PDA

View Full Version : Al Qaeda Doesn't Exist?!?!?



DJ-SLEV3N
09-09-2006, 02:49 PM
Here's a little doc aired on the BBC about how Al Qaeda doesnt really even exist, very interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBVVs9hcmRY&eurl=

AlphaFem
09-09-2006, 03:25 PM
I wish,but highly doubt it,they're tricky,thousands connections all over middle east... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

tmgbhot
09-09-2006, 04:57 PM
as much as I'd like to believe Al Qaeda doesn't exist im sure they do. besides without terrorist where would the idea for fun video games like Splinter Cell come from?

ZDemon_Blade
09-09-2006, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by tmgbhot:
as much as I'd like to believe Al Qaeda doesn't exist im sure they do. besides without terrorist where would the idea for fun video games like Splinter Cell come from?
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif Same here

AlphaFem
09-09-2006, 05:39 PM
Games,games, and getting back bodybags with dead soldiers, yours,ours is better?

thejackel21
09-09-2006, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by tmgbhot:
as much as I'd like to believe Al Qaeda doesn't exist im sure they do. besides without terrorist where would the idea for fun video games like Splinter Cell come from?

the word terrorist was actually thought up the the arabs. irony isnt it?

AlphaFem
09-09-2006, 08:18 PM
Hell yeah

DJ-SLEV3N
09-09-2006, 09:12 PM
This is true, without terrorist Splinter Cell would not exist, I would be sad.

AlphaFem
09-09-2006, 09:23 PM
No worries,this war goes on almost last 2000 years,it just changes forms and never gonna be ended until this earth's death.

thejackel21
09-09-2006, 09:26 PM
Originally posted by AlphaFem:
No worries,this war goes on almost last 2000 years,it just changes forms and never gonna be ended until this earth's death.

or until we turn into a society like judge dredd? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

AlphaFem
09-09-2006, 09:44 PM
Tryed already during a few hundred years,as you can see it's useless.

mehtab12
09-09-2006, 10:00 PM
meh.....

AlphaFem
09-09-2006, 10:02 PM
heh....

mehtab12
09-09-2006, 10:04 PM
meh heh meh heh?

thejackel21
09-09-2006, 10:11 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1241.gif

DJ-SLEV3N
09-09-2006, 10:12 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

mehtab12
09-09-2006, 10:17 PM
its intelligent conversation geniuses http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

AlphaFem
09-09-2006, 10:18 PM
Originally posted by mehtab12:
meh heh meh heh? Da huh,na huh

mehtab12
09-09-2006, 10:19 PM
meh deh ruh puh? heh heh heh meh!

AlphaFem
09-09-2006, 10:22 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

mehtab12
09-09-2006, 10:24 PM
buh nuh duh duh rUh!!!!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

AlphaFem
09-09-2006, 10:29 PM
One more time and in english pplzzz http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

mehtab12
09-09-2006, 10:30 PM
me no speakee "meh, buh" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

AlphaFem
09-09-2006, 10:40 PM
Already not? And I just started understand... almost

mehtab12
09-09-2006, 10:42 PM
i c

AlphaFem
09-09-2006, 10:52 PM
Has bothered

mehtab12
09-09-2006, 10:53 PM
your too confusing??!?

AlphaFem
09-09-2006, 10:55 PM
Haha, you wish I'm confused

mehtab12
09-09-2006, 10:56 PM
ok thats good i can understand that much =p

RoaringMad Mac
09-09-2006, 10:57 PM
Originally posted by TheJackel21:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tmgbhot:
as much as I'd like to believe Al Qaeda doesn't exist im sure they do. besides without terrorist where would the idea for fun video games like Splinter Cell come from?

the word terrorist was actually thought up the the arabs. irony isnt it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually no, You want to talk about Irony. Read this. Very interesting.

How Terrorism Began and Morphed into What it is Today

In the Beginning: The history of terrorism can be traced back to early recorded history as a group of people attempt to scare or terrorize other people to their religious way of life. A couple of early terrorist groups were The Zealots, Jewish men who would attack Roman and Greek authorities in broad daylight, in front of large groups of spectators, to send a message to the ruling body that they were not wanted there. The Sicari were also Jews, but they mostly murdered other Jews, who had fallen from their religious faith.

