Thread: Neocons Baiting Iran With Second Strike Group

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Supporting Hezbollah in Lebannon in the shelling of Israel on a daily basis these are not just troops but civilians that have absolutely nothing to do with Israeli armed forces? This is reaching out?

.... during the last wonderfull centuary, the word "terror" was slowly dis-associated from the regular forces and stamped on the irregular forces. During WWII, the Nazi terrorized the whole Europe but we never call them terrorists. Why? because they wear cool uniforms, had a legitimite nation and had organization and a national army.

Terror for me is the act of terrorizing a population by acts of violence and unlike most Americans I dont follow black-and-white rule that only a irregular forces can be terrorists .... for example I call the following acts as terror acts

British bombings of German city Dresden as terror attack

American bombings of Hanoi as terror attack

Lebenese rocket attacks of Haifa as terror attack

German blitz on London as terror attack

Japanese rape and pillaging of Nanking as terror attack

America fire bombing of Tokyo as terror attack

Mujaheddin rocket firing against Soviet controlled-Kabul as terror attack

Israel 500% accurate laser-guided bombing of Palestineans as terror attack

Taliban mortar firing against American controlled-Kabul as terror attack


... ofcouse in your case the only terror acts are from the enemies of the States.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

They still allow foreign fighters into the country to oppose U.S. troops and other nations troops and funded and supplied several of their terror groups through their republican (Revolutionary guard) guard. U.S. intell has shown this to be true no matter which reports you read or watch.

That is fine I am not denying Iranian involvement. What would the United States to if there 300,000 Russian troops in Canada and that the Canadian government was legally replaced by a new regime called People's Republic of Canada. What would a US president do, if he were to find out about Russian nuclear warhead in latin America during Cold War. The concept shouldnt be alien to you. There are 120,000 US troops next to Iran. That is a direct military threat to the government in Tehran. Just like the presence of 150,000 Soviet troops in Afghanistan was a direct threat to Pakistani government ... we all know of US involvement in that ....

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Frankly, hardline Bush stance against Iran was decisive in the election of Ahamdinejad.

I agree

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Thank you as we can see the "Bush" stance reinforces the fact that Cheyney could not have made that call with out Bush's approval. Than point is now validated.

I believe Cheney's intrest was purely on Iraq

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Frankly I dont care who he is. He is an evil man that does nothing but antogonize the situation there and for one meaning. Hatred.

I completely agree ...

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Calling for destruction and hatred against those of a Jewish decent and those who WILL stop him before he becomes in possesion of arms suitable to do the job he would be more then happy to see accomplished.

well this one you got it wrong .... as you may or may not know there are over 30,000 Jewish people in Iran. Do you not think that if he hated Jews he would have started with those first .... his unholy quarrel is with Israel. and that is only for propoganda means to show himself be the leader of the "Free world from zionist etc etc" .. you know the same rhetoric that Bush throws out

anyways as far as arms in concern .... do you really think that as soon as the first nuclear warhead is ready.. he will cap it on a Shahab missile and signe it "Ahmadinejad with Love" and send it to Israel ... please be reasonable ...

any powerfull strike against Israel will be cause the total desctruction of Iran. that should be obvious to you.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Umm excuse me Iraq seems very much still there although it is missing its dictator and his friends.

ohh i see it is okay to physically wipe out a particular regime but not okay to "verbally" to say wipe out a nation

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

1) In the very first Gulf conflict the U.S. could have easily taken Bagdad when Saddam first invaded Kuwait and chose not to do so. That basically gave him another chance.

no .... that is your conclusion and your reasoning that makes America ever looks like a good guy.

My reasoning is that they did not, b/c they didnt have another one to replace him right then and in anyways the Soviet Union stil existed back then .. America could not have invaded the a client-state of USSR without some heavy bribes ... that was the case untill the fall of the Soviet Union, the world of one superpower and the Wolfwitz Doctrine ...

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

2) The U.S. did nothing to Tehran during the invasion of Iraq except expect it to mind its own business and not allow anybody across its borders.

so what ... Hitler allowed USSR mind its own business when it was raping Poland, then came France, the came USSR and then he declare war against USA in dec 1941.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

However Tehran opened their arms to Sadaams loyalists and allowed them to fight an insurgancy from within their borders

That is the most false, the most absurd lie I have ever heard. Is this case that Bush will take US to war against Iran. They use the samething with Al-qaida and Iraq link back in the 2003, except that Al-qaida which is an islamist entity does not deal with secular Iraq and Iran a shia-dominante does not deal with Bathist.

I am sorry now you have shown that you are quite unreasonable. and BTW it is called Revoltionary Guard not republican guard.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

and their republican guard (Revoltionary Guard) were only to happy to comply by supplying them with arms and money.

that is an absurd lie .. please do some proper research with historical background.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

By arming Hezbollah and funding them in Lebannon they attempt to shake the government and yet dont want Hezbollah to settle their differences with the government causing nothing but chaos and death.

And america with its 2003 invasion of Iraq did not cause anything but chaos and death

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

3) The assisant Secretary of State can say whatever the hell he wants but can do absolutely nothing to implement such an action. He falls low on the totem pole as far as giving orders to anybody especially those kind of orders.

I agree

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

When you have a president say this such as in Irans case...He can implement it not just say it. This is also moot in argument..

I agree that he shouldnt say it ... but I disagree on the implementation part

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

4) Saddam was given every single chance there was after diplomacy,diplomacy diplomacy and he chose his own path. Saddaam still viewed Kuwait as Iraq's 19th provice. The U.S. would not allow him the chance to go back into Kuwait and annex it unto himself. Saddam would not be forthcoming in nuclear inspections and still taunt the U.S. until the end when he fell from power. He could have remained in power had he been forthcoming but as we all know he wasnt. And its not like he wasnt given MULTIPLE chances.

yes ... dont forget how evil Saddam regime was to his people ...

yes those are the case why officially US went to the trouble of war against Iraq

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

That is in by no way shape or form "whiping a nation from the map" its removing a dictator that has zero respect for his neighbors and harbors outlawed programs. Outside of killing of numerous thousands by use of biologial/chemical weapons on villages. Yeah he should stay in power.

now why werent the American so naive and awefully nice back in the 80s

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Not just Americans my friend your missing every other nation out there in you above comment including your very own.

