Fwd: one of the most important emails i've ever sent along- long and technical, but worth reading - i put the conclusion at the front

[Edward Schreiber]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "doug wilson" <dougw at rowecenter.org>
> Date: October 10, 2007 8:37:23 PM EDT
> To: <dougw at rowecenter.org>
> Subject: one of the most important emails i've ever sent along-  
> long and technical, but worth reading - i put the conclusion at the  
> front
> Reply-To: <dougw at rowecenter.org>
>
> But time is not on the side of those who oppose conflict.  If  
> nothing is done to change the political situation inside America  
> regarding Iran, there is an all too real possibility for a war to  
> break out in the spring of 2008.
>
> Sadly, there really is no alternative for the antiwar movement: Put  
> opposition to the war in Iraq on the back burner and make  
> preventing a war with Iran the No. 1 priority, at least until the  
> national election cycle kicks in during the summer of 2008.  If a  
> war with Iran hasn’t happened by then, it probably won’t.  And  
> the national debate on Iraq won’t be engaged until that time,  
> anyway.  A war with Iran would make the current conflict in Iraq  
> pale by comparison, and would detrimentally impact the whole of  
> America, not just certain demographics.  As such, it is critical  
> that we all put aside our ideological and political differences and  
> focus on the one issue which, if left unheeded, will have  
> devastating consequences for the immediate future of us all:  
> Prevent a future war with Iran.
>
>
>
Iraq Will Have to Wait
>
> http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070927_ritter_stop_iran_war/
>
> Posted on Sep 27, 2007
>
> By Scott Ritter
>
> The long-awaited “progress report” of Gen. David Petraeus and  
> Ambassador Ryan Crocker on the status of the occupation of Iraq has  
> been made, providing Americans, via the compliant media, with the  
> spectacle of loyal Bush yes men offering faith-based analysis in  
> lieu of fact-based assessment.  In the days and weeks that have  
> since passed, two things have become clear: Neither Congress nor  
> the American people (including the antiwar movement) have a plan or  
> the gumption to confront President Bush in anything more than  
> cosmetic fashion over the war in Iraq, and while those charged with  
> oversight mill about looking to score cheap political points and/or  
> save face, the administration continues its march toward conflict  
> with Iran unimpeded.
>
> Bush responded to the Petraeus report by indicating that he would  
> be inclined to start reducing the level of U.S. forces in Iraq  
> sometime soon (maybe December, maybe the spring of 2008).  But the  
> bottom line is that the troop levels inIraq keep expanding, as does  
> the infrastructure of perpetual occupation.  The Democrats in  
> Congress are focused on winning the White House in 2008, not  
> stopping a failed war, and as such they not only refuse to  
> decisively confront the president on Iraq, they are trying to out- 
> posture him over who would be the tougher opponent of an  
> expansionist Iran.
>
> Here’s the danger: While the antiwar movement focuses its limited  
> resources on trying to leverage real congressional opposition to  
> the war in Iraq, which simply will not happen before the 2008  
> election, the Bush administration and its Democratic opponents will  
> outflank the antiwar movement on the issue of Iran, pushing forward  
> an aggressive agenda in the face of light or nonexistent opposition.
>
> Of the two problems (the reality of Iraq, the potential of Iran),  
> Iran is by far the more important.  The war in Iraq isn’t going to  
> expand tenfold overnight.  By simply doing nothing, the Democrats  
> can rest assured that Bush’s bad policy will simply keep failing.   
> War with Iran, on the other hand, can still be prevented.  We are  
> talking about the potential for conflict at this time, not the  
> reality of war.  But time is not on the side of peace.
>
> Three story lines unfolded earlier this month which underscore just  
> how easily manipulated the American people, via the media, are when  
> it comes to the issues of Iran and weapons of mass destruction.  In  
> the first, Rear Adm. Mark Fox, a spokesperson for the U.S. military  
> in Iraq, let it be known that U.S. forces had captured a “known  
> operative” of the “Ramazan Corps,” the ostensible branch of  
> the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard command  
> responsible for all Iranian operations inside Iraq.  This  
> “operative,” one Mahmudi Farhadi, was, according to Fox, the  
> “linchpin” behind the smuggling of “sophisticated weapons”  
> into Iraq by the Quds Force.
