Ahmedinajad's speech to Columbia University

[Space Tycoon]

Take it for what it is, (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092401042_pf.html) I thought he made a few good points, myself.



We question the way the world is being run and managed today. We believe that it will not lead to viable peace and security for the world, the way it's run today. We have solutions based on humane values and for relations among states. With the U.S. government, too, we will negotiate -- we don't have any issues about that -- under fair, just circumstances with mutual respect on both sides.








.

[DarkJedi]

I normally don't respond to these Iran posts, Space. It's your opinion on the matter but I assume you're also asking for our opinions as well by posting this speech from him on our forums...

I didn't see any good points there. I saw him once again questioning the Holocaust and also trying to encourage other people to question it. He's flat out lying to our faces about questioning the Holocaust all for the purpose of "freedom of speech". No, he wants people to question the Holocaust because of his propaganda machine to continue encouraging people to hate Jews all under the guise of free speech.

He's also enacting the same propaganda machine about how Palestine is tormented by Israel refusing to say that BOTH parties are at fault there which is closer to the truth on the matter. Palestine and Israel are both to blame for no peace. When I see Hamas or any number of organizations supported by Palestine strapping a bomb onto a 12 year old boy and throwing them into a cafe or a bus full of innocent bystanders, I'm under the opinion that they have as much fault as the other side (Israel). No, I didn't see any good points above, IMO. I saw more of the same bs out of him.

[spammityspam]

I would take him more seriously if he didn't always say things like "9/11 didn't happen" and "the Holocaust is a Jewish conspiracy." He obviously had to temper his words because he was at Columbia -- he's crazy, and toning it down for his audience doesn't make him any less so.

[Daltons Chin Dimple]

Apparently Iran has no homosexuals either.

[Daltons Chin Dimple]

Oh yes, I nearly forgot, he also tried to say that Iranian women were the most free in the world, less than a month after large numbers were detained for failing to cover themselves up.

Ahmeddenimdinnerjacket either has a very tenous grip on reality or is the only person in on his particular joke.

Whilst I agree that the US is run by a buffoon with the foreign policy ability of my first daily dump, and that Israeli behaviour is both puzzling and infuritating at times, I find it almost laughable that any supposedly sane human being would give credence to this comical gimp and anything out of his mouth.

He is about to get his nose seriously bloodied by the Israeli's anyway. We all know that they do not f*ck about when it comes to threats against them. Mossad has briefed the Likud that Iran is about two years away from acquiring a nuke. The squadrons of the IAF trained to deploy Israel's nuclear option are currently carrying our practice bombing runs in Hatzerim in the Negev desert and Tel Nof, south of Tel Aviv. Both of these areas, by the way, have remarkably similar topography to Natanz and Isfahan so you can see where this is going.

Oh, and Israeli jets have also been showing up over the straights of Gibralter, which is cunningly enough about the same distance from Israel as the Iranian nuke sites are, but in the other direction. Now what do you suppose they are practising for ???

[Space Tycoon]

This is one of those times when you have to separate the messenger from the message. Obviously the man is a joke as a leader, which is why his power is slipping and his days are numbered. I say wait him out.

I also agree his statements about the Holocaust are irresponsible and foolish, which is why he's backed down from them a little recently. But his positions regarding Palestine are worth examining. Why have they been forced to pay the price for Europe's crimes against the Jews? What did they have to do with it? You may find Ahmedinajad's position one-sided, but guess what--that's exactly how most in the Middle East see America's position towards Israel.

Indeed, one can draw several comparisons between Mahmoud and Bush-- they seem to be each other's opposite number.

Ahmedinajad has never stated a desire to use nuclear weapons against Israel in a first-strike, offensive scenario. I defy anyone to find clear, unambiguous statements otherwise. Iran' quest for nuclear power is first and foremost for civilian use, to service the needs of their sprawling urban population. As far as the development of weapons, Iran has as much right as anyone to build a deterrent to foreign aggression. After all this is a country that suffered 8 years of bloody invasion at the hands of the Iraqis, directly funded by America and Saudi. And they have seen two of their neighbours invaded and occupied, leaving thme fearful they are next.

He is about to get his nose seriously bloodied by the Israeli's anyway. We all know that they do not f*ck about when it comes to threats against them.

Yes, we all remember their bloody assault against Southern Lebanon, which left almost a thousand people --mostly civilians--dead, and thousands more wounded. Did this move enhance Israel's security? Hizbullah, far from being destroyed, are more powerful and respected than ever, with good reason. I've been following this buildup for years, and frankly I'm surprised Iran hasn't been attacked yet. If Israel and/or the US chooses to go this this route, they will be guilty of violating international law.

Mossad has briefed the Likud that Iran is about two years away from acquiring a nuke. Which may be true, or not. Pardon me for not trusting the Mossad, or any other Israeli government agency. These are the same liars who sold Bush on the bogus "Iraq-9/11" connection. We all know how that one turned out.






.

[Bark]

Iran is sitting on an ocean of oil. Thinking their nuclear program is for "civilian use, to service the needs of their sprawling urban population," is naive, IMHO. They're are less provocative options.

I agree that there aren't any overt statements that Iran "desires to use nuclear weapons against Israel in a first-strike, offensive scenario," because they aren't stupid. They're pragmatic, and if there intentions were that, they would never say so.

[Space Tycoon]

Iran is sitting on an ocean of oil. Thinking their nuclear program is for "civilian use, to service the needs of their sprawling urban population," is naive, IMHO. Well, that's exactly the reason for their interest in nuclear power. One of the reasons, anyway. Not the only one. And again, who are we to decide who gets to have nuclear energy and who doesn't? :headscratch:

I agree that there aren't any overt statements that Iran "desires to use nuclear weapons against Israel in a first-strike, offensive scenario," because they aren't stupid. They're pragmatic, and if there intentions were that, they would never say so. Well then until they do all of this talk is academic. I do not believe Iran has any intentions whatsoever of attacking Israel first with nuclear weapons. Their nuke program is defensive and totally understandable, given recent history.

[spammityspam]

Ahmedinajad has never stated a desire to use nuclear weapons against Israel in a first-strike, offensive scenario. I defy anyone to find clear, unambiguous statements otherwise.


"We ask the West to remove what they created sixty years ago and if they do not listen to our recommendations, then the Palestinian nation and other nations will eventually do this for them."

"Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury."

"The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land. As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."

"If the West does not support Israel, this regime will be toppled. As it has lost its raison d'etre, Israel will be annihilated."

[Bark]

They're interested in nuclear power because they have an ocean of oil in their possession? :headscratch:

Common sense would dictate: Expand oil production for more energy.

[Space Tycoon]

Spammity:

This is no different from the speeches given over the past six decades by countless Mideastern figures. It is nothing more than propaganda intended to inflame and manipulate the public, not a declaration of pre-emptive, nuclear war.

Arafat and Fatah used to make similar declarations, before we and they decided to enter a dialogue. So did the Egyptians and the Jordanians, before cooler heads prevailed.






Keep tryin'.





.

[Space Tycoon]

They're interested in nuclear power because they have an ocean of oil in their possession? :headscratch:

Common sense would dictate: Expand oil production for more energy.

No, business sense would dictate: Expand oil production for the booming export market, as Russia has profitably done; while diversifying their own sources of domestic energy.

No large, growing nation with a desire to enter the 21st century can possibly hope to do so if they are almost totally dependent on non-renewable fossil fuels.







.

[spammityspam]

Space, you can't deny open declarations of intent to go to war because you feel like it. The problem with people who use words like these to rouse the public is that usually they want to rouse the public for a reason, i.e. to go to war. Obviously it's possible that talks will cool things down; that's what they're for. But for the moment, it's pretty clear to me that the major use for nuclear power would be to develop weapons.

[Space Tycoon]

Space, you can't deny open declarations of intent to go to war because you feel like it. The problem with people who use words like these to rouse the public is that usually they want to rouse the public for a reason, i.e. to go to war. I'm not denying them because "I feel like it," I'm denying them because none of them really add up to a direct declaration of war against Israel.

But for the moment, it's pretty clear to me that the major use for nuclear power would be to develop weapons.

