Why The US Wants Civil Wars in Middle East

[Xarog]

How on Earth is that illogical?

 

[kilo39]

I have no idea who it was. I just doubt the stated case against bin Laden.

Here we have a whole reality based on the story of BL. If it wasn't BL it is de-facto conspiracy.

Therefore you cannot argue against a conspiracy if you are in fact agreeing with it by your statements.

 

[Xarog]

Just because there is a conspiracy against bin Laden does not mean that there's also a shadow government and that the shadow government is the one who's trying to pin the crime onto bin Laden.

 

[kilo39]

Just because there is a conspiracy against bin Laden does not mean that there's also a shadow government and that the shadow government is the one who's trying to pin the crime onto bin Laden.

So you agree then 911 was a conspiracy? As to a shadow government: whichever way: if BL is guilty or if 'someone else' is guilty then it leads to a shadow government. IOW somebody planned it (somebody with very sophisticated tools and access to 'the system'.) Who has this kind of power, certainly not BL. And how would the US gub act against itself unless 'the actions, plan' were secret. A de-facto shadow government.

 

[Xarog]

Could have been Mossad... There are other alternatives to consider. Someone pinning the blame on bin Laden does not prove the existence of a shadow government.

It's one of the possible explanations, but there are still other alternatives.

As for the WTC bombings being a conspiracy : that's pretty much a given. Even if bin Laden was the guilty party and the US administration had NO idea it was coming, it would still have been a conspiracy by bin Laden and his ilk to fly planes into the WTC.

 

[kilo39]

Let's just shake hands and be friends.

 

[Xarog]

You make it sound like things were hostile.

 

[kilo39]

... constant vigilance...

 

[Xarog]

No worries.

 

[chiskop]

Right. You conspiracy theorists think BL is the new Emmanuel Goldstein. Well, I've got news for you bud. GW needs the popularity boost he would gain by bumping off BL--much worse than he needs him alive.

I disagree.

If he finds BL, GW gets a one time popularity boost, and then a whole lot of questions about Iraq. Iraq and the broader War on Terra become a lot less sustainable without BL, and GW needs the War on Terra. With the threat of BL gone, the is suddenly a lot more room to question the PATRIOT Act, domestic wiretapping, various executive orders, interogation tactics at Gitmo, Gitmo itself and all of the other things that have been done in BL's name.

Bin Laden is far more useful playing Emmanual Goldstein.

 

[JK8]

Bush was president for almost a year, did nothing and had nothing to do!
Then 911 came about and he realised his "purpose" lol!

 

[Alan]

BS man. If Iran gave out nukes it wouldn't just start giving them out. What's to stop the people they give it to using it against the Iranian leadership? The answer : nothing. Iran's leadership isn't suicidal and it certainly wouldn't risk giving some 2bit terrorist group the ability to overthrow them.

So you saying that the Iranians wouldn't give a fellow islamic terrorist group a nuke for fear that they would use it to against them?

Of course they would give a terrorist group one. It's clear they want to "wipe Israel off the map" while nuking "the great satan" would be to good to refuse. The ayatollahs would have no problem becoming martyrs or if the Iranians nuke Israel do you really think the U.S would have enough support to risk it's own destruction should they retaliate against the Iranians.. Of course they have also noted the west's unwillingness for confrontation and no doubt noticed how even after terrorists flew planes into buildings there are those who believe it was a U.S government consipracy and use that to justify their passiveness and appeasement while refusing to accept U.S retaliation. Also how they have undermined U.S efforts while galvinising extremists .

Just because we don't like the way a country is going is not a reason to invade them. Who are we to say their way is wrong?

If you see that kind of county as a immediate threat then invasion is justifiable.
Who were foreigners to say Apartheid was wrong.

International law is a binding agreement made by all nations who join the United Nations.

Ah yes that pathetic, impotent orginisation known as the League of...... oops sorry U.N. Is there a law stating a country can't defend itself?

