http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051026/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_israel;_ylt=AhZkTBOkI4RcubGR0nBieo8DW7oF;_ylu =X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

also a link on Foxnews to same story if anyone wants backup.

I'm weary of Iran's allowed stance to hatred in the region. Iran thumbs it's nose at the EU's efforts to mainstream them as well as this crap?

Top that off with Syria's outright bullshit lately and the cesspool that has always been in the region continues on.

Fandros

Iran needs, at least, to be isolated, and any discourse by the EU put to an end. With Arafat dead and progress finally being made over there, I hope that at least a few leaders in the Islamic world will repudiate this diatribe.

As for Syria, sounds like it's become the modern Cambodia. Word is we're already striking within its borders.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/27/ahmadinejad.reaction/index.html

Update:

It would appear the world enmasse' is going to take a diplomatic stand ( if nothing else).

Wall'em off and give all aid to the upcoming youth I say. Be very upfront about our desire to do so.

This country is pursuing nuclear power and perhaps nukes.

Fandros

Quote : "When someone says they want to kill you, believe them."

The world never learns from history.

This bragging sounds like someone thinks they are close to a nuclear bomb.

This bragging sounds like someone thinks they are close to a nuclear bomb.

With the Pakistani NuclearSecrets-R-Us market, it would not surprise me if there were nuclear weapons already assembled in Iran; add the Russian and Chinese trade, and it seems quite likely that most every country in that region is going to have their own nuclear arsenal before long.

I suggest, no demand a preemptive strike NOW...

http://regimechangeiran.blogspot.com/2005/10/why-havent-we-seen-this.html

Things are getting ugly. Who knows possibly even with in 10 years all of us will have to go to war.

With the beheadings of three young girls who were attacked while on their way to the private Christian school they attended in Indonesia, it appears the radical elements of the Islamic world are going to keep pushing us toward that war, and the global devastation that is sure to result.:(

Iraq is as small as Texas, I'm up for taking a trip to Iran, Indonesia or anywhere else. Hell I'm here already. Don't think this war should end until all these hardline terrorists are out of business. But, when we get a new president...maybe he won't want to finish what we started.

:devil

Dead terrorists cant make bombs.....

I wonder if we have contact points with the folks wishing to overthrow the acidic government. And I wonder how many of our own would dissent now and then bitch later.

Fandros

Doubt we'll do much with all the anti-war sentiment nowadays going on. Of course if one or two cities go up in a nuclear blast from terrorists, i guess we'll decide to do something then...

Yeah I think anti-war sentiment weighs a great deal on the President's mind. Really. We are at war with terrorists, wherever they are. If the threat becomes real then I can guarantee the US under this administration will clean up over their. Anti-war sentiment comes mostly from Hollywood and all the negative articles published by the newspapers. It's more exciting to read about people dying then it is to read about School's being built for Iraq children.

Nuclear blasts taking out major US cities, basically what this translates to is, that the last two years all the terrorists caught and captured have been for nothing. Over 2,000 troops dying in Iraq have been for nothing, the hundreds that died in Afghanistan have been for naught? Not to mention the thousands that have lost limbs or have been burnt to 70% of their bodies. We have made a huge impact on terrorism since this campaign has started.

Raids conducted by US and other coalition and Iraq forces in and around the Iraq capital before Oct. 15 referendum helped limit insurgent attacks on voting day. Terrorists step up violence to attempt to discourage people from participating in the referendum. The insurgents failed to disrupt Baghdad polling places due to the high level of operations over the past several months over here. 12 enemy attacks in Baghdad on referendum day, there were 103 enemy attacks in baghdad during the January 30 election. So yes, we are making a huge impact. We will produce a change over here, and hopefully people here and around this area will see how terrorism will fail.

"Because free people believe in the future, free people will own the future."

:devil

Btw Trikks...did I tell you lately.../salute!!!


Fandros

Anti-war sentiment comes mostly from Hollywood and all the negative articles published by the newspapers.