And that's why my position from the beginning has been that Iran has as much right to develop weapons as any other nation. They are in a very rough neighbourhood; they were the victims of WMD's themselves during the 1980's, at the hands of the US surrogate Saddam Hussein; they feel threatened and cornered and vulnerable to attack every single day.

Should we be concerned about Iran obtaining nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them? Absolutely. We should be concerned about any country aiming for such a capacity. The best move for the US and the "quartet" is to aim for a nuclear-free region-- and that means everyone, including Israel. But that won't happen as long as the US Congress is dominated by Evangelicals and the Israel Lobby.

And it certainly won't happen without a dialogue, which Ahmedinajad has certainly sparked.







.

[Bark]

No, business sense would dictate: Expand oil production for the booming export market, as Russia has profitably done; while diversifying their own sources of domestic energy.

No large, growing nation with a desire to enter the 21st century can possibly hope to do so if they are almost totally dependent on non-renewable fossil fuels..

Nuclear energy doesn't power cars, and Iran's oil infrastructure is so weak, they import gasoline. It's not pretty, but it works, and they have a ton of it. Quite frankly, I dount Iran wants to go green for the environment's sake.

France of all countries (they love nuclear power), fears Iran is doing this for weapons. The question is do we give them the benefit of the doubt? I say no. They need to assure the world that their program is peaceful by opening it up completely.

[Space Tycoon]

Iran's energy needs go far beyond fuel for vehicles, obviously. Face it Bark, there are perfectly valid reasons for Iran to develop nuclear energy for their domestic consumption.

France's new government is tilted towards the Bush/Blair point of view so I am not surprised that they are joining the crusade/jihad against Iran. Frankly, I think they should stay out of it.






.

[Still Crazy]

This man is fruit loop.

yeah yeah yeah, we've heard the same stuff before. Isreal bad. US bad. yet we don't strap bombs to our kids to blow them up. Yes I am an infidel who is going to hell.

However, no where does it say those 72 virgins are women. :Mwahaha:


And as Fez said "Screw France"

[DarkJedi]

Keep tryin'.

.

What exactly does "Keep Tryin'" mean, Space?

[Space Tycoon]

I don't know how to answer that. Seems pretty obvious to me.

Keep trying to find an exact statement of intention by the government of Iran to initiate a direct attack against the State of Israel with nuclear weapons, should they obtain them.

So far, I have not seen it.






.

[Al-Dog]

Spammies quotes seem pretty clear to me.

If you on a drunks foot in a bar and he says ‘step out side’ do you think he wants you to examine the scuff marks on his shoe or does he want to kick your ass?

[Space Tycoon]

We're not talking about drunks in a bar, we're talking about international relations. If you're going to start a war with someone, it had better be based on something more solid than some stupid, inflammatory remarks made by a zealot whose political career is probably winding down.






.

[Al-Dog]

I’m not advocating starting a war because of some statements, but if someone says that they want to kill you (or drive your country into the sea) I think you should at least take them serious enough to keep an eye on them.

And if after making threats, they go about getting weapons that could do the job, I believe that you should do something before you get shot in the head (or your country nuked).

[DarkJedi]

I don't know how to answer that. Seems pretty obvious to me.

Keep trying to find an exact statement of intention by the government of Iran to initiate a direct attack against the State of Israel with nuclear weapons, should they obtain them.

So far, I have not seen it.






.

Seems pretty obvious to me that Spam's quotes are in fact indicating his clear desire to "wipe Israel off the map", Space. The UN Security Council, the EU, his own Iranian government, his own citizens and even Iran's friend, Russia, condemned him for such statements in the past..

But that wasn't why I asked for a clarification on that "Keep Tryin'" comment. Anyone can research countless direct quotes, published by Reuters, AP, BBC, etc of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his desire to eradicate the Israel state and anyone supporting the Jewish persuasion.

You tell a user to "Keep Tryin" because you have a different opinion and like the man, his country and his beliefs?

Is it Spam's job to find a direct quote from yesterday from Ahmadinejad saying "I'm going to nuke Israel as soon as I get the power" that will somehow convince you? If the countless media transcripts of previous speeches regarding this subject don't work for you in this thread, why would a direct quote from him made tomorrow do anything different?

We're not trying to satisfy you, change your opinion on these subjects or convince you otherwise... It has seemed very clear for sometime that you are convinced of your beliefs.

[Space Tycoon]

Obviously you keep an eye on them, that's pretty much what we've been doing. There have been covert CIA/Mossad British SAS operations within Iran's borders for years now, inciting ethnic divisions and probably arming separatist Kurds and Azeris, who have been responsible for terrorist attacks within Iran. There has already been a silent war going on for years now, and the Iranians are well within their rights to express their anger over it.








.

[Space Tycoon]

Darkjedi;

You tell a user to "Keep Tryin" because you have a different opinion and like the man, his country and his beliefs?

That's right, I'm an Ahmedinajad admirer. Good one, DJ. :rolleyes:

Look, those two words obviously bother you a lot, would you like me to delete them?

Is there anything else you'd like me to change?


Would anyone else out there like me revise anything?









.

[Nostromo]

Would anyone else out there like me revise anything?


Hmmm .... My last bank statement please. :wink: N

And it just goes to show ... never invite a pooper to your party. If you do,
it's your own fault if you know what hits the fan. :) N

[DarkJedi]

Darkjedi;



That's right, I'm an Ahmedinajad admirer. Good one, DJ. :rolleyes:

Look, those two words obviously bother you a lot, would you like me to delete them?

Is there anything else you'd like me to change?


Would anyone else out there like me revise anything?









.


No revisions are necessary. These are your opinions after all.

[rappites]

Hmmm .... My last bank statement please. :wink: N


I second this one.

[Space Tycoon]

Well, here you go:

Mahmoud Ahmedinajad has never called for the physical destruction of Israel. (http://www.juancole.com/2006/05/hitchens-hacker-and-hitchens.html)

The man has been misquoted and improperly translated by the utterly biased mass media.






.

[DarkJedi]

Russia Foreign Ministry(who is a trade partner with Iran) , the UN Security Council, the EU, Officials within Iran itself, Canada, BBC, Reuters, Associated Press, Msnbc, Cbs, Cnn...They all are biased against this man and have been reporting biased lies for years, have they?

He wasn't misquoted and mis-translated in the Columbia speech you linked in the original post of this thread either. His speech to the University was crystal clear with the very same stuff he's been talking about for years....i.e "God is great, Question the Holocaust, Israel is the sole fault.."

He has been making speeches about the Holocaust, Zionists, Israel, etc for many years now.

[rappites]

You're both so sexy. Come on over to my place for a sloppy three way and we'll call a day!

[rappites]

BTW...


I walked away from the PC and left my logon for Outy to write that. That wasn't Raps.

....



Still, the offer stands! :Smirk:

[Bark]

Nice try Raps. :Eyebrow:

Space, President Bush has never said we intend or want to go to war with Iran. You can't find a quote that supports that belief. Keep trying to find one though. :D

[Space Tycoon]

President Bush and nearly every single presidential candidate have said they are willing to use force against Iran to prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon, many times.

In a leaked memo, Cheney even expressed a willingness to use small nuclear weapons in such an attack.





.

[neglet]

Well, Cheney's insane. I don't think he can get enough people to go along with him this time.

It's funny, this whole situation with Israel and Iran reminds me eerily of how the US was posturing towards Iraq in the runup before the war. Israel seems to be exaggerating Iran's capabilities (they say nukes in 2 years, most others say 8) just as the Bush administration exaggerated Iraq's WMDs, while the rest of the world tries to get them to slow down before taking action.

[Space Tycoon]

Russia Foreign Ministry(who is a trade partner with Iran) , the UN Security Council, the EU, Officials within Iran itself, Canada, BBC, Reuters, Associated Press, Msnbc, Cbs, Cnn...They all are biased against this man and have been reporting biased lies for years, have they? They've been given the same the same innacurate information as the everyone else. Not too many people speak Farsi, and when some "expert" with his or her own agenda declares this to be the official translation of Ahmaedinajad's speech and intentions, of course they'll believe it.