I absolutly agree

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

And you know this beyond intelligence services that say different in the very near future? Amazing.

where were does intelligence services when France was helping Iraq to build a nuclear weapon in the 80s?? ... my friend developping a small nuclear warhard that can fit on a ballistic missile is not as easy the headline reads "Iran will bombs tomorrow"

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

They have no capability to do so? In what sense is this to be taken? They cant produce it or they cant deliver it please clarify? For we already have a good idea they CAN deliver it as far as Israel.

yes the infamous Shahab-3 ... somewhat inaccurate I would say ... but again fitting a nuclear warhead on the top of a ballistic missile is totally different game then fitting a conventional warhead. All these takes years to master ... ofcouse if we have some help like the Israeli did, it would go much faster. Even when it is done, Iran's will just about be equal with Israel. As you may know Israel had Jericho missiles fitted with nuclear warhead along with submarine capable of delivery pointed to Tehran for a rainy day. So it is a fair game ...

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

This "person" says that he represents the Republican guard but his reins are held by the ruling religious theocracy as he as in me has stated before previously.

Again it is called the revolutionary guards. and this person has name called XERXES. The office of president is shadowed by that of Supreme leader who was the authrity to declare war, to make peace and to mobolize the armed forces.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Newsflash: No kidding?

I am sorry was the ship named Robet Samul an airliner?? .. then why should Iran pay for its crew ....

also when Iraq fired a exocet missile toward USS Stark which killed 37, why didnt the US warship did carry out military strikes against Iraq at that time??? ... is it being biased

just that all this nice repartitions happened years later, in fact that US government totally denied shooting down anyplane when it happened. Only after the dead bodies were recovered that it said something. George Bush senior himself the vice-president back then said and I quote "I dont care about the cicumstances, i dont care about the facts, we will never apoloigze for it"

btw i dont blame the American nor the I do blame the Iranian ... sh1t do happens in conflicts

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

When you mine a waterway known for the use of international oil tankers and use hostile intentions to enforce said waterway when these tankers are under U.S. escort. It is an act of war.

It was Iraq that stared the Tanker war.... not Iran. I might add with US blessing. That what i meant that it will submerg the thread as you will try to represent that US-case being the very neutral case and I will try to answer that. ....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnought
Supporting Hezbollah in Lebannon in the shelling of Israel on a daily basis these are not just troops but civilians that have absolutely nothing to do with Israeli armed forces? This is reaching out?

.... during the last wonderfull centuary, the word "terror" was slowly dis-associated from the regular forces and stamped on the irregular forces. During WWII, the Nazi terrorized the whole Europe but we never call them terrorists. Why? because they wear cool uniforms, had a legitimite nation and had organization and a national army.

Your problem not mine.

Terror for me is the act of terrorizing a population by acts of violence and unlike most Americans I dont follow black-and-white rule that only a irregular forces can be terrorists .... for example I call the following acts as terror acts


You dont know **** about most Americans nor their beliefs and show it in your criticisms. I do not represent most Americans or all Americans these are my thoughts only.

British bombings of German city Dresden as terror attack -WAR

American bombings of Hanoi as terror attack - WAR

Lebenese rocket attacks of Haifa as terror attack

German blitz on London as terror attack -WAR

Japanese rape and pillaging of Nanking as terror attack-UNKNOWN

America fire bombing of Tokyo as terror attack-WAR UNDOUBTABLY WAR
And they deserved it well for what they did at Pearl.

Mujaheddin rocket firing against Soviet controlled-Kabul as terror attack -UNKNOWN

Israel 500% accurate laser-guided bombing of Palestineans as terror attack-UNKNOWN

Taliban mortar firing against American controlled-Kabul as terror attack-WOT


... ofcouse in your case the only terror acts are from the enemies of the States

You show your IGNORANCE right there...no surprise.

Frankly, hardline Bush stance against Iran was decisive in the election of Ahamdinejad

I didnt post that in any way shape or form. That would be your post#23 Certainly not my thoughts or post.

well this one you got it wrong .... as you may or may not know there are over 30,000 Jewish people in Iran. Do you not think that if he hated Jews he would have started with those first .... his unholy quarrel is with Israel. and that is only for propoganda means to show himself be the leader of the "Free world from zionist etc etc" .. you know the same rhetoric that Bush throws out

Umm its common knowledge that Iran is host to a large Jewish community. Not as large as its neighbor but none the less commonly known. That is why we laugh at the clown Iran has as president. Where its rhetoric or not hes an ******* for insulting his own people and a disgrace.


anyways as far as arms in concern .... do you really think that as soon as the first nuclear warhead is ready.. he will cap it on a Shahab missile and signe it "Ahmadinejad with Love" and send it to Israel ... please be reasonable ...

I will point out this article as possibilities on how they may acheive such a weapon. Not the rocket but the Uranium. The rocket is the easy part.

iWon News - Russia Silent on Georgian Uranium Sting

And who do we know has been suppling their weaponry lately?

Are you going to tell me that through your "vast" knowledge of the American people and our politics that this should not be a concern? Or is it I "view it in black and white" that I view this as a concern.


any powerfull strike against Israel will be cause the total desctruction of Iran. that should be obvious to you.