Well, this has really been nitpicked to death ... but the negative sentiment was there *anyway* because anyone with critical thinking skills has had the sneaking suspicion the entire Iraq liberation has been a bizarre political farce since the word go. The newspaper articles reinforcing that with those little "fact" things isn't helping, but it's not like some guy on Newsweek spontaneously decided to start lying to everyone about the actual reasons and plans for invading a soveriegn country -- and that's totally independent of whether or not it was a morally right thing to do. [1]

I've had family and friends in Iraq, there is no question that the coalition there are a net benefit for the Shiites and Kurds at least, and probably the Sunni in the long run, but to construe "fighting terrorism" as "tricking looney towel heads into killing brown people instead of white people" is a little disingenuous. There are more weekly terror attacks in Iraq than there were in previous *years*, *worldwide*. It's really difficult to get native casualty reports out of the area, but the numbers I've heard bandied on reputable media range from a conservative 30,000 up to over 200,000, which is a pretty damn big chunk given the country's estimated population was only 26 million.

Getting this back to Iranian extremists with a deathwish, one does have to look back and wonder why we decided to liberate a country from their repressive regime over a lie when the country next door to it could have fit the same criteria honestly. I certainly would have been a lot more behind a war to kill our ideological enemies in honesty since they've been asking so nicely.

On the converse, the Iranians have obviously learned from North Korea that an excellent way to not get yourself invaded is to have actual military force and a demonstrated will to use it, as the 1980s pickups with .50 cals on them didn't work out so well for the Iraqis in round 2.

[1] To summarize for the Bush apologists, kicking Saddam out was good, however it begs the question of why we haven't done the same to any of about 20 other countries that are just as bad.

We are at war with terrorists, wherever they are.


When we invaded Afghanistan, it was to make war on terrorists and it was a just war that we were waging.

We did not invade Iraq to fight terrorists, and the terrorists/insurgents that have taken over 1800 lives since we "liberated" the country were created as much by our presence in Iraq as by any of the other standard excuses given for their existence.

The odds are increasing on an almost daily basis that we will be visiting other countries in the region within the coming years, and the same arguments will be heard then as are presently; but, please recognize the difference in supporting the troops on the ground following the Commander in Chief's direction, and the adamant disagreement with the decisions made by that same Commander in Chief. While I am proud of the manner in which the US Military has aquitted itself in the face of adversity, I am equally disgusted by President Bush's (the compassionate conservative) inability to grasp the depth of what he has asked of these people and their families, and his unwillingness to treat fairly with them except when pressured by Congress and the veteran's lobbying groups.

I am used to not trusting the president though; we spent the night in Oakland before shipping out for Viet Nam watching Nixon on television assuring the American public that no more troops would be sent to Nam, and that instead he was starting the withdrawal of our military. I have been collecting 40% disability payments every month for 35 years now, and I see these kids coming home missing limbs and knowing what they are facing, and I get even more fed up with this administration and it's B.S.

Trikki, I salute you and every other member of the military over there! If I was handed orders to report for training to be reactivated (doubtful at my age, but who knows) I would join you. BUT, allow me and the others of my ilk the freedom to despise the dishonesty of this administration and it's abuse of the people that serve it. That is, after all, what you and I both fight, and fought, for.....

Trikki,

What it really boils down to is that only those of us that have been there, or have been associated closely with this war can appreciate all the GOOD that is coming out of it. You might as well bang your head on the wall then try to convice most here otherwise. Ya, there has been more terrorist attacks in Iraq than ever before... the reason?? Because the Terrorists CANNOT let us win, or they will lose what little support they have now. It is a do or die situation for them, and I praise Bush for not bowing down to the anti-war groups and holding firm and not showing WEAKNESS to these terrorists. In case some do not understand,