>
> We’ve heard this story before.  In January of this year a similar  
> raid by U.S. forces in Irbil netted six Iranians, five of whom are  
> still in U.S. custody.  Senior American officials let it be known  
> that these Iranians were likewise members of the Quds Force, and  
> included that organization’s operations director.  All were tied  
> to the (unspecified) transfer of arms and munitions into Iraq from  
> Iran.  The Iranian government claimed, and the Iraqi government  
> confirmed, that the detained Iranians were all attached to a trade  
> mission in Irbil, where they oversaw legitimate commerce between  
> Iran and Iraq along the Kurdish frontier.
>
> The United States continues to hold the Iranians prisoner,  
> undoubtedly subjecting them to “special treatment” in order to  
> elicit some sort of confession, if our handling of other Iranian  
> diplomats previously captured in Iraq is any guide.  Their release  
> any time soon is unlikely, given the impact a de facto admission  
> that the Bush administration got it wrong would have on the overall  
> case against Iran it is trying to build.  The fate of Farhadi is  
> likewise up in the air.  None other than Kurdish President Jalal  
> Talabani, a staunch pro-American, condemned the detention of  
> Farhadi by U.S. military forces, noting that the Iranian was a well- 
> known businessman who was in Iraq as part of an official trade  
> delegation.  The Iranians have threatened to close down cross- 
> border trade in Talabani’s sector of Iraqi Kurdistan, shutting  
> down a key income stream for the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, the  
> Iraqi Kurdish faction Talabani heads.  Such is the reality of  
> modern Iraq.
>
> But this reality is nowhere to be found in the White House.  The  
> president himself has led the charge, as recently as this past  
> August, when in a speech to the American Legion’s national  
> convention in Reno, Nev., Bush threw down the gauntlet against  
> Iran, declaring, “I have authorized our military commanders in  
> Iraq to confront Tehran’s murderous activities ... the Iranian  
> regime must halt these actions.” His remarks were built on  
> assertions he first set forth in February 2007 when he highlighted  
> his assessment of Iranian involvement inside Iraq.  At that time  
> the president declared, “I can say with certainty that the Quds  
> Force, a part of the Iranian government, has provided these  
> sophisticated IEDs [improvised explosive devices] that have harmed  
> our troops.” Bush avoided direct implication of the Iranian  
> regime, stating, “ ... I do not know whether or not the Quds Force  
> was ordered from the top echelons of the government. But my point  
> is, what’s worse—them ordering it and it happening, or them not  
> ordering it and it happening?” I might suggest that the American  
> president putting the weight of the United States behind  
> unsubstantiated speculation in order to build a case for war might,  
> in fact, be worse, but since he got away with it regarding Iraqi  
> WMD, why stop now?
>
> In March 2007 the U.S. military paraded yet another general-cum- 
> spokesperson before the assembled media, where it was announced  
> that the United States had captured Qais Khazali, the head of the  
> mysteriously named “Khazali network,” together with one Ali Musa  
> Daqduq, an alleged Lebanese Hizbollah mastermind who helped plan  
> and facilitate the actions of the Khazali network, including, it  
> seems, an attack on U.S. forces in Karbala in January 2007 which  
> left five American soldiers dead.  This attack, in which insurgents  
> dressed in U.S. military uniforms, drove vehicles similar to those  
> used by the U.S. military and sported U.S. identification documents  
> and weapons, has been linked to Iran by many in the U.S., citing  
> nothing more than the level of sophistication involved as proof.
>
> The golden nugget in this story was Ali Musa Daqduq.  According to  
> the U.S. military, he was a 24-year member of the Lebanese  
> Hizbollah Party possessing extensive contacts with the Iranian Quds  
> Force.  The U.S. military referred to Daqduq as a proxy or  
> surrogate of the Quds Force in Iraq.  An alleged “special forces  
> commander” and bodyguard to none other than Hassan Nasrallah, the  
> head of Hizbollah in Lebanon, Daqduq was alleged to have been  
> ordered toIraq in 2005 for the purpose of coordinating training and  
> operations on behalf of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard command.  