Other Pre-modern Terrorist Groups: Assassins, a group of fanatical Muslims who would murder leaders and others who deviated from the strict Muslim law, terrorized the Middle East in the 11th century. Thugees, an Indian cult thought responsible for over a million deaths over a millennium of terror, would kidnap a traveller and offer them up as a sacrifice to their Hindu god of terror, Kali. This group seemed more intent on terrorizing their victims than trying to effect some change in society.

Origins of the word Terrorism: The word Terror itself comes from the French, coined by Maximillian Robespierre during the Reign of Terror following the French Revolution of the late 18th century. Robespierre believed that terror was justified to root out those opposed to their rule. Over the course of the Reign, over 40,000 people were executed using the guillotine. It should be noted that Robespierre was in charge of the ruling government at the time and should be listed amongst other terror governments such as the Nazi's, Fascist Italy, and Stalin's Russia to name a few.

Modern Terrorism: The beginnings of modern terrorism may go back to the mid 19th century when a Italian revolutionary, Carlo Pisacane theorized that terrorism could deliver a message to an audience and draw attention to and support for a cause. Examples of early modern terrorism are the Klu Klux Klan, which formed to try to dissuade reconstructionists after the Civil War, and the Young Bosnians, which had Archduke Franz Ferdinand assassinated in Sarajevo in 1914, leading directly to the outbreak of World War One. It wasn't, however, until the 1960's that terrorism as we know it today came into prominence. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), The Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA), and other terrorist groups used attacks against civilian populations in an attempt to effect change for religious or ideological reasons. The most infamous incident of that time period occurred during the 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich, when a Palestine terrorist organization held eleven Israeli athletes hostage, who were then killed along with the terrorists during a rescue attempt.

State-Sponsored Terrorism: Seeing how terrorism could have such an impact on a variety of issues, nations began to use terrorism, funded from within their nation, to cause change or to get another nations attention. Syria, Libya, Iran, and Iraq were a few of the countries which sponsored terrorism. One of these terrorist acts was the seizing of sixty-six Americans in Iran in 1979 by students. Fifty-two of them were held hostage for 444 days and this terrorist action may have determined the outcome of the 1980 United States Presidential election.

Terrorism Now: After the horrific events of 9/11, terrorism was on the minds of many people that hadn't given it a second thought. The United States and other nations are involved in a "War on Terror", that has sent military units into Afghanistan to root out Al Qaida, and a large coalition force into Iraq to overthrow Sadaam Hussein. President Bush has stated that he will not waver in his determination to wipe out terrorism. Terrorism is more evident today than at any other time in recorded history. Will the "War on Terror", while necessary, begat more terrorist acts before it will yield tangible results?
Source: http://terrorism.about.com/od/historyofterrorism/a/concisehistory.htm

AlphaFem
09-09-2006, 11:10 PM
First of all, it is necessary to be defined{determined} with terminology for if in what authors of the numerous researches converge, devoted to a phenomenon of terrorism so it what to give precise and exhaustive definition of terrorism extremely difficultly. " What to consider{count}, and what to not consider{count} as " terror ", - modern Russian researchers write, - everyone solves itself, depending on ideological installations, leaning{basing} on own intuition. Uniform definition of essence while is not present " terror ". It still should be entered " [2]. In the literature terms "terror" and "terrorism" are used for definition of the phenomena of the different order similar with each other in one - applications of violence over separate persons, public groups and even classes. Historians write about " оprichnian terror ", terror jackobinian, red and white terror of an epoch of civil war, etc.; modern publicists write about criminal terror; to terrorism carry stealings planes and capture of hostages, etc." Nobody should constrain that fact that there is no " general{common} scientific theory " terrorism, - writes one of the largest modern researchers of terrorism of U.Laker. - the General{Common} theory a priori is impossible, because at this phenomenon very many the various reasons and displays " [3.] Lacker fairly mark{celebrate}, that the terrorism is the very complex{difficult} phenomenon differently shown in the various countries depending on their cultural traditions, social structure and many other things of factors which rather complicate attempts to give the general{common} definition of terrorism.

mehtab12
09-09-2006, 11:37 PM
wow u guys r smart!

