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.

 

Iran designates CIA and U.S. Army as terrorist organizations in response.

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 09:35 AM
link   
This form is littered with ridiculous comments.

The CIA may have armed Afghanistan to try and fend of the soviets, but did the CIA actually pull the triggers? If the soviets had not been fended off how do we know if that may have saved lives or not in the long run?

When the US and CIA armed Iraq were they the ones pulling the triggers in the iraq iran war? No. They would have waged war no matter what, and probably would have gotten weapons elsewhere if not from the US. The Arab world just loves to use the US and Israel as a scapegoat to all their own messed up problems between themselves.

Finally: Hiroshima was justified in my opinion because it ended the war, saved lives in the long run causing a long term peaceful partnership between Japan and the US that has benefited the western world greatly through economics technology and human innovation. If it weren’t for the US we wouldn’t even have the means to converse on a board through the internet like this.

What are all the alternative opposite outcomes of events if you nullify all the actions of the US? I think most of you here would find it surprising.




posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 09:46 AM
link   
Hiroshima cannot be justified... It was a nuke for gods sake and thousands and thousands of innocent Japanese people were killed...

In regards to the comment of 'They kill 10, we kill 100'... That's just the most backward comment I've heard for a long time.

Why is it wrong for Iran to relate the US/UK invasion as a terrorist act? After all we have inflicted untold terrors on thousands of innocents... TERROR!

But not in my name...



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chorlton
Well to be honest I would agree with Iran on this one.
The US has in the past and is using at present, terrorist activities.
Surely thats obvious?.


Can you cite some examples where the US(policy, not a case where an individual or small number of individuals acted on their own) deliberately targets civilians/non-combatants, for the purpose of striking terror and intimidation into them? And these need to be verifiable examples, not hearsay/conjecture.



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
Can you cite some examples where the US(policy, not a case where an individual or small number of individuals acted on their own) deliberately targets civilians/non-combatants, for the purpose of striking terror and intimidation into them? And these need to be verifiable examples, not hearsay/conjecture.


Hmm.

Bay of Pigs.
Operation Pheonix in Vietnam.
The Chilean Coup in 1973 that bough Pinochet to power.

Hows about 'dem apples?



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by mr-lizard
 


With regards to Hirsohima/Nagasaki, do you feel that the loss of life that would have resulted from a ground invasion of Japan would've been better? It's estimated that the number of fatalities in that eventuality could've been in the millions, with several hundred thousand being Allied forces. Given that choice, dropping the bomb saved far more lives, and caused far less damage than the alternative. War by its very nature is an ugly business, and unpleasant. Sometime one has to make very tough decisions, and in this case the decision was to not prolong the war and add countless more casualties to the tally.



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by psperos


Changed a few things to give you a different perspective.



Iran may have armed Iraqi insurgents to try and fend of the American Troops, but did Iran actually pull the triggers? If the American Troops had not been fended off how do we know if that may have saved lives or not in the long run?

When the Iran armed Iraq were they the ones pulling the triggers in the US/Iraq war? No. They would have waged war no matter what, and probably would have gotten weapons elsewhere if not from Iran. The Western world just loves to use the Terrorism and Israel as a scapegoat to all their own messed up problems between themselves.



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

Originally posted by BlueRaja
Can you cite some examples where the US(policy, not a case where an individual or small number of individuals acted on their own) deliberately targets civilians/non-combatants, for the purpose of striking terror and intimidation into them? And these need to be verifiable examples, not hearsay/conjecture.


Hmm.

Bay of Pigs.
Operation Pheonix in Vietnam.
The Chilean Coup in 1973 that bough Pinochet to power.

Hows about 'dem apples?


Bay of Pigs-(unsuccessful operation by Cuban exiles to overthrow Fidel Castro's communist regime)

Phoenix Program-(intent to infiltrate, capture, or assassinate Viet Cong leadership/command and control)

Chilean Coup- (another operation to overthrow a communist regime)- I don't really think you can say even in this situation, that the US policy was to deliberately target innocent civilians. If anything, Pinochet was behind whatever went down in Chile, not the US policy.