> Daqduq supposedly helped the Iranians by training, together with  
> the Quds Force and the Lebanese Hizbollah operatives, teams of 20  
> to 60 Iraqi insurgents at secret bases just outside Tehran.
>
> With this plethora of specificity, however, comes only one item  
> sourced directly from Ali Musa Daqduq himself—that the Iraqi  
> insurgents responsible for the January attack on American forces in  
> Karbala could not have conducted such a complex operation without  
> the support and direction of the Iranian Quds Force.  Daqduq  
> wasn’t quoted as saying the Iranian Quds Force was in fact  
> involved, but simply that, in his opinion, such an operation could  
> not have been conducted without the knowledge of the Quds Force.   
> This, of course, brings us back full circle to the immediate period  
> after the attack in Karbala, when U.S. military sources speculated  
> that such an attack had to have been planned byIran given its  
> complexity.  Nothing else is directly attributed to Daqduq, leaving  
> open the question of sourcing and authenticity of the information  
> being cited by the U.S. military.
>
> From speculation to speculation, the case against the Quds Force by  
> the Bush administration continues to lack anything in the way of  
> substance.  And yet the mythological Daqduq has become a launching  
> platform for even graver speculation, fed by the media themselves,  
> that the highest levels of leadership in Iran were aware of the  
> activities of Daqduq and the Quds Force, and are thus somehow  
> complicit in the violence.  Not one shred of evidence was produced  
> to sustain such serious accusations, and yet national media outlets  
> such as The New York Times and The Washington Post both ran stories  
> repeating these accusations.  Politicians are formulating policy  
> based upon such baseless accusations, and the American public  
> continues to be manipulated into a predisposition for war with Iran  
> largely because of such speculation.  No one seems to pay attention  
> to the fact that the U.S. military itself has subsequently  
> contradicted its own briefings, noting in July 2007 that no persons  
> had been captured by the United States that can provide a direct  
> link between insurgents in Iraq and Iran.  Again, in August of  
> 2007, the U.S. military stated that it had yet to catch anyone  
> smuggling weapons into Iraq from Iran.
>
> And what of Daqduq himself?  It seems that his Iraqi sponsor, Qais  
> Khazali, had fallen out of favor with Muqtada al-Sadr over the  
> strategic direction being taken, and sometime in 2006 split away  
> from Sadr’s Mehdi Army, taking some 3,000 fighters with him.  In  
> the lawless wild-West environment which dominates Iraq in the post- 
> Saddam era, the formation of splinter militias of this sort is an  
> everyday occurrence.  Radical adventurers have historically been  
> drawn to places of conflict, which would explain the presence of  
> Daqduq.  And it would not surprise me to find that Qais Khazali had  
> secured funding from extremist elements inside Iran which operate  
> outside the mandate of government, including some from within the  
> Iranian Revolutionary Guard itself.  But the notion of Iran and  
> Hizbollah aligning themselves directly with a splinter element like  
> the “Khazali network” is highly unlikely, to say the least.
>
> But fiction often mirrors reality, and in the case of Iran’s Quds  
> Force, the model drawn upon by the U.S. military seems to be none  
> other than America’s own support of anti-Iranian forces, namely  
> the Mujahedin el-Khalk (MEK) operating out of U.S.-controlled bases  
> inside Iraq, and Jundallah, a Baluchi separatist group operating  
> out of Pakistan that the CIA openly acknowledges supporting.   
> Unlike the lack of evidence brought to bear by the U.S. to sustain  
> its claims of Iranian involvement inside Iraq, the Iranian  
> government has captured scores of MEK and Jundallah operatives,  
> along with supporting documents, which substantiate that which the  
> U.S. openly admits: The United States is waging a proxy war against  
> Iran, inside Iran.  This mirror imaging of its own terror campaign  
> against Iran to manufacture the perception of a similar effort  
> being waged by Iran inside Iraq against the U.S. has been very  
> effective at negating any Iranian effort to draw attention to the  
> escalation of war-like activities inside its borders.  After all,  
> who would believe the Iranians?  They are only trying to divert  
> attention away from their own actions inside Iraq, or so the story  
> goes.
