Iran harboring Al Qaeda!
Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
- MKSheppard
- Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
- Posts: 29842
- Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm
Iran harboring Al Qaeda!
HEHEHEH Load up the TLAMs, and the JDAMs, since we got a lot
of crap we don't want to ship home
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030 ... -6237r.htm
A top al Qaeda associate in Iraq has fled to neighboring Iran, where he and several senior al Qaeda leaders apparently remain under the protection of the Iranian government, U.S. intelligence officials say.
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi fled Iraq within the past several weeks and is in Iran, the officials told The Washington Times.
Al-Zarqawi was identified in a U.N. briefing given in February by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell as an "associate and collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda lieutenants."
That link was a key element in the U.S. case that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was tied to al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, a stance repeated yesterday by President Bush in response to a New York Times report that said two al Qaeda captives had said the group did not cooperate with Saddam.
"I guess the people that wrote that article forgot about al-Zarqawi's network inside of Baghdad that ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen named [Laurence] Foley," Mr. Bush said. "And history in time will prove that the United States made the absolute right decision in freeing the people of Iraq from the clutches of Saddam Hussein."
U.S. intelligence officials believe that al- Zarqawi helped the terrorists who killed Mr. Foley, a U.S. diplomat, in Amman, Jordan, in October.
Iran's government have denied Bush administration assertions that Tehran was harboring al Qaeda terrorists. But the Iranian government has recently stated that it had detained several al Qaeda members, although it has not identified any.
American intelligence officials said Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security, and the Qods Division of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, a unit of hard-line Islamist shock troops, are deeply involved in supporting terrorists, including al Qaeda.
A U.S. official said the Bush administration wants Iran to turn over al-Zarqawi to the United States because of his connection to the Foley killing, although it could not be learned whether the State Department has made a formal request.
The U.S. official said any approach is likely to be carried out through a friendly third party, such as Jordan or Saudi Arabia.
The official said al-Zarqawi is not a member of al Qaeda but "worked with them when it was convenient."
"He's a real bad actor," said the official, who cautioned that al-Zarqawi's presence in Iran is not a certainty. "There are reports he's washed up in Iran."
Another intelligence official said al- Zarqawi might be among the al Qaeda members that the government of Iran said it had detained, although other officials doubted this.
Other officials said recent intelligence reports circulated within the U.S. government stated that al-Zarqawi moved to Iran from Iraq after Mr. Powell identified him in the Feb. 5 briefing to the Security Council.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said last month that he is convinced that senior al Qaeda leaders are in Iran.
Asked whether the United States would go to war with Iran if Tehran is sheltering al Qaeda, Mr. Rumsfeld said: "Well, those are decisions not for me. Those are decisions for the president."
"It is worrisome that that country clearly is not being helpful in Iraq today," Mr. Rumsfeld said on May 29. "It is also clear that they have permitted senior al Qaeda to operate in their country, and that is something that creates a danger to the world, because we know what the al Qaeda can do in terms of killing innocent men, women and children."
Defense and intelligence officials said the senior al Qaeda members the secretary has mentioned include at least two hiding in Iran — including Sayf al-Adl, who is believed to be the official in charge of al Qaeda's military operations and has been linked to the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa.
Al-Adl has been in Iran since 2002 and is on the FBI's list of most- wanted international terrorists.
A second top al Qaeda leader in Iran is Osama bin Laden's oldest son, Saad bin Laden, who also arrived in Iran in 2002. Many U.S. intelligence analysts say they believe he took over al Qaeda's leadership after the U.S. military's destruction of al Qaeda strongholds in Afghanistan in October 2001.
The Washington Times disclosed Saad bin Laden's presence in Iran in February.
Al-Zarqawi is the leader of the Islamist terror group Jund al-Shams, which is linked to al Qaeda and has operated in Syria and Jordan.
After U.S. forces disrupted al Qaeda's operations in Afghanistan, al-Zarqawi fled that country and ended up with the Ansar al-Islam, which operated a terrorist camp in northern Iraq.
The camp was bombed by U.S. warplanes and attacked on the ground by Special Forces troops during the Iraq war.
Mr. Powell said in his presentation to the U.N. Security Council that the Ansar al-Islam camp was run by al-Zarqawi agents. He said the camp was operated with the help of a top Iraqi agent "in the most senior levels of the radical organization."
Iran's government said last month that it had arrested several al Qaeda members. Hamid Reza Asefi, an Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman, said on May 25 that of the several people being detained "we don't know who these people are to be able to say whether they are senior or not."