None of these examples are of the US targeting ordinary civilians, for the purpose of terrorizing/initimidating them.



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by C0le
 


Ah! You beat me to it.

The CIA does exactly what Iran is accused of, yet somehow in the minds of some it is permissible. Double standards abound. Oh, the hypocrisy, it boggles the mind.



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 02:20 PM
link   
I think this move by Iran shows the absurdity of trying to use 'labels' as political capital. The whole 'terrorist' designation is much too vague when applied to a global scale. I know it has been said in the past, but our forefathers, who fought 231 years ago to 'free' America from England, were terrorists to the British Empire, but freedom fighters for the Amercian Revolution.

Instead of ever allowing Iran the freedom to govern themselves as they see fit, America, among other western powers have constantly tried to control the region. We claim that we want the people of the world to live how they please, but realistically, we want the world to live under a capitalist pyramid, with the USA at the top, controlling the markets.

We don't care about democracy, we don't care about the freedom of others, unless it directly effects our profit margin. We have untold numbers of Buddhist Monks being slaughtered, but since Burma has no Oil to steal, who cares. When the Taliban were destroying untold World Heritage religious sites, we didn't care. Not until we had a reason to go and put a oil pipeline, and a 'terrorist ghost' to hunt did we go to Afghanistan. And we are still there, still in Iraq, protecting the Oil, once it finanlly gets flowing.

While I am not "pro" Iran, or pro anything besides the 'truth'... And the truth is, Israel has an illegal Nuclear power and weapon program that they will not allow inspections of. Iran on the other hand, is allowing inspections, and claims that they do not want weapons. Seems to me, America should sanction Israel until they allow inspectors in. That they should be threatening to Attack Isreal for their violations of the the civil rights of Palestinians... That won't happen, but you get the point.

I don't know... Part of my problem is that I feel the Military Industrial Complex is a big waste of resources. I think about how many Billions of Dollars have been spent before they were even borrowed to go and secure Oil Profits instead of to create cleaner power initiatives. I think part of the reason we 'needed' to go to Iraq was so that the Military could destroy their toys and get newer, cooler ones. Imagine if the Govt. had Subsidised the Big Three Automakers to make cleaner more technologically advanced autos. If the Govt. had subsidised the Oil Industry to invent cleaner energy or even new refineries. Instead 'we' subsidise 'big Oil' out of our own pockets because they are making a killing because they haven't built a new oil refinery in decades.

I ask myself daily, who are the real terrorists? And why do they hate us...
Maybe because we marginalize their culture for our progress and profits...

DocMoreau

[edit on 1/10/2007 by DocMoreau]



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 02:25 PM
link   
to me for some reason, all this talk and rumor of war is a disguise to something else that is either happening or going to happen..

what? I dont know, just knowing how devastating it would be if georgie did order and attack is almost too much... so he just keeps everyone dancing on the edge of a blade...

maybe its just me, like I said I dont know its just a feeling



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 02:32 PM
link   
I am guessing that this is just a clumsy way of drawing attention to the 'terrorist / freedom fighter' argument. Big deal, it has no impact on global politics either way (unless they are planning a 'no-rights so put up with this..." suprise to any CIA or US military people they find within their borders).

Let's be honest, by all conventional measures the US are as big a terrorist organisation as anyone (if not bigger - think of South America and the money going through there). The problem is that the world view of terrorists is now dark skinned guys in beards with the Koran. Still, makes a change, it used to be Europeans with funny accents and mirror sunglasses.