Well I do know that it probably would come from Israel "my best friend" and not the U.S.. And even Israel I dare say probably wouldn't go nuclear after consultations with its neighbors.


ohh i see it is okay to physically wipe out a particular regime but not okay to "verbally" to say wipe out a nation

When you dont allow the Atomic Inspectors in and play games for years at a time and continue your rhetoric and use the U.N. oil for food program as a black market who can you blame but yourself when you regime gets fumbled?

where were does intelligence services when France was helping Iraq to build a nuclear weapon in the 80s?? ... my friend developping a small nuclear warhard that can fit on a ballistic missile is not as easy the headline reads "Iran will bombs tomorrow"

Thanks but im just a little more educated then that.

no .... that is your conclusion and your reasoning that makes America ever looks like a good guy.

You show me in the previous posts where I claim Americans as the good guy.
I said we will do whats necessary not that we were the "good guy".

Your showing your ignorance once again.

That is the most false, the most absurd lie I have ever heard. Is this case that Bush will take US to war against Iran. They use the samething with Al-qaida and Iraq link back in the 2003, except that Al-qaida which is an islamist entity does not deal with secular Iraq and Iran a shia-dominante does not deal with Bathist.

Not likely. So you are saying that none of Saddams loyalist fled to or through Iran when Iraq collapsed?

now why werent the American so naive and awefully nice back in the 80s

Umm because you had the Soviets on the flip side of the coin. National interests Im sure you are familiar with that.

that is an absurd lie .. please do some proper research with historical background

The shaped charges being used in Iraq and in Lebannon come from no other place then Iran. Intelligence knows it and have gone as far as releasing this about Iranians found in Iraq.

Report: Bush authorizes targeting Iranians in Iraq - CNN.com

The office of president is shadowed by that of Supreme leader who was the authrity to declare war, to make peace and to mobolize the armed forces.

Hey I never said i was an expert on Irans government.

My reasoning is that they did not, b/c they didnt have another one to replace him right then and in anyways the Soviet Union stil existed back then .. America could not have invaded the a client-state of USSR without some heavy bribes ... that was the case untill the fall of the Soviet Union, the world of one superpower and the Wolfwitz Doctrine

Proof? Links....

To me 1) Loud mouth + 1) Religious whackjob= two targets to whomever they push over the edge with their threats. Dont bother me in the least.

I am sorry was the ship named Robet Samul an airliner?? .. then why should Iran pay for its crew ....

Why should the U.S. pay for the plane using your above idealism.

also when Iraq fired a exocet missile toward USS Stark which killed 37, why didnt the US warship did carry out military strikes against Iraq at that time??? ... is it being biased

They apoligized to the U.S. and the U.S. accepted unlike Iran when the U.S. apoligized and paid them compensation.

just that all this nice repartitions happened years later, in fact that US government totally denied shooting down anyplane when it happened. Only after the dead bodies were recovered that it said something. George Bush senior himself the vice-president back then said and I quote "I dont care about the cicumstances, i dont care about the facts, we will never apoloigze for it"

I dont blame him they never apoligized for the Roberts. Although we did for the plane even know it was unaccepted and paid for the passengers we never got an apology.

It was Iraq that stared the Tanker war.... not Iran. I might add with US blessing. That what i meant that it will submerg the thread as you will try to represent that US-case being the very neutral case and I will try to answer that.

The Roberts sailed with a Kuwaiti flagged tanker not an Iraq flagged tanked and was not there for any other reason but escort. After so many tankers were sunk. Closing the gulf cuts off nations like U.S. Europe and Japan at the time.

I am sorry now you have shown that you are quite unreasonable. and BTW it is called Revoltionary Guard not republican guard.

You know since you have been here all of what (73 posts)? Ive taken your jabs and ignorance. As I have been here quite longer I think the people here find me quite reasonable so thats not saying much for yourself nor your "view" now run along because im about through being "unreasonable" with you!

And if thats not "grey enough for you" as all we Americans as you say think "Black and White" then Im sure I can find other terms to put it in.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnought
Supporting Hezbollah in Lebannon in the shelling of Israel on a daily basis these are not just troops but civilians that have absolutely nothing to do with Israeli armed forces? This is reaching out?

.... during the last wonderfull centuary, the word "terror" was slowly dis-associated from the regular forces and stamped on the irregular forces. During WWII, the Nazi terrorized the whole Europe but we never call them terrorists. Why? because they wear cool uniforms, had a legitimite nation and had organization and a national army.

Your problem not mine.

fair enough ....

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Terror for me is the act of terrorizing a population by acts of violence and unlike most Americans I dont follow black-and-white rule that only a irregular forces can be terrorists .... for example I call the following acts as terror acts


You dont know **** about most Americans nor their beliefs and show it in your criticisms. I do not represent most Americans or all Americans these are my thoughts only.

British bombings of German city Dresden as terror attack -WAR

American bombings of Hanoi as terror attack - WAR

Lebenese rocket attacks of Haifa as terror attack

German blitz on London as terror attack -WAR

Japanese rape and pillaging of Nanking as terror attack-UNKNOWN

America fire bombing of Tokyo as terror attack-WAR UNDOUBTABLY WAR
And they deserved it well for what they did at Pearl.

Mujaheddin rocket firing against Soviet controlled-Kabul as terror attack -UNKNOWN

Israel 500% accurate laser-guided bombing of Palestineans as terror attack-UNKNOWN

Taliban mortar firing against American controlled-Kabul as terror attack-WOT

... ofcouse in your case the only terror acts are from the enemies of the States

You show your IGNORANCE right there...no surprise.

unlikely ... the concept of terrorising population applies wether you are at war or not. I found it intresting that in the case of Sino-Japanese war and the Vietnam war which were both undeclared wars - you classified the Japanese massacre at Nanjing as "Unknown", whereas you classified that US bombing of Hanoi as "War"? ... defining what "war" is important. But once you have defined it you have to stick to that definition.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

well this one you got it wrong .... as you may or may not know there are over 30,000 Jewish people in Iran. Do you not think that if he hated Jews he would have started with those first .... his unholy quarrel is with Israel. and that is only for propoganda means to show himself be the leader of the "Free world from zionist etc etc" .. you know the same rhetoric that Bush throws out

Umm its common knowledge that Iran is host to a large Jewish community. Not as large as its neighbor (that is wrong) but none the less commonly known. That is why we laugh at the clown Iran has as president. Where its rhetoric or not hes an ******* for insulting his own people and a disgrace.

a disgrace and a clown he is indeed ... Actually only Turkey and Iran have a large Jewish community and Iran case the number stands around 20,000 - not 30,000 (my mistake)

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

anyways as far as arms in concern .... do you really think that as soon as the first nuclear warhead is ready.. he will cap it on a Shahab missile and signe it "Ahmadinejad with Love" and send it to Israel ... please be reasonable ...