And basically, no, the US cannot be aggressive with their enemies. They can only be defensive. Otherwise, what's to stop the Russians being aggressive with their enemies, or the Iranians? The same standard which you would use to lend support to the US can also be used by everyone else.

I wouldn't expect any other nation not to be aggressive with it's enemies that want it destroyed.

Yup. Last I saw no conclusive agreement was reached on it, either.

Agreed

What BS. Kim is a communist. He's an idealogue and communists also see the west as the great evil (ok, they're mostly atheists so the Satan reference is out).

The Ayatollahs aren't suicidal - they get other people to die for them. When was the last time you saw the Hamas leadership or one of the Ayatollah's blow themselves up in a suicide attack? answer : never.

Kim isn't a communist. He only used communism as a vehicle to get to power and to having something in common with his mighty neighbour. He couldn't give a damn about "the workers".

So you know for a fact that the Ayatollahs aren't really fanatic zealots. Who's to say there aren't true fundamentalist groups with enough power to gain access to the nukes in Iran. Who's to stop them selling nuke tech to other tyrants like Syria. Plus I haven't heard Kim stating he wants to spread communism around the world

 

[Alan]

And your point is? That Iran is a bunch of rightwing bigots. Now why does that ring a bell?

Wikipedia: edited by the worlds experts for accuracy.

Expert in this case: the originator of the document or the source. Or an accepted authority in their field. If not correct it soon will be.

So you wouldn't mind "rightwing bigots" having nukes?

None of those facts indicate that Iran is threatening world or even regional security, and frankly Nnorth Korea is alot worse. They don't even have a concept of individual rights there.

Do you think the people there even have the internet? 40% of the population is in the army, and the rest of the population support the army. They are destitute. At least in Iran you have a reasonable chance of being able to OWN a computer, let alone use it.

You can dig up dirt on any country you want. For instance, the USA is the only country in the world to have ever executed a minor.

These facts indicate their mindset. If they don't respect their own citizens why respect those of other countries. Especially when they have an agenda of spreading your fanatical religion around the region and later the globe.


Some more articals.

A nice free demorcratic society?

Iran's Ahmadinejad calls for purge of liberal university teachers.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/09/05/news/Iran_University_Purge.php

the people who must decide the competence of the leader and have the duty to remove or confirm him – and therefore normally these elections should represent a great importance for the voters, -- are in fact the leaders cronies, the members of the Council of the Guardians who are in charge of approving all candidates are not only designated by the leader but some are also among the members of the Experts Assembly.

http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/articles-2006/november-2006/momeni_211106.shtml

Amnesty International today expressed its outrage at the reported execution of a girl who is believed to be 16 years old, Ateqeh Rajabi, in Neka in the northern Iranian province of Mazandaran, on 15 August, for "acts incompatible with chastity" (amal-e manafe-ye 'ofat). Ateqeh Rajabi was reportedly publicly hanged on a street in the city centre of Neka.

http://www.iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2004&m=08&d=23&a=13

Getting involved in other countries affairs contrary to what they claim.

Iran secretly agreed to assist the Taliban in its war against U.S. forces in October 2001, according to the transcript of a high-level Taliban official's tribunal session at Guatanamo Bay, Cuba. The seven-page transcript, as well as thousands of pages of similar documents, was released by the Pentagon on March 3 in response to litigation brought by the Associated Press

and

The signature is the same because they are exactly the same in production," says explosives expert Kevin Barry. "So it's the same make and model."

U.S. officials say roadside bomb attacks against American forces in Iraq have become much more deadly as more and more of the Iran-designed and Iran-produced bombs have been smuggled in from the country since last October.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=1692347&page=1

Allied with Syria.

On the alliance issue, Iranian Vice President Mohammad Reza Aref, after meeting with Syrian Prime Minister Naji al-Otari, told reporters in Tehran: "We are ready to help Syria on all grounds to confront threats."