Ah bring back Carlos I say.




posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by MurderCityDevil
 

I agree, I have though long and hard about what all the smoke and mirrors could be hiding. I personally think that 911,Afganistan/Iraq, Iran, and the Illegal Imigrant Issues are to Hide something like the formation of the NAU and the dissoulution of our rights. You have most of America afraid, and hypnotized by the Shock and Awe, aand Britney Spears without Pantties and a Bra. Then you keep the Political Pundits Red/Blue in the face because of the Partisnaship regarding the Middle East war moves. Either the Pentagon had no idea what Iraq like, or they knew from the beginning that once we were 'in' we were 'in' forever. Iraq has long been the fulcrum of the tribal areas, with almost more 'outside' influence rgarding Shia/Sunni Issues...

I would think it is funny, that our troops are all over the world 'spreading freedom' when back at home the government is taking freedom away, spying on us, and 'terrorizing' us...

Ever wonder what happened to the Homeland Security Color Threat Warnings? Oh thats right, the propaganda of Orange Levels loses impact after a while without anything really happening....
DocMoreau



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by mr-lizard
 


With regards to Hirsohima/Nagasaki, do you feel that the loss of life that would have resulted from a ground invasion of Japan would've been better? It's estimated that the number of fatalities in that eventuality could've been in the millions, with several hundred thousand being Allied forces. Given that choice, dropping the bomb saved far more lives, and caused far less damage than the alternative. War by its very nature is an ugly business, and unpleasant. Sometime one has to make very tough decisions, and in this case the decision was to not prolong the war and add countless more casualties to the tally.


Your point may have some validity if they did not feel the need to drop the second bomb on Nagasaki. The Japanese were preparing to give up since the naval blockade had brought them to their knees. The arrival of the Russians on the scene to declare war (and take over remaining Japanese conquests in what is now Russia and China) was the real final nail in the coffin. Nagasaki was a means to both test the alternate design of atom bomb using Uranium, unlike the Plutonium bomb dropped at Hiroshima, and show the Russians that the US had the means to do it more than once. Ahh if only the US had taken the threat of Russian expansionism more seriously prior to the end of the war in Europe as they were warned by the British and French, perhaps they wouldn't have needed to destroy a small Japanese town and its occupants to prove a point.



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Karlhungis
 


Well the US is not necessarily top god..oops i mean top dog.
Id say Europe, only becouse the euro is higher than the dollar at the moment.
The US is Trying to become Top..but there is also another saying i heard " Every empire must fall "



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
Bay of Pigs-(unsuccessful operation by Cuban exiles to overthrow Fidel Castro's communist regime)

Phoenix Program-(intent to infiltrate, capture, or assassinate Viet Cong leadership/command and control)

Chilean Coup- (another operation to overthrow a communist regime)- I don't really think you can say even in this situation, that the US policy was to deliberately target innocent civilians. If anything, Pinochet was behind whatever went down in Chile, not the US policy.

None of these examples are of the US targeting ordinary civilians, for the purpose of terrorizing/initimidating them.


ROFLMAO

The Bay of Pigs invasion was organised and funded by the CIA and CIA operatives were actively involved in its operation in the hopes of overthrowing Castro. Look up the names Richard Bissel and Allen Dulles

Operation Pheonix was targetted assasination/execution of anyone in North and South Vietman who opposed the presence of US forces in the country, be they political or civilian.

The CIA effectively organised and funded the removal of a democratically elected (but non US aligned leader) in Chilie in 1973 and instigated Pinochet as his replacement in order to further US "interests" in the region.



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sky watcher
Alright I have had enough of the rude comments on here about the U.S.


Ahhhh...... baby want some milk?


Originally posted by Sky watcher
You need to study some more. Who else tends to enemy wounded?


Me thinks you need to study, friend. Any nation that trains it's men and women to adhere to the Geneva conventions treat enemy wounded. There are in fact several examples from both World Wars of British personnel being given awards or cited by the Germans for the gallantry shown in battle and the way their men were treated afterwards.

Standard basic training in the UK also extensively covers the treatment of prisoners and wounded. Does the USMC do that?


Originally posted by Sky watcher
The C.I.A don't go around blowing up innocent woman and children, Not on purpose anyway though accidents happen.