I will point out this article as possibilities on how they may acheive such a weapon. Not the rocket but the Uranium. The rocket is the easy part.

iWon News - Russia Silent on Georgian Uranium Sting

And who do we know has been suppling their weaponry lately?

no you misunderstood ... my point very clearly stated in what I said ... "do you really think that as soon as the first nuclear warhead is ready.. he will cap it on a Shahab missile and signe it "Ahmadinejad with Love" and send it to Israel"

About your sources, wether they are correct or not I cannot say but I am sure there is lot going on in the blackmarket regarding Iran's program

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Are you going to tell me that through your "vast" knowledge of the American people and our politics that this should not be a concern? Or is it I "view it in black and white" that I view this as a concern.

I never once said I had "vast" knowledge of the American people and your politics ... and to use your own words, unless you can back this up with a source that I had said that, please do not put it. About your question, it should definitly be a concern from a superpower (US) point of view, espacially since it has a lot of intrests in the region.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Well I do know that it probably would come from Israel "my best friend" and not the U.S.. And even Israel I dare say probably wouldn't go nuclear after consultations with its neighbors.

Ofcourse it will come from Israel. But regardless the destructive outcome would be the same wether the nukes are launched from America, Israel or Santa Clause. So accoding to you Israel will consult Lebenon, Syria, Egypt and the Palestinean Authority before launching a retalitory nuclear strike?????

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

ohh i see it is okay to physically wipe out a particular regime but not okay to "verbally" to say wipe out a nation

When you dont allow the Atomic Inspectors in and play games for years at a time and continue your rhetoric and use the U.N. oil for food program as a black market who can you blame but yourself when you regime gets fumbled?

ofcourse not ... I cannot blame.
Theoritical question: would a joint adventure between US and Iran be allowed to change a regime in Israel, because they dont allow the Atomic Inspectors in and play games for years

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

where were does intelligence services when France was helping Iraq to build a nuclear weapon in the 80s?? ... my friend developping a small nuclear warhard that can fit on a ballistic missile is not as easy the headline reads "Iran will bombs tomorrow"

Thanks but im just a little more educated then that.

I didnot mean to offend, rather meant to point out something ...

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

no .... that is your conclusion and your reasoning that makes America ever looks like a good guy.

You show me in the previous posts where I claim Americans as the good guy.
I said we will do whats necessary not that we were the "good guy".

Your showing your ignorance once again.

I agree that you will do whats necessary for your intrests as would Iran do whats necessary for their intrests as would Mongolia do whats necessary for their intrests

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

That is the most false, the most absurd lie I have ever heard. Is this case that Bush will take US to war against Iran. They use the samething with Al-qaida and Iraq link back in the 2003, except that Al-qaida which is an islamist entity does not deal with secular Iraq and Iran a shia-dominante does not deal with Bathist.

Not likely. So you are saying that none of Saddams loyalist fled to or through Iran when Iraq collapsed?

If you had told me that most of the members of hizbollah fled to Iran, I would definitly believe you ... in case of Bathist I do not believe because it is like saying that most of the remnant of Nazi regime in Germany fled to Soviet Union. Simply put secular Bathism and Shia-dominated dont go together well at all. I find it actually amusing that people could comeup with such non-sense, just almost as funny as the Al-qaida link with secular Iraq was back in 2003. My guess is that you have asked me "So you are saying that none of Saddams loyalist fled to or through Iran when Iraq collapsed" .. and waiting for me to YES, so that you could put your link and source.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

now why werent the American so naive and awefully nice back in the 80s

Umm because you had the Soviets on the flip side of the coin. National interests Im sure you are familiar with that.

yes ... I have heard this many times before. Whenever something bad comesup ... ohh that was the cold war.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

that is an absurd lie .. please do some proper research with historical background

The shaped charges being used in Iraq and in Lebannon come from no other place then Iran. Intelligence knows it and have gone as far as releasing this about Iranians found in Iraq.
Report: Bush authorizes targeting Iranians in Iraq - CNN.com

Again in case of Lebannon I fully agree and in case of Iraq if we are talking about the Shina-dominated southern Iraq I agree again. But not that idiotic BS that is being fedup in this forum that Iran is financing the sunni inserrgency. Correct me if I am wrong, but the southern Iraq there are mostly British and non-American troops.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

The office of president is shadowed by that of Supreme leader who was the authrity to declare war, to make peace and to mobolize the armed forces.

Hey I never said i was an expert on Irans government.

It was only meant to give you more data .. not to say to you know or dont know something

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

My reasoning is that they did not, b/c they didnt have another one to replace him right then and in anyways the Soviet Union stil existed back then .. America could not have invaded the a client-state of USSR without some heavy bribes ... that was the case untill the fall of the Soviet Union, the world of one superpower and the Wolfwitz Doctrine

Proof? Links....

To me 1) Loud mouth + 1) Religious whackjob= two targets to whomever they push over the edge with their threats. Dont bother me in the least.

You will excuse me but i didnt understand whay you just said here ....

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

I am sorry was the ship named Robet Samul an airliner?? .. then why should Iran pay for its crew ....

Why should the U.S. pay for the plane using your above idealism.

again ... please do show me when did i said that US should pay or for that matter not pay for the plane ... in case of above i was refering to its crew and not the ship itself

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

also when Iraq fired a exocet missile toward USS Stark which killed 37, why didnt the US warship did carry out military strikes against Iraq at that time??? ... is it being biased

They apoligized to the U.S. and the U.S. accepted unlike Iran when the U.S. apoligized and paid them compensation.