Mr. Powell said during the February briefing that al-Zarqawi's terrorist network was a "potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network."
He said the network "combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder," including a "poison and explosive training-center camp" in an area of northern Iraq controlled by Saddam's government.
Al-Zarqawi, Mr. Powell said, traveled to Baghdad in May 2002 for medical care and stayed for two months.
"During his stay, nearly two dozen extremists converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations there," he said. "These al Qaeda affiliates based in Baghdad now coordinate the movement of people, money and supplies into and throughout Iraq for his network, and they have now been operating freely in the capital for more than eight months."
of crap we don't want to ship home
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030 ... -6237r.htm
A top al Qaeda associate in Iraq has fled to neighboring Iran, where he and several senior al Qaeda leaders apparently remain under the protection of the Iranian government, U.S. intelligence officials say.
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi fled Iraq within the past several weeks and is in Iran, the officials told The Washington Times.
Al-Zarqawi was identified in a U.N. briefing given in February by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell as an "associate and collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda lieutenants."
That link was a key element in the U.S. case that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was tied to al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, a stance repeated yesterday by President Bush in response to a New York Times report that said two al Qaeda captives had said the group did not cooperate with Saddam.
"I guess the people that wrote that article forgot about al-Zarqawi's network inside of Baghdad that ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen named [Laurence] Foley," Mr. Bush said. "And history in time will prove that the United States made the absolute right decision in freeing the people of Iraq from the clutches of Saddam Hussein."
U.S. intelligence officials believe that al- Zarqawi helped the terrorists who killed Mr. Foley, a U.S. diplomat, in Amman, Jordan, in October.
Iran's government have denied Bush administration assertions that Tehran was harboring al Qaeda terrorists. But the Iranian government has recently stated that it had detained several al Qaeda members, although it has not identified any.
American intelligence officials said Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security, and the Qods Division of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, a unit of hard-line Islamist shock troops, are deeply involved in supporting terrorists, including al Qaeda.
A U.S. official said the Bush administration wants Iran to turn over al-Zarqawi to the United States because of his connection to the Foley killing, although it could not be learned whether the State Department has made a formal request.
The U.S. official said any approach is likely to be carried out through a friendly third party, such as Jordan or Saudi Arabia.
The official said al-Zarqawi is not a member of al Qaeda but "worked with them when it was convenient."
"He's a real bad actor," said the official, who cautioned that al-Zarqawi's presence in Iran is not a certainty. "There are reports he's washed up in Iran."
Another intelligence official said al- Zarqawi might be among the al Qaeda members that the government of Iran said it had detained, although other officials doubted this.
Other officials said recent intelligence reports circulated within the U.S. government stated that al-Zarqawi moved to Iran from Iraq after Mr. Powell identified him in the Feb. 5 briefing to the Security Council.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said last month that he is convinced that senior al Qaeda leaders are in Iran.
Asked whether the United States would go to war with Iran if Tehran is sheltering al Qaeda, Mr. Rumsfeld said: "Well, those are decisions not for me. Those are decisions for the president."
"It is worrisome that that country clearly is not being helpful in Iraq today," Mr. Rumsfeld said on May 29. "It is also clear that they have permitted senior al Qaeda to operate in their country, and that is something that creates a danger to the world, because we know what the al Qaeda can do in terms of killing innocent men, women and children."
Defense and intelligence officials said the senior al Qaeda members the secretary has mentioned include at least two hiding in Iran — including Sayf al-Adl, who is believed to be the official in charge of al Qaeda's military operations and has been linked to the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa.
Al-Adl has been in Iran since 2002 and is on the FBI's list of most- wanted international terrorists.
A second top al Qaeda leader in Iran is Osama bin Laden's oldest son, Saad bin Laden, who also arrived in Iran in 2002. Many U.S. intelligence analysts say they believe he took over al Qaeda's leadership after the U.S. military's destruction of al Qaeda strongholds in Afghanistan in October 2001.
The Washington Times disclosed Saad bin Laden's presence in Iran in February.
Al-Zarqawi is the leader of the Islamist terror group Jund al-Shams, which is linked to al Qaeda and has operated in Syria and Jordan.
After U.S. forces disrupted al Qaeda's operations in Afghanistan, al-Zarqawi fled that country and ended up with the Ansar al-Islam, which operated a terrorist camp in northern Iraq.
The camp was bombed by U.S. warplanes and attacked on the ground by Special Forces troops during the Iraq war.