>
> The second story line demonstrates, apparently, that Iranian  
> perfidy knows no bounds.  Just this month, the Iranian government  
> tried to organize a visit to Ground Zero in Manhattan by its  
> president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who wanted to present a wreath of  
> condolence over the tragedy that occurred there on Sept. 11, 2001.   
> The Iranian president’s proposed actions were consistent with the  
> overall approach the Islamic Republic of Iran has taken concerning  
> the 9/11 attack on America.  Iran was one of the first Muslim  
> nations to openly condemn the attack, expressing its condolences to  
> those who lost their lives and calling for a worldwide mobilization  
> against terrorism.  But why let facts get in the way of fiction.   
> Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, Dan Gillerman, set the  
> standard for intellectual discourse on the matter when he told the  
> Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organization that a visit  
> by President Ahmadinejad to Ground Zero would be “similar to a  
> visit by a resurrected Hitler to Auschwitz."  Sen. John McCain  
> continued in this vein, stating that allowing Ahmadinejad to visit  
> the site “would be an affront not only to America but to the  
> families of our loved ones who perished there in an unprecedented  
> act of terror.” Both remarks clearly attempted to link the Iranian  
> president, and by extension Iran, to events that they had nothing  
> whatsoever to do with, and which they openly condemned.
>
> 9/11 linkage strategies have worked in the past, regardless of  
> factual merit.  One only need recall Saddam Hussein and Iraq to  
> understand how easily the American public, courtesy of war-minded  
> politicians and their co-conspirators in the mainstream media, can  
> be so easily led down the path of holding one party accountable for  
> the actions of another.  Saddam had nothing to do with the events  
> of 9/11, and we now occupy Iraq.  Similarly, Iran had nothing to do  
> with 9/11, and yet due in part to the distortion of fact taking  
> place concerning allegations of Iranian “terror” activity inside  
> Iraq, the link is clear, at least in the minds of many Americans.   
> President Bush calls Iran a “state sponsor of terror."  The  
> military claims Iran is carrying out terror attacks against U.S.  
> forces in Iraq.  The Iranian president wanted to visit Ground Zero  
> and was widely condemned by those who plot regime change in Iran.   
> The Americans, bombarded with these false connections, then  
> conclude Iran was part of the 9/11 plot.  The logic is so simple,  
> so flawed and yet so dangerously accessible to the minds of an  
> American people fundamentally ignorant of the true situation in  
> Iran and theMiddle East today.
>
> Which leads us to the third, and final, story line of the month:  
> Don’t believe the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran  
> does have a nuclear weapons program!  For weeks now, the  
> cornerstone for the justification of American military intervention  
> in Iran has been crumbling away, the layers and layers of fear- 
> based fiction crafted by the Bush administration meticulously  
> peeled away by Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei and his team of inspectors  
> from the IAEA.  After treading water for years in a sea of  
> political intrigue, ElBaradei and his experts have finally  
> assembled enough data to enable them to close the books on the  
> Iranian nuclear program, noting that all substantive questions have  
> been answered and that contrary to the speculative assessments put  
> forward by the Bush administration it appears that Iran’s nuclear  
> program is, in fact, dedicated to permitted energy-related activities.
>
> Not so fast.  In recent days, Israeli military aircraft, in  
> coordination with special operations forces on the ground, launched  
> a preemptive raid on a suspected “nuclear” target in northeast  
> Syria.  According to Israeli and U.S. intelligence sources, this  
> site was jointly developed by Syria and North Korea for the  
> purposes of transferring North Korea’s proscribed nuclear weapons  
> program to Syrian control.  Worse, we are told by none other than  
> former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton that this  
> Syrian-North Korean project was being done at the behest of none  
> other than Iran.  The Syrian site, an established agriculture  
> research center, was linked to a shipment from North Korea invoiced  
> as cement.  Israel apparently believed different.  Israel has been  
> monitoring any activity taking place inside Syria which could be  
> linked to nuclear activity.  Syria had, in the past, conducted  
> exploratory investigation into whether phosphate deposits in Syria  
> were viable for the manufacture of uranium for use in a nuclear  
> energy program.  Whether this activity, which has been suspended  
> since the 1980s, was being resurrected, and whether the target  
> bombed byIsrael had anything to do with such a resurrection, is  
> unknown at this time.  What is obvious to anyone with any  
> understanding of nuclear activities is that Syria was not pursuing  
> a nuclear weapons program and North Korea was not supplying Syria  
> with the components of such a program, either for Syrian use or as  
> a proxy for Iran.