He wasn't misquoted and mis-translated in the Columbia speech you linked in the original post of this thread either. His speech to the University was crystal clear with the very same stuff he's been talking about for years....i.e "God is great, Question the Holocaust, Israel is the sole fault.."

He has been making speeches about the Holocaust, Zionists, Israel, etc for many years now.

So what? It's no worse than Bush's bs declarations about "Islamic fascism," of which there is no such thing. They're both delusional liars and we will be better off when they are gone.





.

[Space Tycoon]

Well, Cheney's insane. I don't think he can get enough people to go along with him this time. No argument here. :anismirk:

It's funny, this whole situation with Israel and Iran reminds me eerily of how the US was posturing towards Iraq in the runup before the war. Israel seems to be exaggerating Iran's capabilities (they say nukes in 2 years, most others say 8) just as the Bush administration exaggerated Iraq's WMDs, while the rest of the world tries to get them to slow down before taking action.

Again, exactly right. That's why I take it as seriously as I do. I feel that those of us who knew the Iraq war was going to be a mistake were not vocal enough in our condemnations at the time. We allowed ourselves to be shouted down by the ultra-hawks--not all of whom were Republicans-- and the cheerleaders in the media. The result was that it didn't become acceptable to condemn the war until about 2004-05, when it was clear that it was going nowhere.

Bush still has plenty of time to add one last foreign policy disaster to his record in office.






.

[Al-Dog]

President Bush and nearly every single presidential candidate have said they are willing to use force against Iran to prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon, many times.

In a leaked memo, Cheney even expressed a willingness to use small nuclear weapons in such an attack.
.So you are saying that Ahmedinajad has the right to develop nuclear weapons because he believes that is in the best interest of his country, but U.S. candidates do not have the right to keep their options open in terms of what might have to do at some point in the future for the best interest of their country?

Obviously, the use of force shouldn’t be their first, second or third option, but they would be complete fools to state that they would never use force.

[Space Tycoon]

I never said US Presidential candidates don't have the right to take such a position. When did I say that?







.

[Bark]

Hitler assured the Soviet Union he wouldn't invade them, too.

(I win the door prize for bringing up Hitler first. :D)

[Space Tycoon]

Sigh... yes by all means let's drag Hitler into it. :anismirk:

Again with Hitler. Always with Hitler.

Can't we let the guy rot in peace? Why does he get dragged into nearly every discussion involving any country anywhere in the world that bothers us? :rolleyes:






.

[sickness]

Russia Foreign Ministry(who is a trade partner with Iran) , the UN Security Council, the EU, Officials within Iran itself, Canada, BBC, Reuters, Associated Press, Msnbc, Cbs, Cnn...They all are biased against this man and have been reporting biased lies for years, have they?

He wasn't misquoted and mis-translated in the Columbia speech you linked in the original post of this thread either. His speech to the University was crystal clear with the very same stuff he's been talking about for years....i.e "God is great, Question the Holocaust, Israel is the sole fault.."

He has been making speeches about the Holocaust, Zionists, Israel, etc for many years now.
By the way, I have my very own personal Farsi-as-a-first-language translator and the only beef she could come up wth on the Columbia speech is that the word that was being translated into "science" was actually the word for "knowledge."

And, in my experience having stuff translated from Farsi for me, this "it could mean this one thing or it could mean this other completely different thing" arguement doesn't hold water. Farsi as a whole is much more exact than English. There are certain concepts that they have a single word for which we would have to take a few sentences to explain (likewise, there are concepts in English described by a single word which would require a phrase or more -- perhaps a few sentences -- in other languages... even other European languages) but it's not sufficient in Farsi to talk about your niece or nephew. The actual translation is "my brother's son" or "my sister's son" for your nephew and similarly for your niece. Farsi is an exacting language. I don't buy this ambiguity in translation.

How exactly could "Israel should be wiped off the map" be mistaken for "Israel will be erased by the pages of time" even when translating from an alien language?

[Bark]

No, Hitler can't rest in peace. Besides, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

[Space Tycoon]

How exactly could "Israel should be wiped off the map" be mistaken for "Israel will be erased by the pages of time" even when translating from an alien language?

You would have to take that up with the people doing the translation. I don't take this as an innocent mistake so much as a deliberate misdirection. So far I have seen no irrefutable evidence that Ahmedinajad ever made that exact statement--which is fairly important, given that so much has come to depend on it.







.

[Space Tycoon]

No, Hitler can't rest in peace. Besides, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

But why does Hitler make an appearance in each and every single discussion about the Middle East? If we're going to put this discussion into the context of ME history.... well first of all we're going to need a bigger forum.

The Iranians and the Arabs take a much longer, deeper view of history than those of us on this side of the Atlantic. They've seen conquerors and "liberators" come and go since time immemorial.






.

[Al-Dog]

The Iranians and the Arabs take a much longer, deeper view of history than those of us on this side of the Atlantic. They've seen conquerors and "liberators" come and go since time immemorial.
.In that case, they should grab a beer and chill out.

In a thousand years no one will even remember what all this fuss was about anyway.

[Space Tycoon]

Perhaps if we let up in the interference in their affairs for awhile, treat them like grownups instead of little children, they may start to do just that.

Indeed, in places like Dubai they already have.






.

[sickness]

You would have to take that up with the people doing the translation. I don't take this as an innocent mistake so much as a deliberate misdirection. So far I have seen no irrefutable evidence that Ahmedinajad ever made that exact statement--which is fairly important, given that so much has come to depend on it.







.
Why is it the case, then, that he gives it so much credence and refuses to deny that he meant it?

Honestly, Spacey, I'm surprised. I've always taken you for a guy who adheres to Occam's Razor but this defies that standard of logic beyond reason.

[Kaeos]

Well.

The entire debate is basically academic now. Based on this little nugget from yesterday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/washington/27cong.html

We will be attacking Iran before the year is out. Hidden within the standard senate bullshit of this little doosey is basically a cart blanche blank check to take whatever action "we" deem fit to deal with IRan's involvement in Iraq up to and including military engagement.

Fun times. Fun times.

[Space Tycoon]

Sickness: Why is it the case, then, that he gives it so much credence and refuses to deny that he meant it? Maybe he thinks it serves his interest to have this cloud of notoriety surrounding him at all times. Maybe he just doesn't care. Who knows? It could very well be that he wants exactly what his detractors claim, a nuclear conflagration. But I doubt it.

I stand by my assessment of him as a populist demagogue, nothing more.

Honestly, Spacey, I'm surprised. I've always taken you for a guy who adheres to Occam's Razor but this defies that standard of logic beyond reason. Occam's Razor is overrated. :smirk: The simplest answer is quite often nowhere near reality.






.

[DarkJedi]

Well.

The entire debate is basically academic now. Based on this little nugget from yesterday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/washington/27cong.html

We will be attacking Iran before the year is out. Hidden within the standard senate bullshit of this little doosey is basically a cart blanche blank check to take whatever action "we" deem fit to deal with IRan's involvement in Iraq up to and including military engagement.

Fun times. Fun times.


Had a feeling that was going to happen, Kaeos. He didn't please any parties in the Senate by equating US Soldiers to terrorists and not even denying on American soil that his country has been providing weapons to the insurgents. It probably would have been wiser to avoid the question or just say "No, we don't do that.." to the Columbia crowd. Instead, he just shot the question back and pissed off Senators.

Anyway, these are the comments which the congress didn't like too much.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) second question, which was posed by President Bollinger earlier and comes from a number of other students: Why is your government providing aid to terrorists?


Will you stop doing so and permit international monitoring to certify that you have stopped?


AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Well, I want to pose a question here to you. If someone comes and explodes bombs around you, threatens your president, members of the administration, kills the members of the Senate or Congress, how would you treat them?


Would you reward them, or would you name them a terrorist group?


Well, it's clear. You would call them a terrorist.


Yep, Kaeos...Once Ahmadinejad called us a "terrorist" group, it was only a matter of time before the Senate did the same thing his way.

[Space Tycoon]

Sickness: Why is it the case, then, that he gives it so much credence and refuses to deny that he meant it? Maybe he thinks it serves his interest to have this cloud of notoriety surrounding him at all times. Maybe he just doesn't care. Who knows? It could very well be that he wants exactly what his detractors claim, a nuclear conflagration. But I doubt it.