Are you sure that US National interests didnot play a key role in those events. Im sure you are familiar with concept of National interests.

I dont agree with what Iran did and the fact that they didnot apologize for it. But then again US made it more then even in the weeks after, .. now that is not say that they should not have apologized at all. Also remember that US apology in case of the airlinear was NOT overnight. Perhapes one day cooler heads will prevail in the capitals of the world and incidents like this wont happen.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

just that all this nice repartitions happened years later, in fact that US government totally denied shooting down anyplane when it happened. Only after the dead bodies were recovered that it said something. George Bush senior himself the vice-president back then said and I quote "I dont care about the cicumstances, i dont care about the facts, we will never apoloigze for it"

I dont blame him they never apoligized for the Roberts. Although we did for the plane even know it was unaccepted and paid for the passengers we never got an apology.

It was Iraq that stared the Tanker war.... not Iran. I might add with US blessing. That what i meant that it will submerg the thread as you will try to represent that US-case being the very neutral case and I will try to answer that.

The Roberts sailed with a Kuwaiti flagged tanker not an Iraq flagged tanked and was not there for any other reason but escort. After so many tankers were sunk. Closing the gulf cuts off nations like U.S. Europe and Japan at the time.

Kuwaiti flagged tanker that transports Iraqi oil ... a little conviniant. I remember the British mining the coast of Norway in an attempt to aid their war effort in WWII. was that illegal?? ... i would think yes, but a nation at war has to do all it can.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

I am sorry now you have shown that you are quite unreasonable. and BTW it is called Revoltionary Guard not republican guard.

You know since you have been here all of what (73 posts)? Ive taken your jabs and ignorance. As I have been here quite longer I think the people here find me quite reasonable so thats not saying much for yourself nor your "view" now run along because im about through being "unreasonable" with you!

And if thats not "grey enough for you" as all we Americans as you say think "Black and White" then Im sure I can find other terms to put it in.

Frankly, i couldnt care less what the "audiance" think when reading my posts.
If my posts undermine the generally "accepted" world view history... then so be it!!! ... as far as your insults is concern, perhapes you should take note that I say I agree with you whenever I do and whenever I dont I counter it. As simple as that.

You havent answer several points either by design or your forgot:
if you agree you can always type "I agree" ,,,

2) The U.S. did nothing to Tehran during the invasion of Iraq except expect it to mind its own business and not allow anybody across its borders.

so what ... Hitler allowed USSR mind its own business when it was raping Poland, then came France, the came USSR and then he declare war against USA in dec 1941.

They still allow foreign fighters into the country to oppose U.S. troops and other nations troops and funded and supplied several of their terror groups through their republican (Revolutionary guard) guard. U.S. intell has shown this to be true no matter which reports you read or watch.

That is fine I am not denying Iranian involvement. What would the United States to if there 300,000 Russian troops in Canada and that the Canadian government was legally replaced by a new regime called People's Republic of Canada. What would a US president do, if he were to find out about Russian nuclear warhead in latin America during Cold War. The concept shouldnt be alien to you. There are 120,000 US troops next to Iran. That is a direct military threat to the government in Tehran. Just like the presence of 150,000 Soviet troops in Afghanistan was a direct threat to Pakistani government ... we all know of US involvement in that ....

[QUOTE=xerxes;335272]You havent answer several points either by design or your forgot:
if you agree you can always type "I agree" ,,,

2) The U.S. did nothing to Tehran during the invasion of Iraq except expect it to mind its own business and not allow anybody across its borders.

so what ... Hitler allowed USSR mind its own business when it was raping Poland, then came France, the came USSR and then he declare war against USA in dec 1941.

They still allow foreign fighters into the country to oppose U.S. troops and other nations troops and funded and supplied several of their terror groups through their republican (Revolutionary guard) guard. U.S. intell has shown this to be true no matter which reports you read or watch.

That is fine I am not denying Iranian involvement. What would the United States to if there 300,000 Russian troops in Canada and that the Canadian government was legally replaced by a new regime called People's Republic of Canada. What would a US president do, if he were to find out about Russian nuclear warhead in latin America during Cold War. The concept shouldnt be alien to you. There are 120,000 US troops next to Iran. That is a direct military threat to the government in Tehran. Just like the presence of 150,000 Soviet troops in Afghanistan was a direct threat to Pakistani government ... we all know of US involvement in that ....[/QUOTE]

The United States is far from Hitler my friend. We are governed by many not by one. No one would ever allow such a policy here in the without immediate removal of those people responsible. We ALL seek the same thing..a safe home, a good job safety and security for our families and children as well oppertunity that they may become whatever they dream of being.If you look at the population of the U.S. we come from all walks, race religion social level etc.. from all walks you have many concerns about their former home countries and their future here in the states. ALL are given a voice and a choice to vote without fear of reprisal to home,family or job availability or possibility. The U.S. seeks stability in Iraq. Iraq feeds the oil to certain oil markets which supplies many nations not just the U.S.. This is why stability has become a concern as a must to all concerned.

I as an American would have concern no doubt. But I also know that that amount of troops could never silence the guns of the American public. I see what you are saying and belive people are geniunely concerned. But the terror that comes from that side of the border must cease otherwise the U.S. wont leave and whatever measures are taken become worse for both parties.

The true question will be who hits the breaking point first. We have been there before with the soviets not long ago so we have a good idea of how and how long it takes but why come to this?

Why would you worry about 120,000 troops when your millitary has more then that on stand by? Unless the intention are less then honorable then I would worry greatly.

I know that you are a newcomer and of Iranian descent. I have no wish to argue or fuel conflict here about our two countries. God knows our government does enough of that between themselves and Im sure some day they will resolve but diplomacy or conflict. Hopefully the first and not the second.

