reestablish its influence in close circles and speed up its return. At this point, while Russia is rejuvenating former relations with regional countries, on the one hand, it is also encouraging Syria against the US and Israel, strengthening dialogue with Palestine, and advancing relations with Iran in the fields of politics, economics and security, particularly in the nuclear field. With this new strategy, Russia is taking revenge for events that occurred in relation to Georgia, the Ukraine, the Baltics and Kirghizstan; on the other hand, it is openly putting forth its opposition to new balances that will emerge in the Middle East outside of its own realm of influence. In this situation, the friction between the US, the world’s only super power, and Russia, who is advancing with sure steps towards its goal of regaining its position in the USSR era, is leading towards an unarmed duel. At this point, the news in the Russian Commersant Newspaper on June 2, 2006 was very interesting. In the news it was stated that work had begun to deepen the Syrian port at Tartus, where maintenance facilities of the Russian fleet have been located since the 1970’s, and that war ships belonging to the Russian Black Sea Fleet at Sivastopol can dock there. Thus, for the first time since the break-up of the USSR, the Russian Federation has established a military base outside of the former Soviet borders. It’s not necessary to point out that all these mean that the RF wants to use Syria as a base for increasing its power in the Middle East. In addition, touching on the key point of impasse between Syria and Israel, Russia says that there can be no resolution of the Middle East problem without the return of the Golan Heights to Syria. It appears that Russia wants to gain the Arab world through Syria and squeeze into the Middle East.

Russia continues taking other steps towards drawing the sympathy of the Arab and Islamic world. At this point, the Islamic Conference Organization (ICO) is an important leap forward. The ICO’s being in an observer status draws Russia closer to its goal. Russia’s final step in this direction took place on August 9, 2006. Putin gave orders for Russian soldiers in Chechnya to be withdrawn by degrees. At a time when opposition to the US and Israel has increased throughout the Islamic world, particularly in the Middle East, this step is very meaningful! In other words, it means to try and fill the vacuum of power that exists in the Islamic world in opposition to the US and to be the defender of Muslims.

quote:

Op donderdag 17 augustus 2006 14:01 schreef KirmiziBeyaz het volgende:
Van de 2 kwaden misschien nog het minst slecht.
[..]

quote:

Op donderdag 17 augustus 2006 13:52 schreef Monidique het volgende:
De spelers van de Reformatie wilden terug naar het oude christendom, naar het pure christendom. In zoverre terug naar oude, conservatieve en religieuze waarden. Islamitische fundamentalisten willen ook terug naar de ware Islam en ik wil het daarom wel vergelijken met de Reformatie van de zestiende eeuw in Europa. Er zijn daarentegen te veel verschillen om er hetzelfde in te zien. Maar goed, eerste kiemen zaaien voor moderne waarden? Onbewust of bewust? En waren de bewegingen van de Reformatie niet eigenlijk ook afkomstig uit die kiemen, in plaats van andersom, wat mij aannemelijk lijkt?

quote:

Op donderdag 17 augustus 2006 14:06 schreef Monidique het volgende:

[..]

Altijd de bron geven. Altijd.

quote:

Op donderdag 17 augustus 2006 14:06 schreef Monidique het volgende:

[..]

Altijd de bron geven. Altijd.

quote:

Op donderdag 17 augustus 2006 14:25 schreef sigme het volgende:

[..]

Toen ik daarop hamerde heeft 'ie een tijdje Kirmizi als bron opgegeven bij nieuwsberichten .

quote:

Op donderdag 17 augustus 2006 14:42 schreef KirmiziBeyaz het volgende:

[..]

Ik ben veranderd sinds die tijd. Tegenwoordig is mijn bron KNA. Kirmizi News Agency. KBNA voor vrienden en moslims.

quote:

Op donderdag 17 augustus 2006 14:53 schreef -IksRee- het volgende:
Ga je wel een stappen Kirmi?
Durf jij je vrouw mee te nemen naar, bv, een dansfeest waar meerdere jongelingen zich overgeven aan de geneugten van moderne muziek?

quote:

Op donderdag 17 augustus 2006 16:39 schreef Aoristus het volgende:
Jehan heeft gelijk, stop de porno, ik heb zojuist een prontip van Pberends gekregen, 3 jonge vrouwen waarbij letterlijk het vuur uit hun reet schiet, het moet niet gekker worden

quote:

Op donderdag 17 augustus 2006 16:54 schreef -IksRee- het volgende:

[..]

Link? Die moet ik even naar Kirmi + vrouwlief mailen.

quote:

Op donderdag 17 augustus 2006 18:57 schreef -IksRee- het volgende:
http://www.intiemscheren.nl/vaginale_kappers/

quote:

Op donderdag 17 augustus 2006 18:57 schreef -IksRee- het volgende:
http://www.intiemscheren.nl/vaginale_kappers/

quote:

Islam en schaamhaar
Elke moslim vrouw heeft volgens haar geloof de verplichting haar lichaam rein te houden. Onderdeel van deze reinheid is het verwijderen van oksel- en schaamhaar.

Scheren zou minimaal eens in de 40 dagen moeten gebeuren.

Het okselhaar zou 'geplukt' uitgetrokken moeten worden terwijl het schaamhaar ook geschoren mag worden.

Voor het scheren zelf bestaan duidelijke voorschriften.

quote:

Op donderdag 17 augustus 2006 19:43 schreef pberends het volgende:

[..]

Lekker pijnlijk, en je zit 30 van de 40 dagen met haar onder je armen als vrouw .