I stand by my assessment of him as a blustering demagogue, nothing more.








.

[Space Tycoon]

He didn't please any parties in the Senate by equating US Soldiers to terrorists

Except he wasn't comparing American soldiers to terrorists at all.

This is how disinformation works.

These are the terrorists Ahmedinajad was referring to. (http://www.cfr.org/publication/9158/) A murderous cult which combines elements of Marxism and Islam in a thoroughly unholy union, Mujahadeen-e-Khalq has been responsible for numerous acts of murder and torture within Iran and Iraq, and are covertly funded by the CIA in its secret war against Iran: (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0620-31.htm)

It is bitter irony that the CIA is using a group still labelled as a terrorist organisation, a group trained in the art of explosive assassination by the same intelligence units of the former regime of Saddam Hussein, who are slaughtering American soldiers in Iraq today, to carry out remote bombings in Iran of the sort that the Bush administration condemns on a daily basis inside Iraq.

Perhaps the adage of "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist" has finally been embraced by the White House, exposing as utter hypocrisy the entire underlying notions governing the ongoing global war on terror.

But the CIA-backed campaign of MEK terror bombings in Iran are not the only action ongoing against Iran.

To the north, in neighbouring Azerbaijan, the US military is preparing a base of operations for a massive military presence that will foretell a major land-based campaign designed to capture Tehran....








.

[Space Tycoon]

Well.

The entire debate is basically academic now. Based on this little nugget from yesterday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/wa...on/27cong.html

We will be attacking Iran before the year is out. Hidden within the standard senate bullshit of this little doosey is basically a cart blanche blank check to take whatever action "we" deem fit to deal with IRan's involvement in Iraq up to and including military engagement.

Of course. Wasn't this Congress elected on a sweeping mandate of foreign policy change? Oh well, that almost a year ago and these are politicians, after all.


Anyway, if you want to read something that will really blow your mind, check out this lengthy article:


B-52 Nukes Headed for Iran: Air Force refused to fly weapons to Middle East theater (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6909)

WMR has learned from military sources on both sides of the Atlantic that there was a definite connection between Israel's OPERATION ORCHARD and BENT SPEAR involving the B-52 that flew the six nuclear-armed cruise missiles from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota to Barksdale. There is also a connection between these two events as the Pentagon's highly-classified PROJECT CHECKMATE, a compartmented U.S. Air Force program that has been working on an attack plan for Iran since June 2007, around the same time that Cheney was working on the joint Israeli-U.S. attack scenario on Iran.

PROJECT CHECKMATE was leaked in an article by military analyst Eric Margolis in the Rupert Murdoch-owned newspaper, the /Times of London/, is a program that involves over two dozen Air Force officers and is headed by Brig. Gen. Lawrence Stutzriem and his chief civilian adviser, Dr. Lani Kass, a former Israeli military intelligence officer who, astoundingly, is now involved in planning a joint U.S.-Israeli massive military attack on Iran that involves a "decapitating" blow on Iran by hitting between three to four thousand targets in the country. Stutzriem and Kass report directly to the Air Force Chief of Staff, General Michael Moseley, who has also been charged with preparing a report on the B-52/nuclear weapons incident.

Kass' area of speciality is cyber-warfare, which includes ensuring "information blockades," such as that imposed by the Israeli government on the Israeli media regarding the Syrian air attack on the alleged Syrian "nuclear installation." British intelligence sources have reported that the Israeli attack on Syria was a "true flag" attack originally designed to foreshadow a U.S. attack on Iran. After the U.S. Air Force push back against transporting the six cruise nuclear-armed AGM-129s to the Middle East, Israel went ahead with its attack on Syria in order to help ratchet up tensions between Washington on one side and Damascus, Tehran, and Pyongyang on the other.

The other part of CHECKMATE's brief is to ensure that a media "perception management" is waged against Syria, Iran, and North Korea. This involves articles such as that which appeared with Joby Warrick's and Walter Pincus' bylines in yesterdays /Washington Post/. The article, titled "The Saga of a Bent Spear," quotes a number of seasoned Air Force nuclear weapons experts as saying that such an incident is unprecedented in the history of the Air Force. For example, Retired Air Force General Eugene Habiger, the former chief of the U.S. Strategic Command, said he has been in the "nuclear business" since 1966 and has never been aware of an incident "more disturbing."

Command and control breakdowns involving U.S. nuclear weapons are unprecedented, except for that fact that the U.S. military is now waging an internal war against neo-cons who are embedded in the U.S. government and military chain of command who are intent on using nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive war with Iran.




Dissension in the ranks? Maybe the true patriots in the military will be the ones to save the Republic from what could be possibly it's biggest mistake yet.







.

[DarkJedi]

Disinformation?

Here's the question again...Here's the answer again. He was calling the USA a terrorist group. He didn't mention anything about the link above in this direct question/answer made just a few days ago.


QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) second question, which was posed by President Bollinger earlier and comes from a number of other students: Why is your government providing aid to terrorists?


Will you stop doing so and permit international monitoring to certify that you have stopped?


AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Well, I want to pose a question here to you. If someone comes and explodes bombs around you, threatens your president, members of the administration, kills the members of the Senate or Congress, how would you treat them?


Would you reward them, or would you name them a terrorist group?


Well, it's clear. You would call them a terrorist.

Which is disinformation? The direct answer here or the link you seem to think he meant...(I don't see him referring to the link above in his answer..)

[DarkJedi]

Of course. Wasn't this Congress elected on a sweeping mandate of foreign policy change? Oh well, that almost a year ago and these are politicians, after all.


Anyway, if you want to read something that will really blow your mind, check out this lengthy article:


B-52 Nukes Headed for Iran: Air Force refused to fly weapons to Middle East theater (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6909)





Dissension in the ranks? Maybe the true patriots in the military will be the ones to save the Republic from what could be possibly it's biggest mistake yet.







.

Space, this article comes from a site with a ticker at the top saying "Pursue Peace, Not War with Iran".....Just a few minutes after you bring up "disinformation"...you post this? This kind of message doesn't strike me as something a unbiased news source such as Reuters, Associated Press, Agencie France Press, etc would put up at the top of their site?

Irony in that ticker message as well..

Perhaps it should also be followed with "Pursue Peace between Israel and Palestine, Not War between Palestine and Israel"

[Space Tycoon]

He was calling the USA a terrorist group. Well, my friend, that's pretty much what the US has become: a state sponsor of terrorism.

He didn't mention anything about the link above in this direct question/answer made just a few days ago. Of course he wouldn't mention a fucking website in his speech. But rest assured, he is fully aware of the terrorist operations active in his country, directly funded and supported by the CIA.


Which is disinformation? The direct answer here or the link you seem to think he meant...(I don't see him referring to the link above in his answer..)

You know, I'm a reasonably intelligent guy, but I have no clue what you are saying here. Must be the six pints flowing through me right now....

How you cannot perceive the massive flow of propaganda that has been directed against Iran for the past four years is beyond me.


WAKE UP.







.

[Space Tycoon]

Space, this article comes from a site with a ticker at the top saying "Pursue Peace, Not War with Iran"

And what the hell is wrong with that?

.....Just a few minutes after you bring up "disinformation"...you post this? This kind of message doesn't strike me as something a unbiased news source such as Reuters, Associated Press, Agencie France Press, etc would put up at the top of their site? You know, I don't believe in unbiased journalism. Hunter Thompson once said that the only unbiased journalist he ever encountered was the security camera at the mall.

Prove to me that this article was spreading lies and I will recant.

Perhaps it should also be followed with "Pursue Peace between Israel and Palestine, Not War between Palestine and Israel"

Again, what is your point?


Give me the undisputable evidence that the FACTS reported in this article are false and innacurate.

And I will humbly walk away.







.

[DarkJedi]

Has that story you linked above been picked up by ONE credible source of news that doesn't have a "ticker tape message" rolling across? Has Time, CNN, Reuters, AP, BBC, etc picked up the story you linked above?

That's the point.