How tolerant

In Karaj, Tehran and Rasht, the Muslims-converted-to-Christ believers a week ago were arrested. With that, their Bibles, devotional reading material and any Christian symbols were taken from them. That included Christian CDs and all personal items relating to Christianity.

Some interesting quotes from Ahmadinejad

On the last day when I was speaking, one of our group told me that when I started to say 'Bismillah Muhammad,' he saw a green light come from around me, and I was placed inside this aura," he says. "I felt it myself. I felt that the atmosphere suddenly changed, and for those 27 or 28 minutes, all the leaders of the world did not blink. When I say they didn't move an eyelid, I'm not exaggerating. They were looking as if a hand was holding them there, and had just opened their eyes – Alhamdulillah

We must prepare ourselves to rule the world and the only way to do that is to put forth views on the basis of the Expectation of the Return," Ahmadinejad said. "If we work on the basis of the Expectation of the Return [of the Mahdi], all the affairs of our nation will be streamlined and the administration of the country will become easier."

"We don't shy away from declaring that Islam is ready to rule the world."

 

[Xarog]

So you saying that the Iranians wouldn't give a fellow islamic terrorist group a nuke for fear that they would use it to against them?

That's exactly what I'm saying.

Of course they would give a terrorist group one. It's clear they want to "wipe Israel off the map" while nuking "the great satan" would be to good to refuse.

Yeah, except the "wipe Israel off the map" bit is a mistranslation and the real phrase is "dissappear from the page of time".

The ayatollahs would have no problem becoming martyrs or if the Iranians nuke Israel do you really think the U.S would have enough support to risk it's own destruction should they retaliate against the Iranians..

BS. When has an ayatollah ever martyred himself within the last 100 years?

Just like Kim, they like their power, they aren't about to throw it away.

.. Of course they have also noted the west's unwillingness for confrontation and no doubt noticed how even after terrorists flew planes into buildings there are those who believe it was a U.S government consipracy and use that to justify their passiveness and appeasement while refusing to accept U.S retaliation.

Sheesh, by your standard anything short of raping and killing the women and children is being "passive".

Also how they have undermined U.S efforts while galvinising extremists .

Riiiight. Exactly HOW did this undermining take place?

If you see that kind of county as a immediate threat then invasion is justifiable.

No it must be a reasonable belief of being a threat. Otherwise France could attack Germany tomorrow on the grounds that they were an "immediate threat".

Who were foreigners to say Apartheid was wrong.

They're free to say it's wrong, but that it's wrong is not an excuse to invade the country.

Ah yes that pathetic, impotent orginisation known as the League of...... oops sorry U.N. Is there a law stating a country can't defend itself?

When it's in the form of pre-emptive strikes, then yes. And the UN would be FAR more potent if it wasn't for the security council's permanent members.

I wouldn't expect any other nation not to be aggressive with it's enemies that want it destroyed.

Funny, I expect exactly that of EVERY nation. Being aggressive is inexcusable. Legitimately, one may only act defensively.

Kim isn't a communist. He only used communism as a vehicle to get to power and to having something in common with his mighty neighbour. He couldn't give a damn about "the workers".

Source?

So you know for a fact that the Ayatollahs aren't really fanatic zealots. Who's to say there aren't true fundamentalist groups with enough power to gain access to the nukes in Iran. Who's to stop them selling nuke tech to other tyrants like Syria. Plus I haven't heard Kim stating he wants to spread communism around the world.

Funny, no one ever seems to care about the zealots in Pakistan. Many of them consider themselves allies with the taliban and bin Laden... why is it that bin Laden doesn't have a nuke yet?

 

[Xarog]

These facts indicate their mindset. If they don't respect their own citizens why respect those of other countries. Especially when they have an agenda of spreading your fanatical religion around the region and later the globe.

Yeah, still waiting for your proof seeing how Kim or even the US is in any way different.

"We don't shy away from declaring that Islam is ready to rule the world."

