It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iranian Unit to Be Labeled 'Terrorist'

page: 8
16
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigJoeNYC
Aside from killing Innocent people, starting a new war so they can further there cause too destroy Israel and the west?


I'm calling shinanigans on you, and I haven't even read the whole thread.
You've taken a very polar stance on the issue. In fact, you've even called the situation "black and white," and let's be serious, global politics is NEVER black and white.

You also have a very Colbertesque delivery in that the USA is always right, and terrorists are always wrong. And by terrorist you mean anyone we so designate a terrorist.

You go out of your way to simplify your grammer, and you use the wrong homonym at EVERY opportunity (to, too, two, there, their, they're, your, you're).

And with your relatively new status combined with a trend at ATS for people to create alias's to argue different points of view, I'm calling shinanigans.




posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xfile
79The point i was trying to make in the afgan.model was that at THAT point bin laden etal.were functioning as freedom fighters NOT terrorists in opposing the russian invasion.As i recall a government was voted in that was not approved by the kremlin(79?)and in went the tanks.As for trying to subvert countries that had fallen under communist influence in this hemisphere during the dangerous cold war again...freedom fighter or terrorist?If the US revolution had failed washinton,franklin and all would have been called terrorists today,no?


If I recall, the Soviets went in because of an impending Islamic Revolution (the Taliban).

Afghanistan was never part of the Soviet Union, so why would they care if a certain government was "voted in", not that it was that way anyway. The Soviet invasion was about preventing a cascading Islamic Revolution throughout the Soviet empire.

The US at the time was falling over itself to supply arms to Islamic extremists, because they where fighting Russia. Those same extremists are the one's that form Bin Laden and Co today.

Also, even if your analysis above was correct, ie: " a government was voted in that was not approved by the kremlin(79?)and in went the tanks", how is that different to the US doctrine of "Regime Change"?

The US doesn't like certain Governments, so it seeks to change them.

I suppose, according to your beliefs outlined above, that you see those fighting against US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan as freedom fighters then?

If you don't and you truly see them as terrorists, then your a hypocrite. Because you clearly said that you don't see anything wrong with the US doing exactly what other countries are being scolded for.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigJoeNYC
What interest does Iran have in Iraq???? Aside from killing Innocent people, starting a new war so they can further there cause too destroy Israel and the west? They are terrorists. We are not.


Considerable interests and to pretend otherwise is to be crassly ignorant. It is akin to Mexico or Canada being invaded by an unfriendly power and the US doing something about it, either covertly or overtly.

Firstly, it doesn't serve them to have an unstable country next door that is the DIRECT result of US intervention. They will also be keen to limit any US influence, for "self defence purposes" (the very same argument you use to "defend the homeland")

Secondly, a large part of the Iraqi population is Shia and is closely tied to Iran. Iran wasn't linked into Iraq until the Sunni extremists began targetting Shia militias and population centres. Iran got dragged in at the request of Iraqi Shia groups looking for support.

It serves them well to look after their own and make sure they don't have another failed state next door. They already had Afghanistan, Pakistan is looking wobbly and Iraq is up the creek without a boat, let alone a paddle.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigJoeNYC
For the record when Sadam took power the standard of living in that country went down not when that US went in.



For the record, your wrong.

Prior to the 1st Gulf War, Iraq was a shining example of a secular Government (albeit, an oppressive one) could exist in the ME. It's Health Service was highly rated and free to the people. University places were cheap and widely available.

Then the 1st GW happened. Also, on the tacit approval of the US based on valid claims made by Iraq that the UN failed to resolve. Then the US turned it's back and used it as an excuse to attack.

The sanctions bit and the country fell apart. If you actually believe that they moved their WMD to Syria, then you have been fooled. Seeing as they didn't have a functioning programme for years prior to 2003, I fail to see how they could maintain a stockpile, least of all be developing WMD.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
Well, the guards were established to protect the Islamic Republic of Iran and the values of their country.

Just like the Royal Guards who protect the British Monarch.

If we follow the logic here then all military units in every sovereign nation should be declared a terrorist organisation.


What Royal Guards are they, infi?



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
What Royal Guards are they, infi?


Well...

I don't know the official name, but I call them the "Royal Guard"



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
Well...