You point out why a direct question and answer from his Columbia speech is disinformation yet provide a link which clearly has an agenda judging by the message "Pursue Peace, Not War with Iran". Credible news sites don't push their agenda, Space. The link above is disinformation.

Perhaps, it is the six pints going through you right now, man, but you calling the US a Terrorist State while backing up Ahmedinajad, Iran and Palestine throughout this thread makes very little sense to me.

For the past year, I've seen you make some incredibly well spoken points about the Bush administration's aggression towards other nations, his solution of violence over peace, expansionism, etc. I may not agree with all of your points, Space, but you are passionate about what you say on the matter.

That is why I cannot understand how you continue to back up men like Ahmedinajad and some of his tyranical policies towards Israel and its people. You're going to bash US Soldiers and the US for having soldiers there in Iraq but then when it comes time to condemn Iran for killing said soldiers by feeding insurgents weapons, bombs and finances..."Well, the US is a Terrorist State. You need to Wake Up, Jarrod"

Bash one side while giving the other side a free pass?

You continually start threads about misdeeds from Israel while we never hear a peep about Hamas or someone from Palestine sending a young child into a group of innocent bystanders and blowing himself up. We'll definitely hear about it if Israel or the USA does it but we won't hear from you if they do it?

Earlier in this thread, you replied to Al-Dog with this...

Obviously you keep an eye on them, that's pretty much what we've been doing. There have been covert CIA/Mossad British SAS operations within Iran's borders for years now, inciting ethnic divisions and probably arming separatist Kurds and Azeris, who have been responsible for terrorist attacks within Iran. There has already been a silent war going on for years now, and the Iranians are well within their rights to express their anger over it.

I chose to ignore it at the time because you've been doing your best to counterpoint anyone who doesn't see Iran's current leader Ahmedinajad in the same light as you. Why even debate the issue, right?

But now, you're calling out the USA as sponsored terrorism while not even acknowleding the other side of the conflict. You had a critical comment about the Senate calling a sect of the Iran military terrorists above but you defend the right to call America terrorists from the same issue at hand? I'm sorry but that makes absolutely no sense to me. There is no peace in Iraq right now because of both sides here. If Iran wasn't feeding insurgents weaponry (which they don't even deny now), then American soldiers would have nobody to fight and vice versa. The never ending circle of violence is continuing because of BOTH sides here. Yet, to you, Bush is the warmongering terrorist sponser while Ahmedinajad is just "well within his rights to defend himself".

The same exact issue for Palestine and Israel. Why is it that Iran's solution to support a group which encourages suicide bombers walking into cafes, buses, etc with bombs on their backs is right and Israel's decision to defend themselves is wrong? When has violence ever solved anything in Palestine and Israel? Why would constantly talking about only one side to blame solve anything?

Let's say Palestine pushes Israel into the ocean, Space. Would that fix this mess? Why would Palestine beating Israel fix anything on the matter? The violence would just continue until there's no one left to pick up a gun, grenade or the nearest C-4 they can get their hands on.

This is why Mr. Ahmedinajad frequently comes under fire from the press, the UN Security Council and even their own trade partners, Russia and France. The continual propaganda he spouts about one side needing to beat the other side. One side existing while not even acknowledging the other side. This kind of discussion gets us nowhere. War in middle east can only stop when everyone agrees to stop the violence and seek diplomatic peaceful solutions. That won't happen as long as there is a "blame game" going on between Palestine/Israel or Iran & Palestine/USA & Israel.

It's been mentioned many times throughout the past here that Bush goes out of his way to alienate some countries by not agreeing to come to the table all under the "terrorist" agenda. Yet, Ahmedinajad does the same exact thing. He refuses to come to the table and even acknowledge Israel or peace with them and yet he gets no criticism out of you? In the speech you linked in this thread, someone asked the Iranian president about peace with Israel and stopping the violence. He responded to the question by talking about "Peace for Palestine. " and hardly even acknowledging Israel at all in the answer. Why? How does ignoring the other side solve anything in any peace process?

I just can't understand your logic to defend the Iran side wholeheartedly while denouncing the American side of the coin repeatedly any chance you can. I've been trying to understand your stances back and forth for nearly two years now. As I said when this thread began, I usually stay out of these Iran threads. I see no reason to engage you every few days on the subject if all you're doing is making your own political points on the matter. I'd rather go joke around with the others on the forum and have a good time then getting bogged down in a debate with you. But in this case, I had to respond for you saying there was "good points" in that Columbia speech. Ahmedinajad made a crack about homosexuals, didn't acknowledge the abuse of women and called the US terrorists on our own soil. His speech didn't strike me as someone wanting peace and tolerance. I saw no good points there.

So, I responded and here we are. Going back and forth on the issue and getting nowhere real fast. I don't think I could find a quote good enough to have you see how strange it is support Iran, Palestine and Ahmedinajad while condemning USA, Israel and Bush for the exact same issues. I wouldn't do it anyway. It's not this community's job to change your mind on these stances just as you won't change a lot of our minds on the issues at hand.

[sickness]

In the sciences, I would agree with you. Ptolemy's model of the solar system stood for nearly 1500 years due to its accuracy in predicting the apparent motions of the planets and sun and yet it was dead-wrong.

In political and social sciences, I would disagree vehemently. In the end, no matter how much we try to couch our motives in deceptions, we must be the persons we are. It's human nature.

[Space Tycoon]

Has that story you linked above been picked up by ONE credible source of news that doesn't have a "ticker tape message" rolling across? Has Time, CNN, Reuters, AP, BBC, etc picked up the story you linked above?

Oh, which article? The one about the plan to bomb 3000+ targets in Iran, or the one about your government supporting terrorist groups within Iran's borders?

You point out why a direct question and answer from his Columbia speech is disinformation yet provide a link which clearly has an agenda judging by the message "Pursue Peace, Not War with Iran". Credible news sites don't push their agenda, Space.

Bull. Of course they do. Every print and broadcast media has an agenda. It's only natural, for journalists are only human. Some "credible news sites" are so biased it's unbelievable. And you know it.

Perhaps, it is the six pints going through you right now, man, but you calling the US a Terrorist State while backing up Ahmedinajad, Iran and Palestine throughout this thread makes very little sense to me.

I stand by my statement. Both the United States and Iran-- and many other countries around the world-- continue to fund, train, and arm organizations which are variously described as militant, paramilitary, or terrorist, depending on who is doing the labelling.

That is why I cannot understand how you continue to back up men like Ahmedinajad and some of his tyranical policies towards Israel and its people. You're going to bash US Soldiers and the US for having soldiers there in Iraq but then when it comes time to condemn Iran for killing said soldiers by feeding insurgents weapons, bombs and finances..."Well, the US is a Terrorist State. You need to Wake Up, Jarrod"

Bash one side while giving the other side a free pass? When have I ever given Iran a "free pass?" I have always acknowledged the basic evil of any armed action that target civilians. However, in this conflict, the overwehling burden of guilt in that area is on the coalition forces. I have listed in previous threads the staggering death toll in Iraq as a result of the invasion. Iran is arming insurgents fighting an illegal occupation. The United States has also supported rebel forces in many theatres of conflict, from the Balkans to Central Asia to Latin America. Iran's actions are not substantially different from US support for the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan during the war with the Soviet occupation.

You continually start threads about misdeeds from Israel while we never hear a peep about Hamas or someone from Palestine sending a young child into a group of innocent bystanders and blowing himself up. We'll definitely hear about it if Israel or the USA does it but we won't hear from you if they do it? Again, I've never denied the reality of suicide bombings in the Israel/Palestine theatre. Don't make it sound like I have. You're coming perilously close to lying about me.

In any event there are plenty of news sites that one can turn to for information on Hamas, but relatively few who give equal coverage to Israel's ongoing misdeeds. This is wrong to me, so I prefer to focus on that area. If you want to start threads about Hamas, go right ahead and start all the threads you want.


But now, you're calling out the USA as sponsored terrorism while not even acknowleding the other side of the conflict. Again, I'm trying to figure out how I'm supposedly denying the other side of the conflict. :headscratch:


You had a critical comment about the Senate calling a sect of the Iran military terrorists above but you defend the right to call America terrorists from the same issue at hand? I'm sorry but that makes absolutely no sense to me.