>
> But this sort of fact-based reasoning is irrelevant, especially in  
> the secretive circles of power that make the life-or-death  
> decisions regarding war.  The Syrian raid by Israel seems to  
> represent a sort of “proof of capability” drill, instilling a  
> sense of confidence in an Israeli military badly shaken from its  
> debacle in Lebanon during the summer of 2006.  The planning for the  
> Syrian raid was a closely held secret, limited to a small cabal of  
> right-leaning politicians in Israel and, surprisingly, the United  
> States.  The American end of the deal centered on the office of the  
> vice president, Dick Cheney, who gave final approval to attack the  
> Syrian target only after being rebuffed in his effort to get the  
> Israelis to bomb the Natanz nuclear facility in Iran.  Cheney, it  
> seems, is desperate for any action that might trigger an expanded  
> conflict with Iran.  Even though the Syrian adventure did not  
> succeed in producing such a trigger, it did wipe off the front  
> pages of American newspapers uncomfortable story lines from the  
> IAEA, contending as they did that Iran had no nuclear weapons  
> program.  Now, thanks to the Israeli action against Syria, which  
> had no nuclear weapons program, the American public is in the  
> process of being fooled into speculating that one does in fact  
> exist not only in Syria but in Iran.
>
> Continued war in Iraq is a tragedy.  Having the conflict spread to  
> Iran would be a disaster.  No one can claim to possess a crystal  
> ball showing the future.  There are many who, when confronted with  
> the potential for conflict with Iran, choose to brush these  
> warnings aside, noting that such a conflict would be madness, and  
> that the United States currently lacks the resources to fight a war  
> with Iran.  Such wishful thinking borders on irresponsible  
> foolishness.  If the headlines from this month tell us anything, it  
> is that war with Iran is very much a possibility.  The Bush  
> administration has been actively planning war with Iran since the  
> fall of 2004.  Since that time, several windows of opportunity have  
> presented themselves (most recently in spring 2007), but the Bush  
> administration found itself unable to pull the trigger for one  
> reason or another (the Navy’s rejection of the presence of a third  
> carrier battle group in the Persian Gulf scuttled the spring 2007  
> plans).
>
> The administration always heeded the justifications for aborting an  
> attack, primarily because there was time still left on the clock,  
> so to speak.  But time is running out.  Israel has drawn a red line  
> across the calendar, indicating that ifIran has not pulled back  
> from its nuclear ambitions by the end of 2007, military action in  
> early spring 2008 will be inevitable.  The attack on Syria by  
> Israel sent a clear message that attacks are feasible.  The  
> continued emphasis by the Bush administration on Iran as a terror  
> state, combined with the fact that the administration seems  
> inclined to blame its continuing problems in Iraq on Iran, and not  
> failed policy, means that there is no shortage of fuel to stoke the  
> fire of public opinion regarding war with Iran.  Add in the  
> “reality” of weapons of mass destruction, and war becomes  
> inevitable, regardless of the veracity of the “reality” being  
> presented.
>
> The antiwar movement in America must make a strategic decision, and  
> soon: Contain the war in Iraq, and stop a war from breaking out in  
> Iran.  The war in Iraq can be contained simply by letting war be  
> war.  There is no genuine good news coming out of Iraq.  There  
> won’t be as long as the United States is there.  As callous as it  
> sounds, let the war establish the news cycle, and let the reality  
> of war serve to contain it.  The surge has failed.  Congress may  
> not act decisively to bring the troops home, but it is highly  
> unlikely that Congress will idly approve any massive expansion of  
> an unpopular war that continues to fail so publicly.
>
> Iran, however, is a different matter.  Congress has already  
> provided legal authority for the president to wage war in Iran  
> through its existing war powers authority (one resolution passed in  
> 2001, the other in 2002).  Likewise, Congress has allowed the Bush  
> administration to forward deploy the infrastructure of war deep  
> into the Middle East and neighboring regions, all in the name of  
> the “global war on terror."  The startup costs for a military  
> strike against Iran would therefore be greatly diminished.   