I don't know the official name, but I call them the "Royal Guard"


The ones around Buck palace and such like are troops from the Household Division, which includes the Household Cavalry Regiment and 5 Infantry Guard regiments.

Unless you mean the Royal Protection Officers supplied by the Police?

But anyhoo, digressing somewhat here



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jasestrong2

Originally posted by ChrisF231

Originally posted by discomfit
Part of this comes as no surprise. I can agree with the line of thinking even though it seems a bit odd. I wouldn't doubt if some "super elite" branch of Iran's army was operating in Iraq.

Exactly. Who is training the Hizbollah? The Revolutionary Guard.

So therefore they are indeed a terrorist group.


The United States has supported and trained many governments and groups that have just as much blood on their hands as the Revolutionary Guard does.

Look at Central America. Guatemala, Nicaragua, And El Salvador are shinning examples of America’s Support, Training, and Tactics. Guatemala was one of the first Coups the CIA supported and executed. We train the soldiers from these countries who run the Death Squads at the “School of the America’s” at Ft. Benning, GA. In these area’s alone hundreds of thousands have been killed. And there are many other examples that can be noted

I am sure there are millions of people who hold the US accountable for these actions. I am sure these people feel we have supported these Terrorists. So what makes the US any better than Iran.

I don’t agree with Iran or its policies and I don’t agree with US government and its policies. But if Canada was occupied by China or Russia, I bet the US would conduct large scale clandestine operations to hinder China or Russia’s occupation so what makes Iran and Iraq any different.

If we say it is a just effort it makes it ok because we are spreading Democracy and fighting the Perpetual War on Terror. So if we apply this to Iran they are doing the same thing but in a different light so then it should be acceptable. They are fighting to spread Islam and keep the Infidels from their countries. Who are we to become the Police of the world?

Maybe if we focused on our own internal issues and worried less about the world we would not have as many issues as we have now with the world.

Millions and Millions have died in Africa alone in the past 40 years and we stood by and didn’t raise a finger, why because it was Africa and we didn’t stand to gain anything. It would be easier to stand by and let the killing take place and the pay off the new ruling party, why get involved.

But with Iran and Iraq we stand to gain billions and billions if not more.

Is this a War on Terror and a fight to spread democracy or a war to gain wealth.

I watch the news daily and I don’t see any Iraqi’s thanking us for the support, all I see is death and destruction and we wonder why they want to fight us.





Glad you mentioned this because I was going to say the same thing.. but it's been a lot more Latin American countries that the CIA has either been involved in a coup or an assassination.

Ironically, if one of these same countries tried to fund people to over throw Bush they'd be labeled as a terrorist funding country. It baffles me that the average American fails to realize this too.



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 08:19 AM
link   
And who or what were the contras but reminants of the old establishment that was so hated that they were overthrown, and what were they in practice? Terrorists. AND the White House backed them fully regardless, to the point of breaking the law to arm them.



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by BigJoeNYC
For the record when Sadam took power the standard of living in that country went down not when that US went in.



For the record, your wrong.

Prior to the 1st Gulf War, Iraq was a shining example of a secular Government (albeit, an oppressive one) could exist in the ME. It's Health Service was highly rated and free to the people. University places were cheap and widely available.

Then the 1st GW happened. Also, on the tacit approval of the US based on valid claims made by Iraq that the UN failed to resolve. Then the US turned it's back and used it as an excuse to attack.

The sanctions bit and the country fell apart. If you actually believe that they moved their WMD to Syria, then you have been fooled. Seeing as they didn't have a functioning programme for years prior to 2003, I fail to see how they could maintain a stockpile, least of all be developing WMD.



Quess what
www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2004/01/25/wirq25.xml

Lets not forget organisations as Hezbollah can shoot so much long range missiles and Hamas is so organised because of millitary aid and funds coming from Iran and Syria..
Yes the US was naive helping Taliban in the 80's, but communism was still the greatest threat and anybody fighting them were usefull..
Still though they could have seen that groups as Taliban could be a future threat as muslim extremism steadily grew in the ME..
BTW in potential the Guard or Pasdaran has about 11 million [militia ]volunteers.
Apart from helping Hamas and Hezbollah they do supply insurgent in Iraq with more and more sophisticated weapons, of all terrorist groups, this is the one that "breeds" them..



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join