I'm one of those old-fashioned people who believes we should have the right to call a spade a spade and criticize the actions of their government. Although of course it isn't my government exactly, but whatever...

The problem with accusing others of promoting "terrorism" is that sooner or later it comes back to bite you in the ass. That's really been my point all along. If the US is serious about ending terrorism, they can start by not promoting it. It's just common sense, which as usual eludes some on this board...

There is no peace in Iraq right now because of both sides here. Well duuuh... :rolleyes:

If Iran wasn't feeding insurgents weaponry (which they don't even deny now), then American soldiers would have nobody to fight and vice versa. WHAT? Nobody to fight? Are you telling me that Iran is the only country supporting insurgents in Iraq? Now I think you're in some kind of heavy denial. Iran is supporting certain factions of the Shi'ite movement. Have you heard of a little country to the south of Iraq called SAUDI ARABIA? They are now supporting many Sunni factions, including some allied with al Qaeda. But rarely is there a peep about that from those "credible news sources" of yours. :smirk:

The never ending circle of violence is continuing because of BOTH sides here. Yet, to you, Bush is the warmongering terrorist sponser while Ahmedinajad is just "well within his rights to defend himself".

Well, if Iran ever invades and occupies Mexico and Canada, maybe that will level the playing field. But in the real world, it is obvious to the man on the street in Iran that disaster is on it's way. Go lecture him about their government's policies, why don't you?

The same exact issue for Palestine and Israel. Why is it that Iran's solution to support a group which encourages suicide bombers walking into cafes, buses, etc with bombs on their backs is right and Israel's decision to defend themselves is wrong? When has violence ever solved anything in Palestine and Israel? Why would constantly talking about only one side to blame solve anything? You may be aware that Hamas actually had held to a 16-month cease-fire with Israel when they were elected in 2006. Israel's response was to impose a punishing embargo on them that took it's toll on the most vulnerable Palestinians, including children.

Israel seems to be able to get away with any atrocity, from the beach party massacre last year, to the Qana massacre, to the everyday humiliation and abuse at each on of it's 500 + military checkpoints in the occupied West Bank. All with the unqualified blessing of the American government and media.

Israel has turned Palestine into one big open air prison camp, and until that changes, my posts will reflect that. If, one day, Washington changes it's one-sided, biased approach to the conflict, rest assured I will be the first to start looking at the Palestinian side with a more critical eye. But for now they are clearly the underdog.

Let's say Palestine pushes Israel into the ocean, Space. Would that fix this mess? Why would Palestine beating Israel fix anything on the matter? The violence would just continue until there's no one left to pick up a gun, grenade or the nearest C-4 they can get their hands on. And that is why I have frequently championed those Palestinian and Israeli leaders and statesmen who are prepared to take a more rational approach to the conflict. People like Marwan Barghouti and Mustafa Barghouti on the Arab side, and Uri Avnery on the Israeli side.

This is why Mr. Ahmedinajad frequently comes under fire from the press, the UN Security Council and even their own trade partners, Russia and France. Yes, and don't forget members of his own government, both the Iranian reformers, and the moderately conservative Mullahs who see him as an emberrassment.

The continual propaganda he spouts about one side needing to beat the other side. One side existing while not even acknowledging the other side. This kind of discussion gets us nowhere. Tell that to the Israelis who refuse to acknowledge that there is any such thing as Palestine or a Palestinian, and therefore no reason to make any serious concessions.

War in middle east can only stop when everyone agrees to stop the violence and seek diplomatic peaceful solutions. That won't happen as long as there is a "blame game" going on between Palestine/Israel or Iran & Palestine/USA & Israel. There will probably always be war of some kind or another in the Middle East, but there is no real reason for it to directly affect the United States. The reason that it does affect the US is because your country has allowed itself to become so deeply embedded in the region and it's politics, due to the influence of the Israel Lobby and the lust for oil.

It's been mentioned many times throughout the past here that Bush goes out of his way to alienate some countries by not agreeing to come to the table all under the "terrorist" agenda. Yet, Ahmedinajad does the same exact thing. He refuses to come to the table and even acknowledge Israel or peace with them and yet he gets no criticism out of you? Okay, now you are lying about me. I wouldn't say I've given him no criticism. That's nonsense. Of course I have. I've described him as an demagogue and an embarrassment whose policies have been detrimental, possibly disasterous to his country.

I really don't know where you get this from Jarrod, and it makes it difficult to have an intelligent discussion with you.

In the speech you linked in this thread, someone asked the Iranian president about peace with Israel and stopping the violence. He responded to the question by talking about "Peace for Palestine. " and hardly even acknowledging Israel at all in the answer. Why? How does ignoring the other side solve anything in any peace process? Again, this was the case with Arafat and Fatah once, they refused to acknowledge Israel's right to exist until cooler, wiser heads prevailed. You have to understand the way the Middle Eastern mind works, it's all about face-saving and presenting the appearance of not backing down.

I just can't understand your logic to defend the Iran side wholeheartedly while denouncing the American side of the coin repeatedly any chance you can. I've been trying to understand your stances back and forth for nearly two years now. As I said when this thread began, I usually stay out of these Iran threads.Actually, I'm trying to poitn out areas where the US could directly benefit from a shift in policy in the Middle East. My concern is for the interests of the American people first and foremost, whose biggest enemy these days appearr to be their own media and government.

I see no reason to engage you every few days on the subject if all you're doing is making your own political points on the matter. Actually my "points" are factual and often backed up with links and sources.

And btw, if you "see no reason to engage," what are you doing here anyway?

I'd rather go joke around with the others on the forum and have a good time then getting bogged down in a debate with you. Well do feel free to fuck off then.

So, I responded and here we are. Going back and forth on the issue and getting nowhere real fast. As I say, no-one's forcing you to be here. You're out of your element anyway. Go off and make poop jokes somewhere instead.


I don't think I could find a quote good enough to have you see how strange it is support Iran, Palestine and Ahmedinajad while condemning USA, Israel and Bush for the exact same issues. Well, I guess you're lying again, I've never "supported" Mahmoud Ahmedinajad, just given him the benefit of the doubt when he is correct, which he has been on certain issues.

You make it sound like I've got his poster on my wall or something.

I wouldn't do it anyway. It's not this community's job to change your mind on these stances just as you won't change a lot of our minds on the issues at hand. "This community" can think for itself, they don't need someone telling them what their "job" is.


I'm sure many of them agree with me.






.

[spammityspam]

You're aware that saying things like "nice try" and demanding that people prove things is really incendiary, right? There are more pleasant ways to express your opinion than inviting attack.

[Nostromo]

President Bush and nearly every single presidential candidate have said they are willing to use force against Iran to prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon, many times.

In a leaked memo, Cheney even expressed a willingness to use small nuclear weapons in such an attack.





.


Damn it man ... even the French want to irradiate some sand. :eek: N

[Space Tycoon]

You're aware that saying things like "nice try" and demanding that people prove things is really incendiary, right? There are more pleasant ways to express your opinion than inviting attack.

Well I regret that my words caused such offence, we throw it back and forth quite a lot here, I thought you would take it in that spirit.






.

[Kaeos]

Yep, Kaeos...Once Ahmadinejad called us a "terrorist" group, it was only a matter of time before the Senate did the same thing his way.


Agreed. And to be fair, I'm honestly really torn about this situation.

Does the guy deserve what he's obviously got coming? In my opinion. Yes. Do the people of Iran deserve what's going to happen to them as a result? NO. (Look at me I'm like donald fucking rumsfeld) IS Ahmadinnerjacket guilty of aiding terrorirsts? Yeah, most likely, directly if not indirectly. But do we HAVE the military assets to throw at them?

Soldiers? No. We're tapped.
Armaments? No build up that we know of.

So what's left?

Air strikes. Carpet bombs. Innocent civilian casualties.

The scariest part? When I heard one of the Fox Noise lap dogs say the work nuclear bunker busters.

WW3 kids. Good luck. Thanks George.

[Space Tycoon]

It's all very well to take the Republicans to task, but once again I must ask... where is the Democratic leadership? Where is the strong stance opposing a new war?

Especially from the front runners for the presidential race.