> Sustaining such a conflict is a different matter, but given current  
> congressional reticence to stand up to a war-time president, it is  
> highly unlikely any meaningful action would be taken to stop an  
> Iranian war once the bombs start falling.  And we should never  
> forget that Iran has a vote in how this would end; once it is  
> attacked, Iran will respond in ways that are unpredictable, and as  
> such set in motion a string of cause-effect military actions with  
> the United States and others that spins any future conflict out of  
> control.
>
> The highest priority for the antiwar movement in America today must  
> be the prevention of a war with Iran.  The strategic objectives  
> should include getting Congress to repeal the war-powers  
> authorities currently on the books, thereby forcing the president  
> to seek new congressional approval for any new war.  Likewise, a  
> concerted effort must be undertaken to counter the disinformation  
> being spread by the Bush administration and others about the nature  
> of the Iranian threat.  Every action undertaken by the antiwar  
> movement must be connected to one or both of these strategic  
> objectives.  This is not the time for one-off sophomoric newspaper  
> advertisements, but rather for sustained action focused on  
> generating congressional hearings and public debate across the  
> entire spectrum of American society.  From the colleges and  
> universities to the churches and on to the public square of small- 
> town America, public information talks, presentations and panels  
> must be held.  Communities should flood local media outlets with  
> requests for coverage and appeal to regional media to run stories.   
> Mainstream media will follow.  Demonstrations, if useful at all,  
> must be focused events linked to an overall campaign designed to  
> facilitate a strategic objective.
>
> We all should remember the fall of 2002.  Many felt that there was  
> no chance for a war with Iraq, especially once U.N. inspectors made  
> their return.  In March 2003, everyone who thought so was proved  
> wrong.  The fall of 2007 is no different.  There is a sense of  
> complacency when one speaks of the potential for a war with Iran.   
> But time is not on the side of those who oppose conflict.  If  
> nothing is done to change the political situation inside America  
> regarding Iran, there is an all too real possibility for a war to  
> break out in the spring of 2008.
>
> Sadly, there really is no alternative for the antiwar movement: Put  
> opposition to the war in Iraq on the back burner and make  
> preventing a war with Iran the No. 1 priority, at least until the  
> national election cycle kicks in during the summer of 2008.  If a  
> war with Iran hasn’t happened by then, it probably won’t.  And  
> the national debate on Iraq won’t be engaged until that time,  
> anyway.  A war with Iran would make the current conflict in Iraq  
> pale by comparison, and would detrimentally impact the whole of  
> America, not just certain demographics.  As such, it is critical  
> that we all put aside our ideological and political differences and  
> focus on the one issue which, if left unheeded, will have  
> devastating consequences for the immediate future of us all:  
> Prevent a future war with Iran.
>
> A former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served under Gen. H.  
> Norman Schwarzkopf during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Scott Ritter  
> worked as a chief inspector for the United Nations Special  
> Commission in Iraq from 1991 until 1998, helping lead the effort to  
> disarm Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.  He is the author of  
> several books, including “Iraq Confidential” (2005, Nation  
> Books), “Target Iran” (2006, Nation Books) and “Waging  
> Peace” (2007, Nation Books).  “Target Iran,” with a new  
> afterword by the author, has just been released in paperback by  
> Nation Books.
>
AP photo / Gerald Herbert
>
> Vice President Dick Cheney struts in front of an F/A-18 fighter jet  
> aboard the USS John C. Stennis aircraft carrier in the Persian  
> Gulf. The Stennis is part of a carrier group sent to the region in  
> order to intimidate, and perhaps bombard, Iran.
>
> A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer.  
> Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
> Copyright © 2007 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.
>
> Web site development by Hop Studios | Hosted by NEXCESS.NET
>
>
>
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://grouptalkweb.org/pipermail/list_grouptalkweb.org/attachments/20071010/f973cb95/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 5364 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://grouptalkweb.org/pipermail/list_grouptalkweb.org/attachments/20071010/f973cb95/attachment-0001.gif 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 19260 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://grouptalkweb.org/pipermail/list_grouptalkweb.org/attachments/20071010/f973cb95/attachment-0001.jpg