Iran Busts CIA-Backed Terror Group

reply to post by wutone


Well your sure as hell didn't make it evident you ever agreed with me:

You would have a good point but too bad those militias are attacking Iraqis as well.

I know that is is hard to accept that the USA is not the only one in the world that uses proxies and interferes with other countries.

I don't know what the deal is with blaming just one country when countless other countries (especially Iran) pulls off the same thing.

I'm just reaffirming the point that your missing the gross double standards existing in US Foreign Policy.

Yes I understand other nations also sponsor terrorism, I never denied that.
I understand they engage in covert espionage and sabotage, just like the CIA does.

But to compare the trivial actions of Iran, and to turn them into a case for war is truly hypocritical, especially when it is being done so by the United States, who has done this kind of thing for 70 years, and on a larger scale than Iran, Osama or Hamas could ever hope to do.

A few hundred dead US soldiers due to Iranian IED's may seem quite a bit, but compare that to ten's of thousands of civilians brutally executed, tortured or imprisoned by all the whackjobs America sponsored over the years.
You see what I'm driving at?

Your missing the point. America DOES deserve the focus and negative publicity in this case just like it does when considering Global Warming.
The US being the largest contributer to green house gas emissions and International terrorism, needs to put it's foot through the door first.

Instead of focusing on the errors of it's way, it's trying to make them seem minimal or gloss over them entirely as if they were nothing and instead focusing on other nations and pawning the blame off onto them.

Well when Iran kills upwards of a million civilians and starts overthrowing governments all around the world, I'll take serious notice of their actions, until then you cannot compare David and Goliath.

If Iran deserves to be attacked for sponsoring the terrorists it does, then America deserves nothing short of utter annihilation for it's reprehensible actions in the past.
Again, don't equate apples with watermelons.

[edit on 20/5/08 by The Godfather of Conspira]

Iran's actions aren't trivial, nor is their threat to the region or America. You've been listening to too much of Obama's ignorant BS.

Iran has ICBMs that can reach the mainland US. They can be armed with Nuclear warheads (they are Nuclear ready).

They are trying to do to the US what the US did to Russia in Afghanistan. Fighting the war by proxy by supplying weapons, money and know-how to Iraqi insurgent militias.

It isn't just Israel putting pressure on the US to do something about Iran, but several other countries have joined the sanctioning party to isolate Iran. It won't work though, Iran is making too much money and continues with their Nuclear aspirations.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira

Your missing the point. America DOES deserve the focus and negative publicity in this case just like it does when considering Global Warming.
The US being the largest contributer to green house gas emissions and International terrorism, needs to put it's foot through the door first.

Minimizing one side and totally blaming another side is hardly a way to come to a mutual respect.

There is plenty that both the U.S. and Iran can discuss about and Iran can easily make some valid points about U.S./Israeli double standards.

The problem is that Iran has no qualms about using Hezbollah and other terrorist proxies that seem to target civilians in its conflicts.

And if you want me to totally disagree with you, we can talk about how global warming hype is putting millions of people in the third world at risk but that would be off-topic.

reply to post by jetxnet

Iran has ICBMs that can reach the mainland US. They can be armed with Nuclear warheads (they are Nuclear ready).

There longest range weapon is an MRBM with a range of 2,100KM and is called the Shahab-3. it is not nuclear capable but has 5 conventional `mirv` type weapons each being around 600 lb`s of explosive and are independantly targetable.

They are trying to do to the US what the US did to Russia in Afghanistan. Fighting the war by proxy by supplying weapons, money and know-how to Iraqi insurgent militias.

thats the word of the US state department - The iraq government have said themselves they have no proof and no one has ever seen any.All the `proof` is is the word of the same people who stated they went into iraq to get the WMD`s - which didn`t exist.

It isn't just Israel putting pressure on the US to do something about Iran, but several other countries have joined the sanctioning party to isolate Iran. It won't work though, Iran is making too much money and continues with their Nuclear aspirations.

totally true - its the west that doesn`t want iran to start there reactor - which btw is n LPW type an incapable of being used for a nuclear programme ; you do know the USA gave iran a nuclear reactor allready in teh 1960`s and of a similar type to the Israel reactor at dimona?

reply to post by jetxnet


Sigh, why did I have a feeling you'd show up?
Anytime America is being criticized in the least you slide down the fire pole and let loose with some more tried and true Republican propaganda.

Your arguement has more holes than Swiss Cheese.

Iran has ICBMs that can reach the mainland US. They can be armed with Nuclear warheads (they are Nuclear ready).

I've been listening to BS? Well then what on Earth are you smoking!??!?

Iran's longest range ICBM currently in production is the Shahab-3, with a Maximum Range of 2100km. It's little more than an Iraqi SCUD missile (which btw are based on the German V-2 rockets circa 1945) with a primitive guidance chip in it, and at 2,100km it could probably only have a chance of hitting city sized targets.