While you have courageous folks like Senators Gravel and Webb voicing their dissension, you also have the Clinton/Obama/Edwards trio who don't seem to have much of a problem with it.

:OhWell:





.

[DarkJedi]

Well do feel free to fuck off then.

As I say, no-one's forcing you to be here. You're out of your element anyway. Go off and make poop jokes somewhere instead.


Well, I guess you're lying again, I've never "supported" Mahmoud Ahmedinajad, just given him the benefit of the doubt when he is correct, which he has been on certain issues.

You make it sound like I've got his poster on my wall or something.

"This community" can think for itself, they don't need someone telling them what their "job" is.


I'm sure many of them agree with me..

I never said it was their job to think a certain way. You're the one whom has been telling people to "Keep trying", "Wake up", etc. As you say, peoople can think for themselves. They don't need you telling them they they're sleeping like sheep if they don't believe the same things as you.

Furthermore, I warned you not to personally attack me or anyone else over a difference of opinion months ago.

[Space Tycoon]

Furthermore, I warned you not to personally attack me or anyone else over a difference of opinion months ago.

Well then, stop making misleading and dishonest statements about my positions.






.

[spammityspam]

Kaeos, referring to the guy as Ahmedinnerjacket pretty much makes my life.

[DarkJedi]

Well then, stop making misleading and dishonest statements about my positions. .

I never made misleading or dishonest statements about your positions. I asked you pointed questions about your position.

I asked why I or anyone else should take that linked story above serious when it isn't picked up by any other news agency. I asked a question about your position after the last year of you starting threads with the same common theme.

Instead of answering the questions, the very same questions you usually apply towards us in our beliefs, questioning our country, etc...Instead, I get back a "Fuck off" and "You're out of your element" to go along with the "Wake Up", the "Keep Trying" and everything else? Even the "poop jokes" is a bit of a stretch. I said "rather go have fun.." to which everything that equates to be fun in this community is a poop joke? Last I checked, we talk about other things then poop jokes, Space. Personal insults & character attacks on me or anyone else is not allowed.

[Space Tycoon]

Actually, I answered each of your points thoroughly and factually. If you feel insulted by some of my statements that is your problem and frankly I don't care.

It doesn't matter what links I use apparently, since you'll just dismiss it anyway.

I guess you prefer to believe whatever the mass media feeds you, if you want to be a sheep that's your own choice.







.

[DarkJedi]

Agreed. And to be fair, I'm honestly really torn about this situation.

Does the guy deserve what he's obviously got coming? In my opinion. Yes. Do the people of Iran deserve what's going to happen to them as a result? NO. (Look at me I'm like donald fucking rumsfeld) IS Ahmadinnerjacket guilty of aiding terrorirsts? Yeah, most likely, directly if not indirectly. But do we HAVE the military assets to throw at them?

Soldiers? No. We're tapped.
Armaments? No build up that we know of.

So what's left?

Air strikes. Carpet bombs. Innocent civilian casualties.

The scariest part? When I heard one of the Fox Noise lap dogs say the work nuclear bunker busters.

WW3 kids. Good luck. Thanks George.


Correct on all points, Kaeos.

I know nobody wants to harm the Iranian people in this conflict. They don't deserve it. I'd say we have a few more months before any bombings occur though. It will be UN Sanctioned this time around with Iran or it won't happen. I know the UN Security Council is thinking the same things for the Iranian civilian population even if they're none too happy with the country's president. This is shaping up to be a drawn out response by the UN vs. Iran so we still have some time to work things out. It's a matter of everyone agreeing to a point of diplomatic peaceful solutions that's going to be the most difficult barrier around this process.

[Nostromo]

If Thomas Jefferson was on line with us now he'd probably say: "In matters of principle, stand like a rock; in matters of taste, swim with the current." :) N

[Space Tycoon]

I prefer this quote from Jefferson:

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."


If Jefferson were alive today he'd vote for Ron Paul! :cool:






.

[DarkJedi]

Not really. Facts aren't telling people to fuck off, that they're out of their elements, that they are sheep, etc. Asking for a credible backup by AP, Reuters, CNN, etc isn't acting like a sheep, it's asking for a second source of credible information which can confirm your story linked above.

Instead, we get more insults about being sheep for not agreeing with your linked story and the fact that you don't care about calling us out as such...

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."

Great quote. Wish that would be applied towards all nations.

[Space Tycoon]

Since you didn't answer me the first time, which article exactly are you referring to?




.

[DarkJedi]

Not sure why there is confusion on that one. I quoted the link in post #56.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6909

This site has a rolling ticker across asking "Pursue peace, not War with Iran".

Great as that message is, this is not something a credible unbiased news publication would put at the top of their website. That's why I asked if this news story has been picked up by any of the credible agencies such as AP, Acencie France, Reuters...Anything which has credentials in World News. This is a question anyone would ask after such a news story. They would look for some sort of confirmation from a credible source..Instead, we got the sheep comment.

[Space Tycoon]

If it's Project Checkmate you're referring to, here's the story in the Times Online Edition. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2512097.ece)


If it's the Mujahedeen al-Khalq terrorists being supported by the US in Iran, here's one article in Haaretz, (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/763287.html) the biggest Israeli newspaper, actually endorsing them; here's a article picked up by Knight Ridder (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002112520_iran08.html)confirming it, and another picked up by UPI. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2005/050126-iran-game.htm)

There are many other reports about the MEK, many of which can be found on this page. (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=mujahedeen-e_khalq)










.

[DarkJedi]

I was referring to someone backing up the "nuclear" strike as your first article listed...You titled the link to the article "Nukes Headed for Iran: Air Force refused to fly weapons to Middle East theater"..

You then put up the quote ...

WMR has learned from military sources on both sides of the Atlantic that there was a definite connection between Israel's OPERATION ORCHARD and BENT SPEAR involving the B-52 that flew the six nuclear-armed cruise missiles from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota to Barksdale. There is also a connection between these two events as the Pentagon's highly-classified PROJECT CHECKMATE, a compartmented U.S. Air Force program that has been working on an attack plan for Iran since June 2007, around the same time that Cheney was working on the joint Israeli-U.S. attack scenario on Iran.

PROJECT CHECKMATE was leaked in an article by military analyst Eric Margolis in the Rupert Murdoch-owned newspaper, the /Times of London/, is a program that involves over two dozen Air Force officers and is headed by Brig. Gen. Lawrence Stutzriem and his chief civilian adviser, Dr. Lani Kass, a former Israeli military intelligence officer who, astoundingly, is now involved in planning a joint U.S.-Israeli massive military attack on Iran that involves a "decapitating" blow on Iran by hitting between three to four thousand targets in the country. Stutzriem and Kass report directly to the Air Force Chief of Staff, General Michael Moseley, who has also been charged with preparing a report on the B-52/nuclear weapons incident.

Kass' area of speciality is cyber-warfare, which includes ensuring "information blockades," such as that imposed by the Israeli government on the Israeli media regarding the Syrian air attack on the alleged Syrian "nuclear installation." British intelligence sources have reported that the Israeli attack on Syria was a "true flag" attack originally designed to foreshadow a U.S. attack on Iran. After the U.S. Air Force push back against transporting the six cruise nuclear-armed AGM-129s to the Middle East, Israel went ahead with its attack on Syria in order to help ratchet up tensions between Washington on one side and Damascus, Tehran, and Pyongyang on the other.

The other part of CHECKMATE's brief is to ensure that a media "perception management" is waged against Syria, Iran, and North Korea. This involves articles such as that which appeared with Joby Warrick's and Walter Pincus' bylines in yesterdays /Washington Post/. The article, titled "The Saga of a Bent Spear," quotes a number of seasoned Air Force nuclear weapons experts as saying that such an incident is unprecedented in the history of the Air Force. For example, Retired Air Force General Eugene Habiger, the former chief of the U.S. Strategic Command, said he has been in the "nuclear business" since 1966 and has never been aware of an incident "more disturbing."

Command and control breakdowns involving U.S. nuclear weapons are unprecedented, except for that fact that the U.S. military is now waging an internal war against neo-cons who are embedded in the U.S. government and military chain of command who are intent on using nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive war with Iran.