AlphaFem
09-09-2006, 11:48 PM
The Russian researchers V.V.Vitjuk and S.A.Ethers believe what to develop{produce} the general{common} definition of terrorism quite probably, if " watch some elementary logic conditions ". First, it is necessary to distinguish precisely the use of concept "terrorism" in direct and figurative sense ". In this case Vitjuk and Ethers mean juggling by such word-combinations as " economic terror "," information terror ", etc. Secondly, it is necessary to distinguish terrorism from others " forms and methods of the armed violence which terrorist character in itself is not proved ". Thirdly, " definition of terrorism should be essentially full ", including the attributes uniting it with other forms of violent actions, but the main thing - those " specific characteristics which separate terrorist violence from not terrorist ". Fourthly, " it is necessary to consider, that the actions making specificity of terrorism, within the limits of other forms of the armed violence have private{individual} or auxiliary character ". For example (we shall add from themselves a little bit a historical reality to politological to constructions Vitjuk and Ethers), P.G.Kahovskogo's shot in general M.A.Miloradovicha on December, 14th, 1825 had "auxiliary" character within the limits of armed revolt. Plans of realization of the emperror' killing (A.I.Jakubovich) during the moment of revolt are even more characteristic in this case." Terrorism, - they write, is the political tactics connected with use and promotion on the foreground of those forms of armed struggle which are defined{determined} as acts of terrorism. " Acts of terrorism which earlier were reduced to murders of " separate high-ranking officials ", in modern conditions can carry the form of stealing of planes, capture of hostages, arsons of the enterprises and offices, etc., but unites them with terrorism of former times that " the main threat from terrorists there is a threat of a life and safety of people ". Acts of terrorism are directed also on forcing of an atmosphere of fear in a society and, certainly, they should be politically моtivated. Terrorists can apply actions which do not threaten people directly - for example, To forcing fear arsons or explosions of shops, headquarters of political parties in a time off, the edition of manifestes and leaflets of menacing character, etc.Apparently, to give a certain general definition of terrorism rather inconveniently (if at all is possible{probable}) though it is obvious, that its integral features really are threat of a life and safety of people and political motivation of application of violent actions., on the one hand, the phenomenon universal - at least for the Europe and Northern America, since second half XIX century, - that becoming aggravated disappearing for decades, with another - occurrence and activity of the terrorist organizations in the different countries have been caused by the concrete historical reasons and rather various consequences had terrorism.And rather important the position formulated by Hardman is essential, that " terrorism as the method is always characterized not only that fact, that he aspires to discompose the lawful government or the nation, but also desire to show to weights, that the lawful (traditional) authority is not any more in safety and without a call. Publicity of act of terrorism is the cardinal moment in strategy of terrorism. If terror will fail in causing{calling} the wide response in circles outside those to whom he directly is addressed, it will mean, that he is useless as the instrument of the social conflict. The logic of terrorist activity cannot be quite understood without an adequate estimation of the indicative nature of act of terrorism "

AlphaFem
09-10-2006, 12:18 AM
In an extreme antiquity they have created christianity and from fires and crosses preached to the world close clearing. In gloomy calm of Middle Ages they have made crusades and many years attracted people in dry and fruitless plains of Palestin. In last century they have caused{called} revolutionary and socialist movements and have poured over fields of the Europe and America blood of new fighters for clearing of mankind: the Idea of terrorist struggle where the small handful of people are "executors of desires" struggle of whole people and triumphs over millions people is those, - that time found out to people and proved on practice, cannot already decay. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

AlphaFem
09-10-2006, 12:24 PM
Mama said Al Qaeda DIE!!!http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/839/1086109310861090108910901088oo3.th.jpg (http://img62.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1086109310861090108910901088oo3.jpg)

MDS_Geist
09-13-2006, 06:23 AM
A few very short points:

This war has not gone on for over 2,000 years, but closer to 1,300 since the foundation of Islam and the strategy of jihad.

Al Qaida doesn't exist in the form that most people think it does, but as more of a network than a cohesive group. So while it can be technically correct to say that Al Qaida doesn't exist, it is also highly misleading. Yes, there are al Qaida terrorists and they are the people who follow al Qaida's ideology.

The Zealots did not attack Greek authorities since at the time there weren't any. They attacked and killed Roman soldiers usually, and usually did not do so in daytime since that would be suicidal (ironic considering how Masada is said to have ended).

thejackel21
09-13-2006, 06:40 AM
Originally posted by MDS_Geist:
A few very short points:

This war has not gone on for over 2,000 years, but closer to 1,300 since the foundation of Islam and the strategy of jihad.