I'm afraid that's about 4,000km short of the US, so whatever sources you got this from, I think it's seriously time to be a little more discerning about what kind of crap you take in everday.. don't you?

They are trying to do to the US what the US did to Russia in Afghanistan. Fighting the war by proxy by supplying weapons, money and know-how to Iraqi insurgent militias.

And your point is?
America is the only nation allowed to sponsor terrorists under the guise of "Freedom Fighters"?

So when the US backs & funds a Right-wing dictator who slaughters thousands of civilians, that's an acceptable way to deter enemy aggression.

But when in Iran supplies weapons to Shiite Sectarians, no, that's just pure terrorism and evil. There's no defensive reasoning in that.
Those Iranian nutjobs!

...*Puts fist through monitor*.

It isn't just Israel putting pressure on the US to do something about Iran, but several other countries have joined the sanctioning party to isolate Iran.

Yeah you mean the other Western lapdogs of the US, such as Great Britain who have obediently carried out their master's bidding for over 40 years?

That's hardly a popular sentiment to "put pressure" on Iran.

China, Russia, India, Pakistan and Iraq all support diplomatic resolutions to Iran's Nuclear ambitions and do not condone sanctions or military action. Two of those countries are major American trading partners and strategic non-NATO allies, so there's a major opposition to America's Foreign Policy regarding Iran currently.

Sigh, I don't know where you get your info from but stop acquiring it from there; do YOURSELF a favor and help improve your credibility somewhat...


[edit on 20/5/08 by The Godfather of Conspira]

reply to post by xxpigxx


So you're in favour of 9/11 happening, then? You support the terrorists?

Or you're in favour of the holocaust, as the Jews were getting in the way of Hitler's plans?

You have to qualify any use of violence. Saying "anything goes" throws out the geneva convention, and your moral standpoint. At that point we become fighting monkeys, and nothing more.

reply to post by The Godfather of Conspira


Beautifully stated. However, I have questions about one thing.. The timeline. I really don't think that the US is looking for an all-out brawl with the Iranians any time soon. There's more to this.
Take this as you will, but a big issue here is that the Iranians are not Arabs. That has a number of meanings. History speaks for itself. It is a shame, though, that they can be almost as reactionary as we can.

reply to post by JAK


Yes, JAK, glad you pointed that out.

McInerney earned the coveted Olbermann 'Worst Person" award for that...

Paid, dishonest double-dipping mouthpiece!!!

reply to post by dave420


What good is the Geneva convention if only one side is following it?

If they can run planes into our skyscrapers, we can do the same.

If they like playing with IED's, we should do the same. Fire with fire.

If they want to throw down the gloves, so be it.

And vise versa.

Originally posted by xxpigxx What good is the Geneva convention if only one side is following it?

So you're quite content to leave behind whatever moral high ground the U.S. has left, and get down in the mud with those you say you're so much better than.

No wonder I have the signature note that I do. I don't think I'll continue this debate.

What good is the Geneva convention if only one side is following it?

fullajah

the widespread and indesriminate use of WP is a breach of the CCWC when used in` shake and bake` missions

If they can run planes into our skyscrapers, we can do the same.

1000lb bombs hitting scools and churches - same thhing really.

remember terrorism didn`t start on 9/11 - i would suggest you read about the king david hotel and the terrorism by the irgun , whose leaders then became the leaders of israel.

If they like playing with IED's, we should do the same. Fire with fire.

120mm shells , .50cal bullets into children behind walls on automatic fire - allready happening

If they want to throw down the gloves, so be it.

And vise versa.

the gloves are allready `off` - pandora`s box is well and truely open.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by xxpigxx What good is the Geneva convention if only one side is following it?

So you're quite content to leave behind whatever moral high ground the U.S. has left, and get down in the mud with those you say you're so much better than.

No wonder I have the signature note that I do. I don't think I'll continue this debate.

I never said I was better than anyone. Thaks for putting words in my mouth. Now that that is out of the way . . .

In WW2 did we play footsies with the Nazis or did we bomb the bejeezus out of Berlin?

Japan decided to destroy out Pacific fleet . . . we destroyed two of their cities.

There is no moral high ground in war. It is kill or be killed. All is fair in love an war, remember?

Do what needs to be done. This is war. You are either all in, or you will lose.

So do you want America to win or lose?

reply to post by xxpigxx

What good is the Geneva convention if only one side is following it?

If they can run planes into our skyscrapers, we can do the same.

Sigh...

"When fighting a monster you must be careful you do not become that monster you seek to vanquish."

By holding no punches and allowing the US to engage in a "tit-for-tat" Foreign Policy makes it no different from these "less civilized" extremists America is seeking to destroy.

An eye for an eye leaves the world blind as they say. If we start repaying terrorism with terrorism where does it end?
Do we also start living under repressive, totalitarian regimes?
Do we also execute dissidents and religious groups we don't like?
Do we censor information and degrade women?
Do we chuck liberty, freedom and justice right out the window just in the name of security?