Mr. Powell said in his presentation to the U.N. Security Council that the Ansar al-Islam camp was run by al-Zarqawi agents. He said the camp was operated with the help of a top Iraqi agent "in the most senior levels of the radical organization."
Iran's government said last month that it had arrested several al Qaeda members. Hamid Reza Asefi, an Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman, said on May 25 that of the several people being detained "we don't know who these people are to be able to say whether they are senior or not."
Mr. Powell said during the February briefing that al-Zarqawi's terrorist network was a "potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network."
He said the network "combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder," including a "poison and explosive training-center camp" in an area of northern Iraq controlled by Saddam's government.
Al-Zarqawi, Mr. Powell said, traveled to Baghdad in May 2002 for medical care and stayed for two months.
"During his stay, nearly two dozen extremists converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations there," he said. "These al Qaeda affiliates based in Baghdad now coordinate the movement of people, money and supplies into and throughout Iraq for his network, and they have now been operating freely in the capital for more than eight months."
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong
"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
- Stuart Mackey
- Drunken Kiwi Editor of the ASVS Press
- Posts: 5946
- Joined: 2002-07-04 12:28am
- Location: New Zealand
- Contact:
And when are we going to see some proof of these claims? Allthough I will allow that that chap may well have gone to Iraq for medical treatment..not that I can prove it one way or another
Via money Europe could become political in five years" "... the current communities should be completed by a Finance Common Market which would lead us to European economic unity. Only then would ... the mutual commitments make it fairly easy to produce the political union which is the goal"
Jean Omer Marie Gabriel Monnet
--------------
Jean Omer Marie Gabriel Monnet
--------------
- Gandalf
- SD.net White Wizard
- Posts: 16354
- Joined: 2002-09-16 11:13pm
- Location: A video store in Australia
Good thing the US military is in the area.
"Oh no, oh yeah, tell me how can it be so fair
That we dying younger hiding from the police man over there
Just for breathing in the air they wanna leave me in the chair
Electric shocking body rocking beat streeting me to death"
- A.B. Original, Report to the Mist
"I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately."
- George Carlin
That we dying younger hiding from the police man over there
Just for breathing in the air they wanna leave me in the chair
Electric shocking body rocking beat streeting me to death"
- A.B. Original, Report to the Mist
"I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately."
- George Carlin
Yes, very convient...
"You won't give use those people, so we are going in to topple your government, have a nice day"
Actually, I believe Iran has the guy in custody. I mean, they are not stupid. (Here me out)
If they are doing anything wrong, they know that the United States will kick there ass for it, royally. Case in point, Iraq.
So, the best thing for them to do is say the truth.
In this case, I believe Iran when they say "We have Al-Qadia members in custody, but we are not sure of there names etc yet, just they are members."
I don't think they'd deliberately harbor them right now, it's just too dangerous. It would be like if Charles Manson escaped custody and asked you for a place to stay when you know there is a very good chance your already under surviallance. Your best beat would be to hand him over and hope they decide to leave you alone for a while.
Could Iran be supporting terrorist? Possibly. I'm not sure of the extent or nature of Iran-US relations, so I can't really comment. I don't recall the US pounding them in recent years, so they might not have a reason.
I think, if Iran is smart, they will do this
Keep looking for more terrorist while saying "we have some, we just don't know who they are yet", especially if they know a 'big fish' is in the area, and just haven't caught him yet.
Once they catch the 'big fish', they will either say 'Yeah, we have him, do you want him? Really? Well, we could use a few new power plants, care to trade?' or 'We think we have him, would some UN people please come and confirm this? If it's him, we could use some....'"
I think that would be the smart thing for Iran to do.
First, if they make a reasonable demand/request, like a help building a few power plants or something, if the US got huffy, then the rest of the World would be like 'Okay, calm down.' Especially if Iran tossed in the old 'Giving him up could cause us problem's with Al-Qadia, could you at least do something to make it worth the problems?'" Big public relations move. Most American's blindly hate Al-Qadia right now (who can blame them) and should be like 'That's fair. They think Al-Qadia could come after them, and just want help dealing with the problem if it happen's'.
Iran just picked up some powerplants, or whatever they asked for
if the United States got aggressive, this isn't someone hiding WMD or saying 'we won't give you the man that ordered the deaths of thousands of people because he's our guest', its someone saying "we have him, you can want him, but could you do us a favour as well, and one that you could do very easily?"