Kuwaiti flagged tanker that transports Iraqi oil ... a little conviniant. I remember the British mining the coast of Norway in an attempt to aid their war effort in WWII. was that illegal?? ... i would think yes, but a nation at war has to do all it can.

Not taking any jabs here but these Kuwaiti flagged tankers (Iraqi) oil was also being shipped by Soviet tankers as well to Kuwait. So that makes us both involved.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

The United States is far from Hitler my friend. We are governed by many not by one. No one would ever allow such a policy here in the without immediate removal of those people responsible. We ALL seek the same thing..a safe home, a good job safety and security for our families and children as well oppertunity that they may become whatever they dream of being.If you look at the population of the U.S. we come from all walks, race religion social level etc.. from all walks you have many concerns about their former home countries and their future here in the states. ALL are given a voice and a choice to vote without fear of reprisal to home,family or job availability or possibility. The U.S. seeks stability in Iraq. Iraq feeds the oil to certain oil markets which supplies many nations not just the U.S.. This is why stability has become a concern as a must to all concerned.

I as an American would have concern no doubt. But I also know that that amount of troops could never silence the guns of the American public. I see what you are saying and belive people are geniunely concerned. But the terror that comes from that side of the border must cease otherwise the U.S. wont leave and whatever measures are taken become worse for both parties.

The true question will be who hits the breaking point first. We have been there before with the soviets not long ago so we have a good idea of how and how long it takes but why come to this?

Why would you worry about 120,000 troops when your millitary has more then that on stand by? Unless the intention are less then honorable then I would worry greatly.

I know that you are a newcomer and of Iranian descent. I have no wish to argue or fuel conflict here about our two countries. God knows our government does enough of that between themselves and Im sure some day they will resolve but diplomacy or conflict. Hopefully the first and not the second.

Kuwaiti flagged tanker that transports Iraqi oil ... a little conviniant. I remember the British mining the coast of Norway in an attempt to aid their war effort in WWII. was that illegal?? ... i would think yes, but a nation at war has to do all it can.

Not taking any jabs here but these Kuwaiti flagged tankers (Iraqi) oil was also being shipped by Soviet tankers as well to Kuwait. So that makes us both involved.

Dreadnought, i am very moved for you comment ... I admit I do get a bit nationalistic about Iran eventhough I am Canadian citizen and been living in Canada sense the early 90s.

About the 120,000 troops from Iranian government point of view, is a direct threat to their regime. As you may or may not know US has built its largest Embassy in the world in Baghdad, rivaling the one in Armenia watching over the Caucasuan Gate. and when I say it is a threat to Iran, not those 120,000 troops themselves but rather the investment that they are making into making Iraq a platform in the Middle east for future US forgien policy. They couldnt really do that this Saudi Arabia because of the problem that it caused: Al-Qaida and bin Laden.

Also, Mesapotamia is to Middle East like what Euroasia is to Europe-Asia. Persian and Romans fought over it for 4 centuries, the Ottoman and Persians fought over it. Whoever controls that peice of land as a very comfortable strategic position. So it is not that the Iranian regime fears a sudden attack from those 120,000 troops but its a massive permenant American power shift in the region sameway the Soviet southern expansion was to the China and Pakistan.

About those Kuwaiti tankers, I know of the Soviet involvments. Actually there are two things that might intrest you unrelated to this discussion

1) Kuwait offer to reflag its tankers was first rejected by the American who didnot want to be get involved (sucked in) in the conflict. The offer was then made to the Soviet, who accepted but then American who didnot want an increase in Soviet influence in the Gulf, decided to take onto that task. So both nations did the re-flagings at the end.

2) Most people dont know this but during Friday prayers in Iran, both the USA and Soviet Union were blasted by slogans "death to Soviet Union" and "death to US". After all Iraq was Soviet client-state its military help and aid was huge.

Originally Posted by xerxes

.... during the last wonderfull centuary, the word "terror" was slowly dis-associated from the regular forces and stamped on the irregular forces. During WWII, the Nazi terrorized the whole Europe but we never call them terrorists. Why? because they wear cool uniforms, had a legitimite nation and had organization and a national army.

Terror for me is the act of terrorizing a population by acts of violence and unlike most Americans I dont follow black-and-white rule that only a irregular forces can be terrorists .... for example I call the following acts as terror acts

British bombings of German city Dresden as terror attack

American bombings of Hanoi as terror attack

Lebenese rocket attacks of Haifa as terror attack

German blitz on London as terror attack

Japanese rape and pillaging of Nanking as terror attack

America fire bombing of Tokyo as terror attack

Mujaheddin rocket firing against Soviet controlled-Kabul as terror attack

Israel 500% accurate laser-guided bombing of Palestineans as terror attack

Taliban mortar firing against American controlled-Kabul as terror attack


... ofcouse in your case the only terror acts are from the enemies of the States.

Maybe we should check the dictionary for the meaning of terrorism?

Terrorism: N, use of violence and intimidation for Political ends

Now lets go over your list using this definition in mind in addition to war doctrine of the period....

British bombings of German city Dresden as terror attack - False, act of war

American bombings of Hanoi as terror attack - False, act of war

Lebenese rocket attacks of Haifa as terror attack

German blitz on London as terror attack - False, act of war

Japanese rape and pillaging of Nanking as terror attack - True no political or strategic benifit

America fire bombing of Tokyo as terror attack- False, act of war

Mujaheddin rocket firing against Soviet controlled-Kabul as terror attack, debatable, the situation was identical to the current Afganistan except again the Mujaheddin were not the legal govt.

Israel 500% accurate laser-guided bombing of Palestineans as terror attack - unknown, seeing as modern day terrorists run around in civilian clothing makes it near impossible to determine foe or colateral damage.

Taliban mortar firing against American controlled-Kabul as terror attack - debateable depending on if you think of the Taliban as the legal former govt., given their governing practices, which clearly fall under the definition of terrorism I'd call it terrorism.