That's a pretty bad deal to me.

Don't seriously advocate this stuff until you understand the implications of what your saying.

To say America should disregard or rearrange it's principles, values and lifestyles to combat a threat (which btw is non-existant); is to say your forefathers were fundamentally wrong when they sacrificed their lives to create this free state in which you reside now. You fight not only to protect your life, to fight to protect your principles.

Otherwise what is left? We revert back to Jungle Law and turn into essentially huge mobs having at each other. Where is the point in striving to achieve that kind of chaos and break down of order?

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
reply to post by xxpigxx

 

What good is the Geneva convention if only one side is following it?

If they can run planes into our skyscrapers, we can do the same.

Sigh...

"When fighting a monster you must be careful you do not become that monster you seek to vanquish."

By holding no punches and allowing the US to engage in a "tit-for-tat" Foreign Policy makes it no different from these "less civilized" extremists America is seeking to destroy.

An eye for an eye leaves the world blind as they say. If we start repaying terrorism with terrorism where does it end?
Do we also start living under repressive, totalitarian regimes?
Do we also execute dissidents and religious groups we don't like?
Do we censor information and degrade women?
Do we chuck liberty, freedom and justice right out the window just in the name of security?

That's a pretty bad deal to me.

Don't seriously advocate this stuff until you understand the implications of what your saying.

To say America should disregard or rearrange it's principles, values and lifestyles to combat a threat (which btw is non-existant); is to say your forefathers were fundamentally wrong when they sacrificed their lives to create this free state in which you reside now. You fight not only to protect your life, to fight to protect your principles.

Otherwise what is left? We revert back to Jungle Law and turn into essentially huge mobs having at each other. Where is the point in striving to achieve that kind of chaos and break down of order?

*Since when does fighting tit for tat equate to a total societal overhaul? You are grasping there. If you really think that any country in the world does not use terrorists and such, you are naive. Any kind of spying or sabotage is terrorism. The US has that!

Land mines were the first IED's. The US, UK, and France used them in WW2. You don't see these countries acting like the ME countries, do you?

Like I said . . . methods of war do not equate to societal overhaul.

*As for our forefathers . . . I seem to remember something about a tea party Boston. That would be terrorism. Do you think our forefathers would have stood by while our own country men were attacked? Perhaps they asked the rest of the world's permission to wage war? Or maybe they turned the other cheek when Britain came down on the US . . . rolled over because war is ugly and people will die. I think not. They went after Britain with everything they had. That is war.

You protect your own with everything you have. That equates fighting with everything you have. Use everything to your advantage.

In a fight, you do what you can and have to do to win.

reply to post by xxpigxx

If you really think that any country in the world does not use terrorists and such, you are naive. Any kind of spying or sabotage is terrorism. The US has that!

Christ's sake do you take the time to read any well-conceived replies to your post or do you just prefer to dodge bullets and cherry pick the easiest points to refute?

What do you think I've been driving at in this thread?
READ MY POSTS...

Did I never deny the US or Iran both sponsor terrorists?

Sheesh.. my point flew over your head like a NASA Reentry Vehicle.
Get some rest perhaps.

Perhaps your math was off on the reentry trajectory? Because if the US is already sponsoring terrorism, then why haven't the examples you have shown come to fruition . . . you know the part about us becoming more like them?

My point still stands. If we are going to do this, we should go balls to the wall eye for an eye, and come what may be.

reply to post by xxpigxx


so when you say "balls to the wall" what exactly do you mean. If your idea of war is to win with the least amount of US casualties i'm sure you support nuking the country right now, turning it into a "parking lot," with no concern for environmental hazards.

Originally posted by xxpigxx

My point still stands. If we are going to do this, we should go balls to the wall eye for an eye, and come what may be.

why are you guys even disputing this? Iran has yet to attack us so this whole conversation seems arbitrary, am i wrong?

reply to post by xxpigxx


pig, what the 'godfather' is trying to explain is....you seem to advocate the 'Lord of the Flies' scenario.

There is a stronger, more intelligent strategy than simply 'tit-for-tat'....

An emotional, angry response....without a well-thought-out strategy, is usually doomed to fail....

Yep, Iran has yet to attack anyone.

Plain and simple, end of argument really.



As for "lets kill civilians", all thats going to do is create terrorists... great planning there.


Free nations hold themselves on a moral high ground. The reason why we are considered civilized is because we follow rules that are civilized. The Geneva convention, International laws, etc are these rules.

If you violate these rules, you are no better than Saddam Hussein.


... but hey, if you want to live in a country that openly kills civilians, feel free to get out of the free world. We don't want your type here anyways.


... and they wonder how people ever supported the gassing and burning of Jews. It's this ignorant view of how to deal with the world that caused it.



Fine. You want to go around killing civilians, go ahead. But when the remaining civilians come to YOUR country for a little payback, the world won't be weeping over your death this time, they'll be laughing.

You people really need to learn why foreign relations are necessary... before your country gets torn apart.