Iran might get hammered for it, but it would be a big, big mistake for the States.
For the most part, in recent world events, Iran has been low-key. Only the US has been sabre rattling at them. Iran has had no problems with the UN or anyone else, that I know of, for years. The last I heard of them was them going 'hey, you don't need to invade Iraq, they don't have WMD, the UN is saying that!' (which, if the US decided to invade everyone that said that, would screw the French over...) and them saying 'Okay, you took over Iraq, don't stay to long, or else you might have problems from it's people', which is just good advice.
Sure, they might have other motives, but hey, that's politics.
I can understand the States wanting to get ahold of the remainder of the Baath party and Iraqy officals they want too, as well as Al-Qadia, but they need to calm down a little. Or rather, the media needs to calm down.
This kind of thing should be going on behind closed doors. I'd personally rather read an article like this:
World, Middle East
The United States has reason to believe that a man that could be a link between the fallen Iraq government and the terrorist group Al-Qadia, may be hiding in Iran. The Iran government, while acknowledging they have several as of yet unidentified Al-Qadia members in custody, deny direct knowledge of the sough man.
The United States is pursuing the manner.
That sums up the situation nicely, without all the sabre-ratling, or other stuff. I really don't care who told Bush what. Feeding the unnessacary details just feeds the public's bloated stomachs of morality and stupidity.
"The CIA said he's there! The CIA is never wrong, so he must be there!"
"The State department said he's there!"
"Everyone said he's there!"
Hey, that's nice, but prove it.
Educated People and The Church used to say the World is Flat
Educated People once though the Sound Barrier could not be broken
Educated People once thought that computers would one day be the size of football stadiums, cost so much only the 5 riches men in the world would own them, and that they'd be able to do 60 math calculations a second, and that would be top of the line.....
Until the United States shows me proof that the man is there, I'm taking it with a Grain of Salt. Now, if Iran said 'hey, we have him in custody', I'd believe them, because it would be stupid of them to lie, or go "hey, we had him, but he got away, and no we don't want your help getting him back"
To the media: GET A BRAIN
To George Bush: Did you know your advisors or using the post-9-11 situation to just get more funding? Some might need it, some might not
To the public: Put yourself in the 'advisaries' shoes (in this case, IRAN), and ask yourself 'how would I deal with it."
Any now back to your regularly read posts
"You won't give use those people, so we are going in to topple your government, have a nice day"
Actually, I believe Iran has the guy in custody. I mean, they are not stupid. (Here me out)
If they are doing anything wrong, they know that the United States will kick there ass for it, royally. Case in point, Iraq.
So, the best thing for them to do is say the truth.
In this case, I believe Iran when they say "We have Al-Qadia members in custody, but we are not sure of there names etc yet, just they are members."
I don't think they'd deliberately harbor them right now, it's just too dangerous. It would be like if Charles Manson escaped custody and asked you for a place to stay when you know there is a very good chance your already under surviallance. Your best beat would be to hand him over and hope they decide to leave you alone for a while.
Could Iran be supporting terrorist? Possibly. I'm not sure of the extent or nature of Iran-US relations, so I can't really comment. I don't recall the US pounding them in recent years, so they might not have a reason.
I think, if Iran is smart, they will do this
Keep looking for more terrorist while saying "we have some, we just don't know who they are yet", especially if they know a 'big fish' is in the area, and just haven't caught him yet.
Once they catch the 'big fish', they will either say 'Yeah, we have him, do you want him? Really? Well, we could use a few new power plants, care to trade?' or 'We think we have him, would some UN people please come and confirm this? If it's him, we could use some....'"
I think that would be the smart thing for Iran to do.
First, if they make a reasonable demand/request, like a help building a few power plants or something, if the US got huffy, then the rest of the World would be like 'Okay, calm down.' Especially if Iran tossed in the old 'Giving him up could cause us problem's with Al-Qadia, could you at least do something to make it worth the problems?'" Big public relations move. Most American's blindly hate Al-Qadia right now (who can blame them) and should be like 'That's fair. They think Al-Qadia could come after them, and just want help dealing with the problem if it happen's'.
Iran just picked up some powerplants, or whatever they asked for
if the United States got aggressive, this isn't someone hiding WMD or saying 'we won't give you the man that ordered the deaths of thousands of people because he's our guest', its someone saying "we have him, you can want him, but could you do us a favour as well, and one that you could do very easily?"
Iran might get hammered for it, but it would be a big, big mistake for the States.