Could just as easily be Capitalism or Christianity or Communism...

So why isn't the US ramping up invasion plans against North Korea?

 

[d0b33]

Yeah, except the "wipe Israel off the map" bit is a mistranslation and the real phrase is "dissappear from the page of time".

Exactly...
Experts confirm that Iran's president did not call for Israel to be 'wiped off the map'

 

[Alan]

That's exactly what I'm saying.

Bwahahahahahahah

Oh so the terrorist would think " They are our allies who gave us this bomb to attack our common enemy the jewish infidel pigs who we've wanted to destroy for decades but we've decided to rather bomb our buddies in Tehran intsead. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot

Anyone else believe that?

Yeah, except the "wipe Israel off the map" bit is a mistranslation and the real phrase is "dissappear from the page of time".

Oh sorry. Your's sounds so much less threatning

BS. When has an ayatollah ever martyred himself within the last 100 years?

Proof?

Just like Kim, they like their power, they aren't about to throw it away.

You better hope you're right. Still they have access to islamic fundamentalists who no doubt will use nukes. They'd be counting on the U.S not willing to take a bunch of nukes for the wasteland that was Israel.

Sheesh, by your standard anything short of raping and killing the women and children is being "passive".

*sigh*

Stooping to more and more insults. Where did I say that?

Riiiight. Exactly HOW did this undermining take place?

Did you not read my post about the mass media's lies. I suggest you go back and read it again and give it some more thought.

No it must be a reasonable belief of being a threat. Otherwise France could attack Germany tomorrow on the grounds that they were an "immediate threat".

There is reasonable belief.

France is a Islamic fundamentalist regime that wants Germany or her allies destroyed and France has terrorist henchman. Apples and oranges again

They're free to say it's wrong, but that it's wrong is not an excuse to invade the country.

You said " Who are we to say their way is wrong?" and by that I understood it as nobody could interfere with a nation based on that they thought that nation was doing something wrong. Am I right?

When it's in the form of pre-emptive strikes, then yes. And the UN would be FAR more potent if it wasn't for the security council's permanent members.

So a country must trust their safety to the U.N?

Funny, I expect exactly that of EVERY nation. Being aggressive is inexcusable. Legitimately, one may only act defensively.

How do you define defensively? When the invaders tanks come storming over the border in a blitzkrieg or one of your city's gets erased to the ground. Waiting for that to happen and to have done nothing to prevent it is what I call "passive".

Source?

Look it up.

Funny, no one ever seems to care about the zealots in Pakistan. Many of them consider themselves allies with the taliban and bin Laden... why is it that bin Laden doesn't have a nuke yet?

Don't count you chickens before they hatch. The Pakistan nukes is a serious problem. It could be a lot worse than it is. Of course they did leak nuke tech to NK which shows what the Iranians could do. It's bad enough with two of them having nukes but you want to add a third. Then who Syria?

Yeah, still waiting for your proof seeing how Kim or even the US is in any way different.

You've obviously never read anything about the U.S or NK have you.

Could just as easily be Capitalism or Christianity or Communism...

So why isn't the US ramping up invasion plans against North Korea?

Who has declared Capitalism or Christianity or Communism is ready to rule the world?

If NK becomes a larger threat to the U.S and her allies than islamic fundamentalists then there would be plans for an invasion.

 

[NewsFlash]

Exactly...
Experts confirm that Iran's president did not call for Israel to be 'wiped off the map'

Which EX-Sperts you refer to? Oh the MyAdsl cronies. I understand

 

[Xarog]

Bwahahahahahahah

Oh so the terrorist would think " They are our allies who gave us this bomb to attack our common enemy the jewish infidel pigs who we've wanted to destroy for decades but we've decided to rather bomb our buddies in Tehran intsead. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot

Anyone else believe that?

You *DO* know that the terrorists belong to many different sects and those sects are often at each other's throats, right?