War is not terrorism, beheading for religious leanings IS terrorism. Accentially shooting civilians is not terrorism, actively targeting them IS terrorism.

War crimes are war crimes and are very much terrorist acts, they don't make the entire war an act of terrorism just like Abu Garabe doesn't make the Iraq war an act of terrorism.

Originally Posted by smilingassassin

Maybe we should check the dictionary for the meaning of terrorism?

Terrorism: N, use of violence and intimidation for Political ends

I am aware of this definition but a person depending on his or hers political leaning might decide that certain conflicts are wars and certains arent. Some might say only a declared war counts, somesay both declared and undeclared war counts.

Originally Posted by smilingassassin

Now lets go over your list using this definition in mind in addition to war doctrine of the period....

Again a person must define what is for him or her War .. before I start I will declare that for my own point of view ,,, all of the followings are acts of terror

Originally Posted by smilingassassin

British bombings of German city Dresden as terror attack - False, act of war

German blitz on London as terror attack - False, act of war

America fire bombing of Tokyo as terror attack- False, act of war

That is fine you etablish WWII to be war ... therefore anything happened within is an act of war

Originally Posted by smilingassassin

American bombings of Hanoi as terror attack - False, act of war

Now you have also added undeclared wars as part of your definition ... again each person to his own .. that is fine by me as long you are consistent

Originally Posted by smilingassassin

Lebenese rocket attacks of Haifa as terror attack

Now why is that this is not classified as ACT OF WAR
Most probably you will say Hizbollah is an state within state ... and my answer would so was Viet Cong

In my opinion based on what you established as referance point should consider as also ACT OF WAR

Originally Posted by smilingassassin

Japanese rape and pillaging of Nanking as terror attack - True no political or strategic benifit

I am not sure I understand what you mean .... are saying "true" as in yes its act of terror ... but at the sametime you admit there was no political or strategic benefit, which would make your definition of terrorism not valid for this case

correct me if I am wrong??

Originally Posted by smilingassassin

Mujaheddin rocket firing against Soviet controlled-Kabul as terror attack, debatable, the situation was identical to the current Afganistan except again the Mujaheddin were not the legal govt.

Taliban mortar firing against American controlled-Kabul as terror attack - debateable depending on if you think of the Taliban as the legal former govt., given their governing practices, which clearly fall under the definition of terrorism I'd call it terrorism.

Again as long as you are consistent ... i see that you are not calling the mujahedding of 1980s as Freedom fighters. Then I dont see a problem with you view

Originally Posted by smilingassassin

Israel 500% accurate laser-guided bombing of Palestineans as terror attack - unknown, seeing as modern day terrorists run around in civilian clothing makes it near impossible to determine foe or colateral damage.

well... the concept is to hide yourself. One who might afford a F-16 might hide himself among the clouds - untouchable from the stones - another one might hide himself among civilians. Like everything else there is pro and con to each case. Also, would the Free French, the Hungarian resistance and the Polish resistance establish supply depot and wear uniform as they were regulars. The entire concept is that each cell is self-sustain cell and is responsible for all their weapons. There are never supply depots with a big X on it, ready to be blasted away by a higher-tech adversary nor they are uniforms. You dont believe me... ask the Spanish insurgency during Napoleon's occupation of that proud kingdom. The shear brutallity behind the acts of Spanish insurgency against captured French soldiers would make Al-Zarawabi like a joke. The same brutallity were also practised by the inhabitants of the Crete (mostly Greeeks) island against the German invaders during WWII. The same brutallity were also practised by the Mujaheddin against the captured Soviet soldiers.

Originally Posted by smilingassassin

War is not terrorism,

I do agree, but certain barbaric acts within a war are definitly terrorism for me. For example a beheading of a prisoner during war and broadcasting is terrorism.

Originally Posted by smilingassassin

beheading for religious leanings IS terrorism.

Incorrect ... beheading for religious and non-religious leanings IS terrorism, regardless of wartime or peacetime

Originally Posted by smilingassassin

Accentially shooting civilians is not terrorism, actively targeting them IS terrorism.

Truth, but questionable .... Israeli F-16 tends to carry their assassination plans by usually blowing away the target and his familly in his house. The general answer would be the terrorist is hiding in midst of his family on purpose, except that a man - terrorist or a four-star general - do have a home. The IAF could kill them somewhere else, but no they have to bomb the house where they know there would collateral damage.

Originally Posted by smilingassassin

War crimes are war crimes and are very much terrorist acts, they don't make the entire war an act of terrorism just like Abu Garabe doesn't make the Iraq war an act of terrorism.

couldnt agree more ...

I strongly disagree with your labeling all acts of war as terrorist acts. There IS a fine line in war between legitamate acts of war and Terrorist acts. For the record I'll correct myself and agree with you, beheading for any reason is an unspeakable act of cruelty and as such IS terrorism, now or in the 11th century.

To put it bluntly however the firebombings, Blitz and Dresden bombings as horrible as they were, were not only strategic targets but moral targets, in that they were used to break the moral of those fighting.

Anyone with a shred of knowledge of the accuracy of WW2 bombing knows it was not very accurate and almost always ended up with some civilian deaths.
These are not acts of terrorism, its simply the way war was fought with the weapons at hand. If more accurate weapons were available then, the allies and quite possibly the more respectable German generals would have used them.

Equally Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while horrible acts of war taking the lives of thousands of civilians, ironically likely saved many more simply by making the cost of continuing a war already lost unsustainable.

The rape of Nanking- no good reason as the region was well under Japanese control. Heres where you and I could go into lengthy discussion, terrorism or war crimes? Most certainly the latter, arguably the former. One should also note the Japanese military did not recognize the geneva convention rules.

To sum it up, war is not like summer camp, people die, normally thats murder withing the confines of society but war has rules and these rules have changed according to the higher standards the civilized world demands.

We have already established that we both agree, beheading is a dispicable crime, but what about civilians blowing themselves up amoungst other civilians rather than military targets?

