Der Krieg in Yemen ist ein sehr alter Konflikt, bei dem es nicht um Al Kaida geht. In Yemen kaempfen die shiitische(!) Rebellen gegen die yemenitische Regierung. Die Rebellen repraesentieren die shiitische MInderheit, die im Sueden des Landes leben. Die yemenitische Diktator Regierung, aber auch die Rebellen sind zu verurteilen. Die Rebellen sind nicht ganz unschuldig. Auch wenn die Rebellen ein Problem sind, ist der Krieg in Suedyemen, ueberhaupt nicht gerechtfertig. In diesem Konflikt, sind viele unschuldige Menschen gestorben und der Tod von Unschuldigen, ist durch nichts gerechtfertigt.
Die gefallenen "Terroristen" kann man hier sehen.
Wenn es Al Qaida in Yemen geben sollte (bezweifle dass es al Kaida ueberhaupt gibt), haben die in diesem Konflikt ueberhaupt nichts zu sagen. Die Hintergruende sind meiner Meinung nach andere. Die Huthis Rebellen werden nicht nur von der yemenitischen Regierung bekaempft, sondern auch von Saudi Arabien. Beide Laender haben grosse Schwierigkeiten, gegen die Rebellen zu kaempfen. Die yemenitische Regierung hat selbst im Inneren des Landes gewaltige (nicht nur politische) Probleme und Saudi Arabien musste gewaltige Verluste hinnehmen.
"Seventy-three Saudis have been killed and 26 are missing since fighting broke out in November between Saudi forces and Yemeni rebels, Saudi Deputy Defense Minister Prince Khaled bin Sultan told reporters on Tuesday. "The confrontation on the southern border has resulted in 73 martyrs and 26 missing," said Sultan in comments broadcast on television from a media conference in Al-Khoba in southern Jizan province."
Ich bin mir sicher, dass Saudi Arabien und Yemen die USA um Hilfe gebeten haben, gegen die Rebellen zu kaempfen. Die USA machen ihre Oel-Freunde gluecklich und dabei koennen die USA auch ihr Imperium ausweiten.
Posts mit dem Label USA werden angezeigt. Alle Posts anzeigen
Posts mit dem Label USA werden angezeigt. Alle Posts anzeigen
Dienstag, 29. Dezember 2009
Montag, 28. Dezember 2009
more dead soldjers than last year
The number of US soldiers killed in Afghanistan this year has increased twofold compared with 2008.
Based on an AFP tally, foreign forces recorded 506 casualties in Afghanistan this year, 310 of which were US troops.
The second figure showed that twice as many US soldiers were killed in Afghanistan in 2009 compared to 2008, when 155 US soldiers were killed.
How will it be for 2010?
Based on an AFP tally, foreign forces recorded 506 casualties in Afghanistan this year, 310 of which were US troops.
The second figure showed that twice as many US soldiers were killed in Afghanistan in 2009 compared to 2008, when 155 US soldiers were killed.
How will it be for 2010?
Samstag, 19. Dezember 2009
long-term partnership
"Let me emphasize that the United States is not withdrawing from Afghanistan; we have a long-term partnership with your country"
This is quote of U.S. ambassador of Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry from:
"RFE/RL's Radio Free Afghanistan hosted a call-in program with the U.S. ambassador to Kabul, Karl Eikenberry, in which listeners were invited to ask him about U.S.-Afghan relations."
The full thing with the questions and answers can be read here.
Interstingly, he avoids to answer this question in detail:
Questioner: Why is there no mention of reconciliation and reintegration of former Taliban fighters in the new Obama strategy? Does this mean the United States is opposed to the idea?
Eikenberry: Clearly, part of the comprehensive strategy of your government supported by the United States and the international community is one in which of course reconciliation and reintegration have an important role. I'd like to emphasize that the United States and indeed the international community will support the efforts of the government of Afghanistan to move forward with a more comprehensive policy on reconciliation and reintegration.
And then he goes on talking about civilian casulties so he can change the topic because the truth is that there is no reconcilation and reintegration of Taliban fighters. The USA/NATO ist not interested to solve the conflict. They are there because they are interested in a long-term partnership as Eikenberry said: "Let me emphasize that the United States is not withdrawing from Afghanistan; we have a long-term partnership with your country".
He goes on and explains how this parntership will look like: "We will have a long-term relationship of providing security assistance, training, equipment, special capabilities to your army and police in the years ahead."
Just see how disgusting this person speaks like a bird:
And just as we were here in the 1950s and 1960s providing developmental assistance, our developmental assistance, our economic relations will continue in the decades ahead. Our long-term relationship.
This is quote of U.S. ambassador of Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry from:
"RFE/RL's Radio Free Afghanistan hosted a call-in program with the U.S. ambassador to Kabul, Karl Eikenberry, in which listeners were invited to ask him about U.S.-Afghan relations."
The full thing with the questions and answers can be read here.
Interstingly, he avoids to answer this question in detail:
Questioner: Why is there no mention of reconciliation and reintegration of former Taliban fighters in the new Obama strategy? Does this mean the United States is opposed to the idea?
Eikenberry: Clearly, part of the comprehensive strategy of your government supported by the United States and the international community is one in which of course reconciliation and reintegration have an important role. I'd like to emphasize that the United States and indeed the international community will support the efforts of the government of Afghanistan to move forward with a more comprehensive policy on reconciliation and reintegration.
And then he goes on talking about civilian casulties so he can change the topic because the truth is that there is no reconcilation and reintegration of Taliban fighters. The USA/NATO ist not interested to solve the conflict. They are there because they are interested in a long-term partnership as Eikenberry said: "Let me emphasize that the United States is not withdrawing from Afghanistan; we have a long-term partnership with your country".
He goes on and explains how this parntership will look like: "We will have a long-term relationship of providing security assistance, training, equipment, special capabilities to your army and police in the years ahead."
Just see how disgusting this person speaks like a bird:
And just as we were here in the 1950s and 1960s providing developmental assistance, our developmental assistance, our economic relations will continue in the decades ahead. Our long-term relationship.
And we will continue to have extraordinarily strong diplomatic relationship, and there'll be strong people-to-people relationship between our peoples for decades to come. So this is not about withdrawal, it's about strengthening our friendship and partnership over the longer term.
No thank you, we don't want your shitty relationship with Afghanistan.Donnerstag, 17. Dezember 2009
Dronen verfolgen und aufspüren - Peinlich
Iraqi militants have regularly used cheap and widely-available software to intercept the feeds of US-operated drones, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday.
Citing senior defense and intelligence officials, the Journal said Iranian-backed Shiite insurgents used software programs such as SkyGrabber -- available online for 25.95 dollars (18 euros) -- to capture drone feeds.
Irgendwie peinlich, oder? Gut fuer die Iraker, bloed fuer die Amis. Die Afghanen/Iraker haben ihre eigene Technik. ;)
Abonnieren
Posts (Atom)