I agree that the Times Online and Seattle Times links you've provided above are at least established news sources, Space..(The Haarezt article consists solely of a Iranian Studies professor of Georgetown saying we should side with the MEK)..Still, I see no mention of a plan to Fly Nukes in the Middle East Theater. I see no other news sites quoting that bit of information.

If the USA was currently planning on flying nukes into any possible war campaign against Iran, every news agency in the world would pick up the story. There certainly wouldn't be any support in the UN, the EU, etc. Nobody wants to introduce nuclear warfare here into the equation. That's why I had an issue with the article. It's clearly subjective point of view and introducing target "key words" that bring fear to anyone's hearts.

Here's the article which is the basis of that quote above..

(From the Times of London)

THE United States Air Force has set up a highly confidential strategic planning group tasked with “fighting the next war” as tensions rise with Iran.

Project Checkmate, a successor to the group that planned the 1991 Gulf War’s air campaign, was quietly reestablished at the Pentagon in June.

It reports directly to General Michael Moseley, the US Air Force chief, and consists of 20-30 top air force officers and defence and cyberspace experts with ready access to the White House, the CIA and other intelligence agencies.

Related Links
The men planning America's next air war
Detailed contingency planning for a possible attack on Iran has been carried out for more than two years by Centcom (US central command), according to defence sources.

Checkmate’s job is to add a dash of brilliance to Air Force thinking by countering the military’s tendency to “fight the last war” and by providing innovative strategies for warfighting and assessing future needs for air, space and cyberwarfare.

It is led by Brigadier-General Lawrence “Stutz” Stutzriem, who is considered one of the brightest air force generals. He is assisted by Dr Lani Kass, a former Israeli military officer and expert on cyberwarfare.

The failure of United Nations sanctions to curtail Iran’s nuclear ambitions, which Tehran claims are peaceful, is giving rise to an intense debate about the likelihood of military strikes.

Bernard Kouchner, the French foreign minister, said last week that it was “necessary to prepare for the worst . . . and the worst is war”. He later qualified his remarks, saying he wanted to avoid that outcome.

France has joined America in pushing for a tough third sanctions resolution against Iran at the UN security council but is meeting strong resistance from China and Russia. Britain has been doing its best to bridge the gap, but it is increasingly likely that new sanctions will be implemented by a US-led “coalition of the willing”.

Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who arrives in New York for the United Nations general assembly today, has been forced to abandon plans to visit ground zero, where the World Trade Center stood until the September 11 attacks of 2001. Politicians from President George W Bush to Senator Hillary Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner in the 2008 race for the White House, were outraged by the prospect of a visit to New York’s most venerated site by a “state sponsor” of terrorism.

Bush still hopes to isolate Iran diplomatically, but believes the regime is moving steadily closer to obtaining nuclear weapons while the security council bickers.

The US president faces strong opposition to military action, however, within his own joint chiefs of staff. “None of them think it is a good idea, but they will do it if they are told to,” said a senior defence source.

General John Abizaid, the former Centcom commander, said last week: “Every effort should be made to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, but failing that, the world could live with a nuclear-armed Iran.”

Critics fear Abizaid has lost sight of Iran’s potential to arm militant groups such as Hezbollah with nuclear weapons. “You can deter Iran, but there is no strategy against nuclear terrorism,” said the retired air force Lieutenant General Thomas McInerney of the Iran policy committee.

“There is no question that we can take out Iran. The problem is the follow-on, the velvet revolution that needs to be created so the Iranian people know it’s not aimed at them, but at the Iranian regime.”

Checkmate’s freethinking mission is “to provide planning inputs to warfighters that are strategically, operationally and tactically sound, logistically supportable and politically feasible”. Its remit is not specific to one country, according to defence sources, but its forward planning is thought relevant to any future air war against Iranian nuclear and military sites. It is also looking at possible threats from China and North Korea.

Checkmate was formed in the 1970s to counter Soviet threats but fell into disuse in the 1980s. It was revived under Colonel John Warden and was responsible for drawing up plans for the crushing air blitz against Saddam Hussein at the opening of the first Gulf war.

Warden told The Sunday Times: “When Saddam invaded Kuwait, we had access to unlimited numbers of people with expertise, including all the intelligence agencies, and were able to be significantly more agile than Centcom.”

He believes that Checkmate’s role is to develop the necessary expertise so that “if somebody says Iran, it says: ‘here is what you need to think about’. Here are the objectives, here are the risks, here is what it will cost, here are the numbers of planes we will lose, here is how the war is going to end and here is what the peace will look like”.

Warden added: “The Centcoms of this world are executional – they don’t have the staff, the expertise or the responsibility to do the thinking that is needed before a country makes the decision to go to war. War planning is not just about bombs, airplanes and sailing boats.”


"to provide planning inputs to warfighters that are strategically, operationally and tactically sound, logistically supportable and politically feasible.."

Flying in nukes isn't politically feasible. That's why I questioned your link introducing such a scenario. That's why I asked for credible backup. If we were planning on striking Iran with nukes from a B-52 bomber campaign, it would have been said in every news agency and our allies would be quick to abandon us. Nobody would side with a nuclear strike against Iran.

[Space Tycoon]

Cheney and others want to use nukes. And he's the one basically in charge at the White House:

Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh writing in the New Yorker:

The Iran Plans (http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/04/17/060417fa_fact?printable=true)

One of the military’s initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites. One target is Iran’s main centrifuge plant, at Natanz, nearly two hundred miles south of Tehran.

From the British paper The Telegraph:

Bush setting America up for war with Iran (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/16/wiran116.xml)

The vice president is said to advocate the use of bunker-busting tactical nuclear weapons against Iran's nuclear sites. His allies dispute this, but Mr Cheney is understood to be lobbying for air strikes if sites can be identified where Revolutionary Guard units are training Shia militias.




Face it, it's not as impossible or even improbable as you think it is.







.

[Kaeos]

I'd say we have a few more months before any bombings occur though. It will be UN Sanctioned this time around with Iran or it won't happen. I know the UN Security Council is thinking the same things for the Iranian civilian population even if they're none too happy with the country's president. This is shaping up to be a drawn out response by the UN vs. Iran so we still have some time to work things out. It's a matter of everyone agreeing to a point of diplomatic peaceful solutions that's going to be the most difficult barrier around this process.

Here's the problem man. While what you said here makes sense in a broader perspective, a really close look into the bill that passed this week (if you can muddle through the pages and pages of bullshit) says in no uncertain terms that we can and will do what we want, when we want against Iran as we see fit to defend our interests in Iraq.

It's a bitch to find it, but it's there.

Dude, once you find the specific language in the bill, it's clear that we will move without waiting for the UN to sort things out peacefully.

I wish BELIEVE me I wish I was wrong here, and hopefully this will fall together where I WILL be wrong. But my gut tells me I'm not.

:(

[DarkJedi]

There is absolutely no way a President of the US (especially an outgoing president) will launch a Nuclear strike against Iran in this politicial climate. There is no chance at all such an extreme measure would be approved by the people of the US, our House, our Senate, our Allies. The UK would never approve a nuke strike. Certainly not Japan. The US would face UN sanctions and much more, possibly destruction of our own, should we ever unilaterally nuke someone in this day and age. The first and last time a nuke was used by anyone was WWII and yet we're even discussing this option here as a possibility?

Kaeos, I know the fear you have for the language of that bill passed. It's understandable but we've never needed UN approval before calling a war. Still, that's not the point. The mere fact that the Senate passed the bill is what is causing the stress here, right? Do you think that a Democrat-led Congress will approve a lame duck president who's out the door in under 2 years to go to war with Iran by ourselves without UN help or at the very least, Ally Help? In the middle of "primary" season? This is a Democrat-led congress which was elected by the American people to help restore the balance between the legislative and executive branch. This is a congress which is trying to meet an agreement to bring our soldiers home (at least, a sizeable chunk of them) from Iraq by the end of next year and was elected for the most part by denouncing Bush for going to war without the UN's help and more allies. That's the whole reason they're in power now, remember? They wouldn't do the exact same thing as Bush and the Republican congress, not in the middle of a primary season where they're trying to gain the White House. Take a breather, man. :)