Al Qaida doesn't exist in the form that most people think it does, but as more of a network than a cohesive group. So while it can be technically correct to say that Al Qaida doesn't exist, it is also highly misleading. Yes, there are al Qaida terrorists and they are the people who follow al Qaida's ideology.

The Zealots did not attack Greek authorities since at the time there weren't any. They attacked and killed Roman soldiers usually, and usually did not do so in daytime since that would be suicidal (ironic considering how Masada is said to have ended).

if you think it started from the begin of the foundations of islam you very very wrong.

Jihad is a holy war, because it was only used to defend against people who wished to kill muslims,because they didnt want the prophet mohammed to keep bring more into the religion. Those who wanted him dead were in fact his tribal people who were afraid of him taking their control over the tribes (5 tribes... 4tribal leaders wanting him dead the fifth tribe he became tribal leader after his uncle died). So the four chiefs sent envoy after envoy and army after just to murder him and his followers. A 3-4 years of bloodshed, Mohammed's people won from 317 people to thousands on his side vs the 2000 thousand to a few hundreds to fight him and his followers.

When he returned he could have murdered everyone his home town, but instead he told him live BUT believe in ISLAM, unless you are christian or jewish you dont have to convert. The tribal people of mohammed actually worshipped idols that moses himself wanted destroyed. And those idols were the cause of the deaths of his people both with and against him.

Al Qaeda on the other hand, is misusing the word. why? Most likely, because they cant stand western freedom of religion, separation of state and religion and women actually having full rights.

He believes the entire world should be muslim, which is just wrong. So dont think its going on for 1300 years.

al qaeda perspective has been around for about 300 years max. historans disagree on the birth of mobaiaism. some say it was really 250 years (after mobia's death)

MDS_Geist
09-13-2006, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by TheJackel21:
if you think it started from the begin of the foundations of islam you very very wrong.

If you have any actual historical references that prove me wrong, by all means please do present them.


Originally posted by TheJackel21:
Jihad is a holy war, because it was only used to defend against people who wished to kill muslims,because they didnt want the prophet mohammed to keep bring more into the religion. Those who wanted him dead were in fact his tribal people who were afraid of him taking their control over the tribes (5 tribes... 4tribal leaders wanting him dead the fifth tribe he became tribal leader after his uncle died). So the four chiefs sent envoy after envoy and army after just to murder him and his followers. A 3-4 years of bloodshed, Mohammed's people won from 317 people to thousands on his side vs the 2000 thousand to a few hundreds to fight him and his followers.

Now this is religious belief rather than verifiable historical fact. Jihad isn't about defense, but about offense as can easily be seen from the historical record. All else is window dressing. For example, the Arab conquest of the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Europe were undertaken under the rubric of jihad and were clearly wars of conquest.

Now if you want to discuss the cultural nuances of 6th and 7th century Arabs I'm happy to do so as well. Bear in mind that as with the vast majority of tribal cultures it had (and continues to have) an exceptionally rigid ingroup/outgroup divide and one that often involves violence against the outgroup. Inter-tribal warfare was very common and remains very common.


Originally posted by TheJackel21:
When he returned he could have murdered everyone his home town, but instead he told him live BUT believe in ISLAM, unless you are christian or jewish you dont have to convert.

Not quite. Even the Qu'ran tells us that the choices were the following: Die, convert to Islam or become a subjugated second class citizen beneath any Muslim (the general option given to Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians). Frankly, those options all suck.


Originally posted by TheJackel21:
The tribal people of mohammed actually worshipped idols that moses himself wanted destroyed. And those idols were the cause of the deaths of his people both with and against him.

First of all, the vast majority of Arabs at the time were indeed pagans. This had nothing to do with Moses, because the Arabs neither knew the Torah nor cared about it. That's a injection from Muhammad showing the influence of the Jews of Medina who sheltered him when he was in need. In return he subjugated or ckilled them. Not much for gratitude really.