My learned colleagues here have given you a few examples of the CIA not being full of Happy chappies and I'm sure we can dig you up plenty more.


Originally posted by Sky watcher
Most American service men a women are just doing their job and trying to keep their butts alive.


Thats nice. It's not as if they were forced to do it though. After all, it's a Volunteer army, isn't it? You can only go so far with the "following orders" train of thought.


Originally posted by Sky watcher
You Brits annoy the hell out of me sometimes.


Good! Hope it continues



Originally posted by Sky watcher
The British ran the Muslim brotherhood for quite some time


Yeah, a hundred years ago..... Didn't someone say in this thread that the Americans today couldn't be held liable for things that happened 60 years ago....


Originally posted by Sky watcher
and now are getting more attacks than the U.S.


Are we? The only attacks we have suffered are due to our involvement in Iraq. This was made clear by the guys who did it. Had we not gone into Iraq, we would not have had the 7th July bombings or the subsequent failed attacks.


Originally posted by Sky watcher
I guess when the real Terrorist hit you over there real hard you will blame it on us too not because you are at war with Islamic terrorist or anything or anything.


Your mastery of the English language leaves me aghast. However, I will attempt to decrypt your post...

Firstly, we know all about living under the treat of terrorism and this latest bout of incompetent and useless Islamic "terrorists" are nothing compared to the efficient and brutal IRA.

Don't DARE to lecture us on terrorism. You don't even have the first clue.


Originally posted by Sky watcher
If you want to down the U.S. and say we are the terrorist, Go to Afghanistan or Iraq for a few months and live what you feel.


Not really much of a water tight argument there dude. regardless what is going on elsewhere, the actions of the USA, historically, can be called terrorist. The word "terrorist" is entirely open to interpretation. As they say, one's mans terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Although, it has to be said, the US has overthrown more DEMOCRATICALLY elected Governments than any other country, only to be replaced by brutal dictatorships which are in line with what the USA wants.


Originally posted by Sky watcher
The only way to fight terrorist is to beat them at their own game. They kill 10 we kill 100.


No, thats so wrong it's utter bollocks. Again, don't preach to us about terrorism, you don't have a bloody clue. You think we gained peace in NI because we bombed the crap out of Eire and slaughtered civilians until they gave up? No, we just dealt with it as a police/internal security matter and tried to curtail their efforts by winning the people over.

"The Troubles" are over, NI remains part of the UK and the IRA is a dead duck. No invasions, no "shock and awe", no "regime changes".

This war isn't about terrorism and never was. It's geo-politics fighting over resources.



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 08:46 AM
link   
Also the CIA were involved with the failed Coup d'Etat of Hugo Chavez. There is clear evidence in a documentary which was caught on film by movie makers who at the time were filming a documentary inside the Government building. It's a powerful watch and there are times in the movie when you see horrendous behavior by the media. You also see snipers shooting protesters in the head then the media making it out it's Chavez supporters shooting the Pro American supporters, just pure propaganda at it's worst and you also see the ministers saying in the film they have clear evidence of knowledge that the CIA are involved. This documentary made my mind up about the USA administration. Rotten to the core.

The Revolution will be not televised - Coup d'Etat contre Hugo Chavez

video.google.co.uk...

[edit on 2uTuesday07/27/20 by paul76]



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dallas
Iran must know any direct attempt to make war with the USA would be stupid at best. The power difference is too great I would think.


Which is why they wont and why those who pretend that they could or would should be laughed out of the room.


If Iran were allowed to develop nuclear weapons under the guise of domestic energy needs, well then I think that would change everything in that would open the door to under the table delivery -- terrorist stuff.


And i just do not understand the twisted logic that can lead anyone to believe that the Iranian regime will use 'just cause' they have it. Who are they going to use it on given the well armed nature of Israel? How are they going to deliver it?