Terrorism:
An Introduction
http://cfrterrorism.org/images/px/CCCCCC.gif
Is terrorism just brutal, unthinking violence?
No. Experts agree that there is almost always a strategy behind terrorist actions. Whether it takes the form of bombings, shootings, hijackings, or assassinations, terrorism is neither random, spontaneous, nor blind; it is a deliberate use of violence against civilians for political or religious ends.
Is there a definition of terrorism?


http://cfrterrorism.org/images/photos/introduction.jpgRuins of Pan Am 103,
Lockerbie, Scotland, 1988.
(AP Photo/Dave Caulkin )
Even though most people can recognize terrorism when they see it, experts have had difficulty coming up with an ironclad definition. The State Department defines terrorism as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience." In another useful attempt to produce a definition, Paul Pillar, a former deputy chief of the CIA's Counterterrorist Center, argues that there are four key elements of terrorism:

It is premeditated—planned in advance, rather than an impulsive act of rage.
It is political—not criminal, like the violence that groups such as the mafia use to get money, but designed to change the existing political order.
It is aimed at civilians—not at military targets or combat-ready troops.
It is carried out by subnational groups—not by the army of a country.
Where does the word "terrorism" come from?
It was coined during France's Reign of Terror in 1793-94. Originally, the leaders of this systematized attempt to weed out "traitors" among the revolutionary ranks praised terror as the best way to defend liberty, but as the French Revolution soured, the word soon took on grim echoes of state violence and guillotines. Today, most terrorists dislike the label, according to Bruce Hoffman of the RAND think tank.

Is terrorism a new phenomenon?
No. The oldest terrorists were holy warriors who killed civilians. For instance, in first-century Palestine, Jewish Zealots would publicly slit the throats of Romans and their collaborators; in seventh-century India, the Thuggee cult would ritually strangle passersby as sacrifices to the Hindu deity Kali; and in the eleventh-century Middle East, the Shiite sect known as the Assassins would eat hashish before murdering civilian foes. Historians can trace recognizably modern forms of terrorism back to such late-nineteenth-century organizations as Narodnaya Volya (“People’s Will”), an anti-tsarist group in Russia. One particularly successful early case of terrorism was the 1914 assassination of Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand by a Serb extremist, an event that helped trigger World War I. Even more familiar forms of terrorism—often custom-made for TV cameras—first appeared on July 22, 1968, when the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine undertook the first terrorist hijacking of a commercial airplane.

Is terrorism aimed at an audience?
Usually, yes. Terrorist acts are often deliberately spectacular, designed to rattle and influence a wide audience, beyond the victims of the violence itself. The point is to use the psychological impact of violence or of the threat of violence to effect political change. As the terrorism expert Brian Jenkins bluntly put it in 1974, "Terrorism is theatre."


Show weakness and you lose.... that simple. For starters, look at the tactics used.

1) begining of the war, most bombs were directed at US personnel.
2) this was not working, so they went after the Coalition. This did work somewhat with countries like Spain.
3) Went after civilians in hope to create anti-US sentiment. This partially worked, but yet people voted.
4) Now going back after US troops, to fuel growing antiwar sentiment. (working like a charm)

They will never stop, and if you show weakness, you might was well be throwing chub to the sharks...

Since the war in Iraq, how many terrorist attacks have happened here?? I would rather see a carbomb go off trying to get a humvee or 2 then in the middle of the street in NY during Christmas.

Shanno, have you any numbers you can share with the number of casualties among the Iraqi population from terrorist attacks in the three years BEFORE we invaded?

Yes, Saddam was an evil dictator who was responsible for the deaths of many of his people. He was not the only dictator in the last 40 years guilty of atrocities toward his people, but he is the one that Bush wanted to take down, and the reasons will be debated for many years to come. But, the terrorist actions did not start until we invaded, and it might be argued that if the invasion had been planned out a bit more thoroughly and not been introduced as a part of the Crusade against terrorism (which reads as a Crusade against Islam when spun by their version of Fox) that there would not have been such an escalation in terrorist acts. Granted, the Islamic radicals feel bound by their religion to fight us anywhere we set foot in their Holy lands, and so as long as American troops are in the mid-east there will be violence against them.