The idols cause nothing, they're just idols. There is a story in the midrashim about how Abraham destroyed all of his father's idols but one, and in the hand of that large one he placed the implement he used to smash the idols. Upon returning, his father asked him why he had done such a thing. Abraham replied that he did not, someone had brought an offering and the idols took to quarreling, then the largest one smashed the smaller ones. Terah (Abraham's father) became angry and said that was foolish, that the idols could do no such thing since they were merely statues. Abraham replied that was just so, and therefore they should not be worshipped.

Same thing here. An idol causes nothing. Muslims killed the pagans, not idols.


Originally posted by TheJackel21:
Al Qaeda on the other hand, is misusing the word. why? Most likely, because they cant stand western freedom of religion, separation of state and religion and women actually having full rights.

Al Qaida is agreeing with the majority of Arab and Muslim jurists about the meaning of jihad and the interpretation of the Qu'ran - which of course can't really be interpreted since it is seen as perfect and complete, so must be taken literally. Read through the Qu'ran, and it is exceedingly clear that jihad means a violent war.


Originally posted by TheJackel21:
He believes the entire world should be muslim, which is just wrong. So dont think its going on for 1300 years.

Actually, it had been. Islam is a violently expansionist religion. That's one of the problems with monotheistic faiths, they tend ot be intolerant. Judaism and Christianity have thankfully moved beyond that for the most part. Islam has not.


Originally posted by TheJackel21:
al qaeda perspective has been around for about 300 years max. historans disagree on the birth of mobaiaism. some say it was really 250 years (after mobia's death)

Al Qaida has been around for less than twenty years. Islamic intolerance is as old as islam. Wahabism and Salafism are not so old as formal schools of thoughts, but their ideas are quite old.

WhiteKnight77
09-13-2006, 04:01 PM
If y'all only knew about debating religion with Giest as being pointless. The man has to have an understanding about all religions and their histories.

sam_fisher091
09-13-2006, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by WhiteKnight77:
If y'all only knew about debating religion with Giest as being pointless. The man has to have an understanding about all religions and their histories.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Check out this (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/393107431/m/5851029444?r=4581087544#4581087544) thread for proof. Read the whole thing. He knew more about Judiasim then I did. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

oldskool7142
09-13-2006, 05:01 PM
without terrorist where would the idea for fun video games like Splinter Cell come

People are retarted and minipulated so much by the media and such that even if it were true and people knew they wouldnt even care much to do anything. Conspiracy theories are virtually non existent, once you have a peice of evidence however scutinizable it is no longer a conspiracy. Monumental evidence states that no plane hit the pentagon and the world trade center had explosives in it but who cares. Whatever the government says, goes.

In the next 10-50 years the constituition will have been attacked so much by today and tommorrow politicians and presidents that it'll no longer hold any ground and be only used as a guidline.

thejackel21
09-13-2006, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by oldskool7142:
In the next 10-50 years the constituition will have been attacked so much by today and tommorrow politicians and presidents that it'll no longer hold any ground and be only used as a guidline.

haha, in fact there is a document that undos all constitution. its called the patriot act, it pretty much takes away the bill of rights.

MDS_Geist
09-13-2006, 05:28 PM
WK and Sam, thanks for the "props." Hadn't thought about that conversation in a while Sam.

Oldskool7142, conspiracy theories are very much extant and propagating. I'm back in NYC, and on Monday the conspiracy loonies were out in force at Ground Zero. They have no actual evidence, they simply question actual factual evidence and try and raise a doubt. They can't prove anything, so their whole point is to try and raise a doubt. Most of them have other problems also, usually blaming the victims. For those of us who live in reality, we know that the Pentagon was hit by an airliner and that the WTC was brought down by two airliners.

The Constitution is and always has been a guideline as well as the blueprint for a government.

Jackel, it might help if you actually knew what the USA PATRIOT act does. Clearly you do not or you would realize that it does not in any way negate the bill of rights. If you haven't done anything wrong, then you have absolutely nothing to worry about much less complain about.

AlphaFem
09-13-2006, 08:09 PM
How all this was coming in the middle east in the deep past. Let's recollect, that Mongols have come to Iran as defenders of Christian belief. Nestrians and adjoined them jackobits in the Central Asia were rather numerous and influential. In 1260 they have released Syria from moslims and were near to walls of Jerusalem, but treachery of the European crusaders and splitting up Golden Horde where the moslim Berk-khan was established, have led to defeat at Ain-Jalunda (in Galilee) after which Mongols were rolled away for Euphrates and have passed to defense.