Proof of the weapons origin may not be available. If that was the case there are many countries at risk of retaliatory measures.


So we must presume that the Iranians will be sure it can't be traced just to make it possible for us to believe that they could use it? Why should we believe the Iranian regime will ever be sure enough to risk such a thing?


Iran's internal effort to label the US -- CIA and Army as terrorist organizations


They are...


must have some other consequence -- internationally, than the Internal label alone. It almost seems silly on the surface.

Dallas


It's just the sad reality that people of the third world are desperately familiar with.

Stellar



posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by psperos
This form is littered with ridiculous comments.


Clearly...


The CIA may have armed Afghanistan to try and fend of the soviets, but did the CIA actually pull the triggers?


They did by providing the wrong side with guns! The 'elected' ( well not entirely so go read to discover the circumstances) leader of Afghanistan ASKED for the Russians to send in forces to help him defend against forces trying to unseat him so there was in fact nothing illegal about the Russian intervention there. Compared to what happened in South Vietnam it's not hard to call the USSR a force for 'good' in Afghanistan and without CIA support we might have seen democracy prevail.


If the soviets had not been fended off how do we know if that may have saved lives or not in the long run?


Fact is the USSR backed the type of people who wanted to make Afghanistan a better place for the vast majority of it's citizens while the CIA sponsored the rich, and sometimes fanatical, landlords who wanted to retain control and continue to oppress their countrymen. It's not hard to pick which would have made that country a better place for everyone and it does not involve the CIA or the United states.


When the US and CIA armed Iraq were they the ones pulling the triggers in the iraq iran war?


They provided satellite intelligence to the Iraqi's thus ensuring that they would have their triggers where it mattered most and ensured that if the triggers were not enough the Iraqi's had plenty of poison gas to keep their defense intact.


No. They would have waged war no matter what, and probably would have gotten weapons elsewhere if not from the US.


Where would they have gotten that much funds so quickly? Would Iraq really have invaded Iran ( a much larger country with nearly four times as many people) without express knowledge that they would be aided by the US? SH is not a nice guy but he is not stupid and that would have been VERY stupid.


The Arab world just loves to use the US and Israel as a scapegoat to all their own messed up problems between themselves.


But since the US and Israel are mostly responsible for their problems they happen to have accurate picture of the world.


Finally: Hiroshima was justified in my opinion because it ended the war, saved lives in the long run


The Japanese would have surrendered on the same terms that the US offered after the nuclear weapons four months before but at that time the US refused to consider such terms! The war could have been ended long before had the US government really been interested in saving lives.


causing a long term peaceful partnership between Japan and the US that has benefited the western world greatly through economics technology and human innovation.


No other country did as much to undermine the American worker as the Japanese did and that was ALWAYS the express aim of rebuilding that society after the war. They are simply a far more docile people and can do the same job , and for less, than American workers could or would want to.


If it weren’t for the US we wouldn’t even have the means to converse on a board through the internet like this.


If it were not for the US taxpayers who once again funded a military program that were later privatized for corporate profit...


What are all the alternative opposite outcomes of events if you nullify all the actions of the US? I think most of you here would find it surprising.


The world would have been a far better place as far as i can surmise/estimate/guesstimate. )

Stellar



posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 05:59 AM
link   
Interesting debate....

The best description I have seen for a terrorist act thus far is that given by Professor Alex Schmidt, who propsed the definition as being "a war crime committed by a non-state entity". This is quite useful, not only because it focuses on the action rather than the agent ("so and so IS something" can be very misleading), it also accounts for the problems of state terrorism, something which has troubled lots of theories of terrorism.

Given that both the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and the CIA/US military are arms of their respective governments, it would likely be better to describe their actions as war crimes, if talking about specific incidents where such acts were committed.

But, unfortunately, "terrorism" has become the 21st century legitimatization of state violence, a buzzword meant to stop questioning and demonize the other side, regardless of facts, so I doubt this description, as workable as it, will catch on.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join