Oh sorry. Your's sounds so much less threatning

I'm glad you admit it.

Proof?

That would be proving a negative. I can't find any sources which shows an Ayatollah martyring himself, so I assume it didn't happen. Feel free to look for a source of your own, though.

*sigh*

Stooping to more and more insults. Where did I say that?

You didn't say it, but considering your position you're a hair's breadth from such statements. You're basically advocating that if you see someone walking down the street on a dark night that you beat the cr@p out of him just because he could be a mugger. Don't you see how wrong that is?

Did you not read my post about the mass media's lies. I suggest you go back and read it again and give it some more thought.

There is reasonable belief.

Is not. There is only a predicted future threat - there is no clear and present immidiate threat.

France is a Islamic fundamentalist regime that wants Germany or her allies destroyed and France has terrorist henchman. Apples and oranges again.

IT'S THE EXACT SAME THING, THAT'S THE WHOLE BLOODY POINT!

You said " Who are we to say their way is wrong?" and by that I understood it as nobody could interfere with a nation based on that they thought that nation was doing something wrong. Am I right?

Yes, you are wrong. I said that no one could invade on that premise alone. But something like sanctions could be acceptable, on the other hand.

So a country must trust their safety to the U.N?

You have yet to show a clear and present danger instead of a possible future danger.

How do you define defensively? When the invaders tanks come storming over the border in a blitzkrieg or one of your city's gets erased to the ground. Waiting for that to happen and to have done nothing to prevent it is what I call "passive".

The alternative is to become the aggressor, and the one who is doing wrong. You don't punch a guy in the face simply because you think he was looking for a fight.

Look it up.

No, it's your claim, you can find the source which proves your claim, and so thus the onus is on you to provide the source. I'm not rummaging through the internet looking for something which may or may not prove your case for you.

Don't count you chickens before they hatch. The Pakistan nukes is a serious problem. It could be a lot worse than it is. Of course they did leak nuke tech to NK which shows what the Iranians could do. It's bad enough with two of them having nukes but you want to add a third. Then who Syria?

Here's a question : are India's nukes a serious problem? What about Russia's, what about Israel's?

You've obviously never read anything about the U.S or NK have you.

Yeah, that's right. Didn't you know? - I'm actually illiterate...

Who has declared Capitalism or Christianity or Communism is ready to rule the world?

LOL!

If NK becomes a larger threat to the U.S and her allies than islamic fundamentalists then there would be plans for an invasion.

Just what is your basis for determining if something is a threat, anyway?

If the US is planning an invasion of NK then they're a threat to NK - does that mean that NK can nuke the US?

 

[Alan]

Exactly...
Experts confirm that Iran's president did not call for Israel to be 'wiped off the map'

Ah the Guardian. At least it's not "the independant"

Interesting artical. It's amusing to see how he tries to make the statement less intimidating.

A very last point. The fact that he compared his desired option - the elimination of "the regime occupying Jerusalem" - with the fall of the Shah's regime in Iran makes it crystal clear that he is talking about regime change, not the end of Israel. As a schoolboy opponent of the Shah in the 1970's he surely did not favour Iran's removal from the page of time. He just wanted the Shah out.

That is sooo reassuring. According to him Ahmadinejad doesn't want to destroy every Israeli but rather enslave them under a islamic fundamentilist regime. Oh the joys of being an Israeli Jew living under those laws. How does Ahmadinejad see this all coming about then?

Buts lets take a look at what other news orginizations are reporting.


The BBC(leftwing)

He was addressing a conference entitled The World without Zionism and his comments were reported by the Iranian state news agency Irna.

"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," he said, referring to Iran's late revolutionary leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

CNN(also leftwing)

Ahmadinejad, who has sparked international outcry by referring to the killing of 6 million Jews in World War II as a "myth" and calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map," launched another verbal attack on the Jewish state.

And to top it all off.

Aljazeera(need I say more)

As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.

Who to believe