To be at war it was necessary on two fronts: with Egyptian mamlucks and with Golden Horde where the overwhelming majority of the population was made by the same polovians so actually war went between turkis and Mongols. The Iranian Mongols could not receive the help, as their unique ally, great khan Hubilaj, waged forty-year war with people - the western Mongols with whom its cousin Hyde corrected. Therefore Iran has appeared in isolation.Mongolian ilkhans kept only owing to support of Christians - Armenians, aisorians, sirians - and muslims-shiits [1] - deilimits and chorasanians which in Persia was much. But it was weak support. Attempt of khan Arguna (1284 1291) to agree with the French king Phillip Krasivym [2] has not given anything because the Europe has already grown cold to crusades. Mongols had to lean{base} on the local Persian population, and it was Muslim.

In XIII century overflown by bloodsheds, the Mongolian power in Iran thew gradually and non-uniformly. Acceptance of an islam by Hasan-khan and his younger brother, Oljeitu, has a little softened attitudes{relations} between a ruling dynasty and Broad masses, but has not eliminated wilfulness of emirs both Mongolian, and the Persian origin. To the son of Oljeitu-khan Abu Sajdu at the introduction on a throne there were 12 years. Therefore from its{his} name the country the deputy of Khurasan emir Choban operated. This vigorous ambitious man of 11 years managed to suppress revolts and intrigues of the emirs envied him, but in 1327 this last Mongolian passionarium in Iran has been killed by the khan weighed its{his} trusteeship. Destiny Choban two his sons have divided{undressed}, and the third, had time to escape to Egypt, the daughter of emir Chobana has been killed there sultan Nasirom under request Abu-Said which was in turn poisoned in 1335 with the liked wife. The beauty wished to revenge the tyrant for destruction of the father and brothers. Together with the husband she has ruined all state because all became possible.In a year after death ilkhan in Khurasan revolt against Mongols, under the slogan has flashed: " Sar-ba gift{for nothing} " (" Let the head on a gate hangs "), called for extreme risk, desperateness.

It would be seductive to see in sarbadars successors of Persians of epoch Sasnids but if it was so neither arabs, nor turkis, Mongols could not grasp Iran. Probably, subethnos sabardars - a new growth in a zone of the мон³оло-Persian contact for for 100 years the Mongolian genofund has been disseminated{absent-minded} and among Persians.Mongols could not cope sarbardar's with republic, and at last forward ilkhan - Is hard Timur-khan wandered in Gurgan, has invited sabardarian leaders for negotiations. Those, having come in the Horde, have suspected treachery and have decided to outstrip Mongols. On a feast one sabardar has suddenly killed khan, other have attacked drunk Mongols and those who has not had time to escape, have killed. So sovereignty of Mongols in Iran on December, 13th, 1353 has ended. Successors ilkhans, Jelaira though there were by origin Mongols, but not Khengisids, not defenders Jas' and not bogatyrs. They are not worthy the historian and an ethnobroad gully.