Originally Posted by TopHatter

Unfortunately for the record, the nation of Iraq never ceased to exist, anymore than the United States ceased to exist in 2000 when the Clinton Administration was removed from office.

Clinton Administration was not 'removed from office".

That is not a correct statement.

It had finished its term. It did its two mandatory term, elected by the people of the USA.

Nixon was removed!

Originally Posted by xerxes

Ahmedinejad has to go ... he may have a PhD in engineering but he is not eligible to be a president in my eyes. His main soure of power was to use Iranian nationalism to fuel his campaign against west, which was fine. But he had failed utterly in his internal reform. Failure is unacceptable.

He himself is not a powerfull figure, but rather represent the powers of the military (IRGC) rather then the clerics as most people on this forum keep saying. Iranian politics is very complicated and has a lot of Byzantine intrigue into it. It is not as simple as putting Ahmedinejad as the new "hitler" of Middle East as the FOX news and Israeli media loves to do.

Ahmedinejad has to go.

But how?

That is the question!

smilingassassin,

I strongly disagree with your labeling all acts of war as terrorist acts. There IS a fine line in war between legitamate acts of war and Terrorist acts.

i agree with this, but...

Blitz and Dresden bombings as horrible as they were, were not only strategic targets but moral targets, in that they were used to break the moral of those fighting.

both i believe were acts of terror. this was state terrorism, pure and simple. we- and the germans- incinerated those targets with the full intention of causing civilian casualties. the british did not believe in the american focus on targeted bombing, with bomber harris calling this "panacea targeting". with churchill's full-throated support, the british fully intended to terrorize, de-moralize, and de-legitimize the nazi regime through the use of massive civilian deaths.

same with the firebombing of japan. if you read any account of the firebombings of tokyo, one realizes very fast that terror was a central part of the campaign, with bomb drops patterned to completely overwhelm and destroy japanese attempts at fire-fighting, in both civilian and military areas.

To sum it up, war is not like summer camp, people die, normally thats murder withing the confines of society but war has rules and these rules have changed according to the higher standards the civilized world demands.

We have already established that we both agree, beheading is a dispicable crime, but what about civilians blowing themselves up amoungst other civilians rather than military targets?

two interesting quotes.

from the father of the japanese firebombing campaign,

"If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals."- Curtis LeMay

from the famous movie, "the battle of algiers".

Journalist: M. Ben M'Hidi, don't you think it's a bit cowardly to use women's baskets and handbags to carry explosive devices that kill so many innocent people?

Ben M'Hidi: And doesn't it seem to you even more cowardly to drop napalm bombs on defenseless villages, so that there are a thousand times more innocent victims? Of course, if we had your airplanes it would be a lot easier for us. Give us your bombers, and you can have our baskets.

as one can see...definitions for this are truly mind-numbingly difficult.

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by smilingassassin

Maybe we should check the dictionary for the meaning of terrorism?

Terrorism: N, use of violence and intimidation for Political ends

Now lets go over your list using this definition in mind in addition to war doctrine of the period....

War, itself, is extension of a govt's policy by "other means".

It is also violent and intimidating and it for achieving "political aims".

Nonetheless, terrorism is usually by non governmental organisations, but even that is disputable since many talk of 'state terrorism'.

Lebenese rocket attacks of Haifa as terror attack.

Much that the Hezbollah is no paragon of virtues, yet in the conflict it was a free for all. Israelis knocked the living hell by air strikes and the Hezbs went berserk with their little toys!

Therefore, if one is fair, it is not a terror attack, even if reprehensible.

Japanese rape and pillaging of Nanking as terror attack - True no political or strategic benifit

Japan was at war with China. Therefore, it was no terror act. It was a war crime however. Must not mix up facts for fiction.
because it is as good and logical as:

America fire bombing of Tokyo as terror attack- False, act of war

Mujaheddin rocket firing against Soviet controlled-Kabul as terror attack, debatable, the situation was identical to the current Afganistan except again the Mujaheddin were not the legal govt.

How is it debatable? Agreed one may not have liked the Soviets, but then one must not let the heart rule where the head must rule supreme. Mustn't let biases show! It was a terror attack since there was no war declared and wars are between govts and nations and not between a govt and terrorists. The Taliban were terrorists then if the Taliban is accepted as terrorists now!

Israel 500% accurate laser-guided bombing of Palestineans as terror attack - unknown, seeing as modern day terrorists run around in civilian clothing makes it near impossible to determine foe or colateral damage.

Again, this is not correct, no matter how justifiable. Your bias shows - 500%? Wonder how come such accurate weapons that are 500% are not there with more advanced countries? It ruins the case for any other to 'justify' the same.

Taliban mortar firing against American controlled-Kabul as terror attack - debateable depending on if you think of the Taliban as the legal former govt., given their governing practices, which clearly fall under the definition of terrorism I'd call it terrorism.

As above in the Kabul case. Is there a doubt that it is not an act of terrorism? Apply the same to Iraq. Is what is being done there acts of terrorism or not? If that is terrorism, then so is the Taliban acts in Afghanistan.

War is not terrorism, beheading for religious leanings IS terrorism. Accentially shooting civilians is not terrorism, actively targeting them IS terrorism.

Very correct.

War crimes are war crimes and are very much terrorist acts, they don't make the entire war an act of terrorism just like Abu Garabe doesn't make the Iraq war an act of terrorism.

Not quite.

War crimes are different from terrorism. If you talk about 'terror attack' in clinical terms, then war also becomes a terror attack since it terrorises the civil population, but then it is not so.

In a war, striking terror in the way the terrorists do, is not the aim. It is to win and establish supremacy and hence there is no time for such time wasting activities even if they are sensational and morale debilitating. If such activities occur during the phase of war, it is termed as 'war crimes' and that is a more serious offence than terrorism per se - misusing established norms of warfare as laid down by the Geneva Convention for heinous crimes!