But my point is that all of the spin doctoring about not giving in to the terrorists in Iraq is somewhat ironic, as the terrorists only came there because we did first. If we had stayed in Afghanistan and finished what we started there, that would be where the terrorists would be fighting us.

Hmmmm I think perhaps you're hiding behind semantics there Byl.

No terrorism in Iraq till we invaded? Indeed, so the gassing of the Kurds wasn't an act of terrorism. It was state sanctioned....terrorism. How about the training camps in Iraq? Guess that was merely a boy scout outting.

Clean it up bud, argue cleanly instead of slanting shit like you would hear on our version of Al Jazeera Tv.....CBS.

Fandros

No terrorism in Iraq till we invaded? Indeed, so the gassing of the Kurds wasn't an act of terrorism.

Would those be the same Kurds we incited to rebel with promises of support and then left to die ... back around the same time we were still funding Al Qaeda? The same Kurds that were also persecuted and killed in Iran, Syria, and Turkey? The same Kurds that tried to secede from Iraq, and are still trying?

If "act of terrorism" is any sort of ethnic oppression, why aren't we deposing dozens of regimes Africa, who starve more people yearly than Saddam could have possibly gassed even with the imaginary WMD stockpiles?

You can't reject an apt move simply by saying "OoOOo others are doing it and we aren't doing anything neener neener".

What kind of circle jerk logic is that?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html

We said we would go after countries sponsoring terrorism.

We did, perhaps WMD's never reared their heads to your approval. Even when we found those truck labs that were specifically set up for creating toxins and were buried/hidden upon our invasion.

Keep it up and the Dem's will change their mascot from donkey to Ostrich.

Fandros

And how the hell do you keep a liberal to task/thread. This is about Iran folks...

Please to focus...

Fandros

He's hiding behind semantics, but you're trying to say that there was mass terrorism in Iraq before our involvement as demonstrated by an incident we were complicit in causing. Right. I'm not even sure where you're pulling those dirty liberal democrats into this except as hand waving to obscure some highly specious logic.

Look at the party line press releases even. Terrorists in Iraq are "foreign fighters." As in, they came from somewhere else, after the occupation.

Hmmmm I think perhaps you're hiding behind semantics there Byl.

No terrorism in Iraq till we invaded? Indeed, so the gassing of the Kurds wasn't an act of terrorism. It was state sanctioned....terrorism. How about the training camps in Iraq? Guess that was merely a boy scout outting.

Clean it up bud, argue cleanly instead of slanting shit like you would hear on our version of Al Jazeera Tv.....CBS.

Fandros

Saddam's gassing of the Kurds was putting down a rebellion of a portion of the country against the leader. This was not terrorism, any more than Nixon can be blamed for terrorism for shooting down students at Kent State. While you and I may be appalled by the act, it was done by the leader of a sovereign nation that was not governed by our democratic principles, but instead was ruled by the iron fist of a dictator. Saddam ruthlessly demonstrated to the people how he would respond to uprisings, much the same as Nixon brutally demonstrated to the people how he would respond to dissent.

The questionable argument regarding training camps once again does not show any terroristic acts against the people of Iraq.

I am not on a pulpit preaching anti-war crap, Fan. I am simply wanting there to be some honesty in the debate, and what we have gotten from this administration and it's friendly folks at Fox has been nothing but spinning the stories to support what they want folks to believe.

Shanno shared some info about the terrorist attacks in Iraq, but seems to miss the fact that WE are the invaders; we are fighting a guerilla(sp) war again but we are calling the guerilla fighters terrorists now. While the people living in Iraq may have had reason to fear for their lives under Saddam, the random violence they face now from the terrorist attacks is a direct by-product of our invasion.