AlphaFem
09-14-2006, 01:04 AM
КULIKOV BATTLEFIELD - fight of Russian regiments led by grand duke the Moscow and Vladimir, Dmitry-Ivan and Horde an army under supervision of khan Mamaja on September, 8th 1380 on Кulikov a field (on right I protect Don, in area of a confluence of it of the river Neprjadva), a turning point in struggle of Russian people against a yoke of Golden Horde.After defeat Golden Horde armies on the river Vozhe in 1378, horde' mercenary (the military leader ordered Dark breed, that is 10 000 armies), chosen by khan, by name œ?may has decided to break Russian princes and to make them be depended on the Horde. In the summer 1380 he has collected an army totaled about 100-150 thousand warriors. Besides Tatars and Mongols, in him there were groups the osset, the Armenians lived in Crimea of genoeses, Circassians, and of some other people. Grand duke Lithuanian Yagayla which army should support hordians has agreed to be ally Mamaja, moving on Oka. Other ally Mamaja - according to of some annals - was the Ryazan prince Oleg Ivanovich. According to other annals, Oleg Ivanov only has in words expressed readiness to be satellite, has promissed œamay to be at war on the party{side} of Tatars, itself has immediately warned Russian troops about threatening connection œamay and Yagayla.In the end of July 1380,having found out about intentions hordians and Lithuanians to be at war with Russia, the Moscow prince Dmitry-Ivan has addressed with an appeal about gathering Russian military forces in capital and Kolomna, and has soon collected a host, the little smaller armies œamay. Basically in it there were muscovites and warriors from the grounds which have recognized authority of the Moscow prince though a line loyal to Moscow of the grounds - Novgorod, Smolensk, Nizhni Novgorod - have not expressed readiness to support Dmitry. Has not given the warriors and the main contender of prince Moscow - prince Tver. The military reform spent by Dmitry, having strengthened a kernel of Russian army due to princely cavalries, has given access to number warriors to numerous handicraftsmen and the townspeople who has made heavy infantry . The pedestrian warriors, under the order of the commander, have been armed by spears with narrow sheeted tips of the triangular form, is dense nozzled on long strong staffs, or throwing spears with short-sword tips. Against the pedestrian hordians (which was a little) Russian warriors had sabres, and for distant fight - are provided by onions,sphered helmets, metal ear defence and steel collars-shoulder, the breast of the soldier has been covered by the scaly, lamellar or type-setting reservation combined with a chain armour. Old oval shields have been replaced round, triangular, rectangular and heart-shaped. The plan of a campaign of Dmitry consisted in that, to not allow khan Mamaju to incorporate to the ally or allies, to force him to be forwarded through Oka or to make it, unexpectedly having left towards to the opponent. On execution{performance} of a plan Dmitry has received blessing at hegumen Serge from Radonezh a monastery. Serge has predicted to prince a victory and, according to a legend, has sent with him on abuse two special trained warriors of the monastery - Peresvet and žsliaby,(KIA in fight).

From Kolomna where Dmitry's many thousands host was going to, he in the end of August has allowed the order to move on the south. A prompt march of Russian armies (about 200 km. for 11 days) has not allowed forces of the opponent to incorporate. At night with 7 for August, 8th, having passed the river Don with left on the right coast on to accreting bridges from logs and having destroyed a ferry, Russians have left to Кulikov field. The rear of Russians has been covered by the river - the tactical maneuver which has opened new page in Russian military tactics. Prince Dmitry risky enough cut off to itself ways of possible deviation, but has simultaneously covered from flanks the army with the rivers and deep ravines, having complicated realization of roundabout maneuvers cavalry of Golden Horde. Dictating to Mamay the conditions of fight, prince has arranged Russian armies echeloned: ahead stood Advanced shelfs (under command of princes of whole Volga Dmitry and Vladimir), behind him - Big of the pedestrian hosts (the commander - Timothy Velyaminov), the right and left flanks covered horse shelfs of " the right hand (the commander - Kolomna Mikula Velyaminov, brother Timothy) and the left hand (the commander - the Lithuanian prince Andrey Olgerdov). Behind this basic army there was a reserve - light cavalry (the commander - brother Andrey, Dmitry Olgerdov). They should meet hordians arrows. In a dense oak grove Dmitry has ordered to settle down reserve hiden behind to a floor under command of cousin Dmitry, the Serpukhov prince Vladimir Andreev, after fight received a nickname Brave, and also skilled military commander dukes Dmitry Mihajlov, Bobroka-Volynskogo. The Moscow prince tried to force hordians in which first line always stood cavalry, and in the second - infantry, to face-to-face attack. (A little break,to be continued).

WhiteKnight77
09-14-2006, 11:03 AM
Here is something about the conspiracy theorists and their beliefs.

Penn & Teller's BS (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3143048862360929736&q=)

Conspiracy nuts (yes, I used that word to describe them) have failed to realize one thing. I have said this elsewhere and I will say it here now for the first time. Human nature. Humans find it very hard to keep a secret. Think about it. If someone came up to you and asked you to be on a plane or asked you to fake your death, would you? Would you not run to the nearest news outlet telling someone that you had been approached in such a manner?

For those who think that there were explosives used to bring down the WTC, have you any experience in demolitions? Do you know what needs to be done to prepare something for demolitions? Tearing out parts of the building to set explosives in the proper places certainly would have aroused suspicions and again, someone would have said something to someone. Humans can't keep their mouth shut.And with the liberal media not liking the current administration even prior to 9/11, they would have been over said information link stink on dookie to rip the administration a new one. Did that ever happen? That blows all the conspiracy theories out of the water.