There is nothing to clean up, Fan. I am stating a simple truth. It does not mean one thing or another in terms of being pro- or anti-war. The Iraqi people were not being victimized by random violence until we brought it to them via our invasion. As I said above, it is likely we will be visiting other countries in the region in the future, and this will simply continue to move along with us. The only way to stop it is to remove all the Islamic radicals,
industrialize the area to provide a job market so the young men and women have something to do with their time that also is providing a sense of self-worth, and raising the economic standards of the average citizens.

Remove the jealousy/envy of the Western infidels by raising the standard of living, and you have taken away one of the basic motivations for wanting to strike out against them.

Sorry for being long-winded today. Have the day off, and am under the weather, so I am at the computer instead of out and about.

Hand waving...me? You're, along with many others, are using faulty circular logic to try and shade Bush in a bad light.

Fandros

Ahhhh, I'm stuck at a desk this week as well. Hence the heavy posting.


Fandros

using faulty circular logic to try and shade Bush in a bad light.


You can question my logic all you want, but it would help you provided rebuttal instead of strawman sideband attacks on my intent. Was there terrorism in Iraq before we started meddling there? Hard to say, you'd have to go back prior to the Iran-Iraq war to find out, of course, back then terrorism was still a meaningful word, having not yet become the new buzzword for all the pinko commie yellow peril mongol horde invaders we're supposed to hate.

As for that intent, there is nothing I can do to shade Bush in a worse light than what his puppeteers already make him do himself.

Unless you provide a logical basis for your posts instead of faulty logic how am I, or anyone else , able to defend your Moveon.org regurgitated bs?

Fandros

We said we would go after countries sponsoring terrorism.


And Bush also said we would go after anyone providing financial aid to terrorists and terrorist countries. So how did Halliburton's business dealings with Iran (Axis of Evil, remember?) get dealt with? Why, they not only got the contracts to rebuild Iraq, but also landed lucrative contracts to rebuild after Katrina.

:rolleyes:

Sorry, I just love tossing the Halliburton bomb out there every now and then.

Seriously tho, I see us visiting Syria and Iran both in the coming years. The behavior of the leadership of these two countries will allow few other options, and the continued thumbing of the nose at the world body will possibly enable us to put together a consensus this time unlike our leadup to Iraq. The potential for nuclear warfare is rising at an alarming rate with Islamic extremists taking on the guise of political leaders, as we have in Iran. And having an eye-doctor trying to be the tough leader in Syria is only going to allow the hardliners already embedded in the old Assad regime's networks to continue to hold sway over the direction that country moves.

I wonder what effect radiation will have on the oil, anyway?

/chuckle

The Halibomb... even despite it's highly touted qualifications.

Regardless, I agree with you Byl. I think we'll find a global effort against Syria and Iran. I'd like to think we could help factions in Iran to rise up against their aging and vastly outnumbered leadership. But I won't hold my breath.

Fandros

Unless you provide a logical basis for your posts instead of faulty logic how am I, or anyone else , able to defend your Moveon.org regurgitated bs?


Let's try this again.

We want to fight terrorism (presupposed fact)
Al Qaeda Terrorists are in Afghanistan (fact)
We invaded and occupied Iraq (fact), making claims they supported Al Qaeda terrorists and had weapons to further it (fact), both of which have been proven patently untrue (fact)
Iraq is now a terrorist hotbed (fact)
There are now more terrorists acts killing civilians in Iraq weekly|monthly|yearly than there were worldwide yearly before the invasion (fact) unless you expand the definition of terrorism to such absurd bounds that every nation on earth is guilty of it on an ongoing basis (debateable point)

You are positing that Iraq was where the terrorism was before.

All evidence (facts) points that there was no Al Qaeda terrorism support OR terrorist cells in general in Iraq before US involvement, and the only counter argument you offer involves an incident in which the US was involved, the weapons were partially funded by earlier US monies, and the local people were in insurgency (also a debateably terrorist act directly encouraged by the US).

Let's follow the bouncing ball here to where you retort that I obviously read nothing except moveon.org, which is ... because I can read at all? You have nothing resembling a point and think I'm liberal -- the most comical of your various non-responses. You don't get to call bullshit until you can at least name what it is you're shoveling.

Whoa whoa whoa there bud.

Iraq did in fact support terrorism. Direct ties to it infact. What's called into question is whether they had ties to 9/11. Saddam cut checks to the families of homicide bombers killing folks in Israel.

Sheeeesshhhh lack of command of the facts here.

Fandros

btw...

<-----points at Malse's story and says....bullshit

Fandros

Whoops, I left out the Al Qaeda qualifier. Sorry, you're still putting boths hands over your ears and shouting LALALALALA and I'm still not (sic) "liberal."

There was proven terrorist camps in Iraq. What about that statement confuses you Malse? That's all we needed to know, they were happily open about being one of the worlds supporters of terrorism.

Google Iraq Terrorist camps and choose your source. That alone should sate even your tastes.

I do have to say, it's begining to sound as though I'm having one side mental duel tho.

Fandros

There was proven terrorist camps in Iraq. What about that statement confuses you Malse? That's all we needed to know, they were happily open about being one of the worlds supporters of terrorism.


Nothing about that statement confuses me. You, however, have been creating a state of confusion with every non-sequitor reply and consistently drop into nonsensical personal attacks that show a willfull disregard for reading any opposing viewpoint.

The one proven terrorist camp in Iraq, Salman Pak, which has never been proven linked to any actual terrorist act against the United States, and was explicitly disclaimed by defectors and informants as being related to Al Qaeda. Other camps like Ansar al-Islam were also discovered to be completely unrelated to either Hussein or Al Qaeda and some of the Kurdish ones were actually formed to help FIGHT Hussein. On the other hand, there are certainly A LOT MORE terror camps in the neighborhood now where people are training, arming, and manufacturing explosives to kill more people via terrorism than ever before.

Why I should bother to even mention it, though, is up in the air, when your chosen form of "mental duel" would be for me to say:

/chuckle there bud! I mention some transient point like how cool Google is, and ignore the rest of your post!


I do have to say, it's begining to sound as though I'm having one side mental duel tho.


Because you're being a git and purposely ignoring what other people say. You win your own verbal masturbation contest, and fail utterly at conversing about why people have a negative view on the Iraqi occupation.

The first link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/) from Googling iraqi terrorist camps. It discusses Abu Zarqawi's camp in northern Iraq (under the no-fly zone) pre-war, and how Bush declined the Pentagon's three scenarios to destroy it, fearing that killing an actual terrorist might reduce support for the upcoming invasion. As of March 2004 Zarqawi was blamed for over 700 killings -- no idea what the counter is at now.


So there's my source.

All of our problems would have been solved had Bush simply bombed a presumed terrorist camp. Worked wonders for Clinton.

Or an asprin factory.

Iraq was a decent idea horribly implemented.

And sorry.. you dont get points for good intentions when 2000+ Americans are dead and the region is less secure than when you started.

Is what we are getting in Iraq worth what we are paying for? Democracy took a very long time to work in America... a couple rebellions, a failed attempt, a Civil War... and we werent surrounded by nations in whose best interest it was to subvert the process at every turn.

There were better ways to have gotten this done. Its a damn shame... it coulda worked had more competent people been on the political end of this. IMO Rumsfeld deserves most the blame.. but there is plenty to go around.

And Fanny.. how can you say this is not about Iraq.. Why do you think Iran is pushing so hard? Nuclear capability gives them basically free reign in the region. It gives them the ability to engage in brinksmanship to the ultimate level, hanging the Nuclear sword over the head of Israel almost over night. Iraq can go 2 ways for them.
The most horrific war in their memories was against an Iraq that was supported by the US. They see Iraq once again becoming close to the US and more than likely see the need to severe those ties for the good of its own survival.
We have backed Iran into a corner with Iraq... expect them to act appropriatly

Ahhhh good point L2 and perhaps it helps support our cause for going into Iraq. I'd even kowtow to the idea that perhaps if we'd have said this was our reason all along things would be different now.

Fandros