For the most part, in recent world events, Iran has been low-key. Only the US has been sabre rattling at them. Iran has had no problems with the UN or anyone else, that I know of, for years. The last I heard of them was them going 'hey, you don't need to invade Iraq, they don't have WMD, the UN is saying that!' (which, if the US decided to invade everyone that said that, would screw the French over...) and them saying 'Okay, you took over Iraq, don't stay to long, or else you might have problems from it's people', which is just good advice.
Sure, they might have other motives, but hey, that's politics.
I can understand the States wanting to get ahold of the remainder of the Baath party and Iraqy officals they want too, as well as Al-Qadia, but they need to calm down a little. Or rather, the media needs to calm down.
This kind of thing should be going on behind closed doors. I'd personally rather read an article like this:
World, Middle East
The United States has reason to believe that a man that could be a link between the fallen Iraq government and the terrorist group Al-Qadia, may be hiding in Iran. The Iran government, while acknowledging they have several as of yet unidentified Al-Qadia members in custody, deny direct knowledge of the sough man.
The United States is pursuing the manner.
That sums up the situation nicely, without all the sabre-ratling, or other stuff. I really don't care who told Bush what. Feeding the unnessacary details just feeds the public's bloated stomachs of morality and stupidity.
"The CIA said he's there! The CIA is never wrong, so he must be there!"
"The State department said he's there!"
"Everyone said he's there!"
Hey, that's nice, but prove it.
Educated People and The Church used to say the World is Flat
Educated People once though the Sound Barrier could not be broken
Educated People once thought that computers would one day be the size of football stadiums, cost so much only the 5 riches men in the world would own them, and that they'd be able to do 60 math calculations a second, and that would be top of the line.....
Until the United States shows me proof that the man is there, I'm taking it with a Grain of Salt. Now, if Iran said 'hey, we have him in custody', I'd believe them, because it would be stupid of them to lie, or go "hey, we had him, but he got away, and no we don't want your help getting him back"
To the media: GET A BRAIN
To George Bush: Did you know your advisors or using the post-9-11 situation to just get more funding? Some might need it, some might not
To the public: Put yourself in the 'advisaries' shoes (in this case, IRAN), and ask yourself 'how would I deal with it."
Any now back to your regularly read posts
- Admiral Johnason
- Sith Devotee
- Posts: 2552
- Joined: 2003-01-11 05:06pm
- Location: The Rebel cruiser Defender
- Col. Crackpot
- That Obnoxious Guy
- Posts: 10228
- Joined: 2002-10-28 05:04pm
- Location: Rhode Island
- Contact:
- Sea Skimmer
- Yankee Capitalist Air Pirate
- Posts: 37390
- Joined: 2002-07-03 11:49pm
- Location: Passchendaele City, HAB
*Watches as Crackpot rides a JDAM down into Tehran*Col. Crackpot wrote:only two more countries to go, and the state of New Texas will be complete! I'll be the biggest! baddest! root-inist, toot-inist place around! yeeeeeeeee-haw!
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
- Peregrin Toker
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 8609
- Joined: 2002-07-04 10:57am
- Location: Denmark
- Contact:
The US doesn't have the forces to attack Iran- it is probably looking at 'regime change' and invoking a new boogeyman to make the people piss their pants over for a while.Simon H.Johansen wrote:Am I just a Paranoid Conspiracy Theorist (TM), or is the US government starting to use possible Al-Qaeda affliation as an excuse to attack countries which oppose them?
Like Legend of Galactic Heroes? Please contribute to http://gineipaedia.com/
The everyday middle class Iranian (if I can presume to speak for one) would be happy to see a regime change, or at least the toppeling of the ayotolahs (or however you spell them). But I don't think that they would welcome US intervention. They still remember the Shah, and they, unlike the Iraqis, haven't been sent to death camps for being a certain muslim...
Mind you, unlike Iraq, I really would love to see the China's, the EU's and Russia's response to an invasion plan. China would be feeling very jumpy right now, the US practically surrounds it, Russia has just got it's fingers burnt in Iraq, but would lack the capabilities to realistically do anything about it (unless they declare Iran under the nuclear umbrella which I highly doubt), and finally the EU. Which unlike the member states relation with Iraq which ranged to cordial to down right hostile, they all have diplomatic relations in Tehran, trade relations and one (according to rumour) has a mutual defence treaty with Iran.
Very interesting. Although I freely grant that if the US goes the military option, and says 'fuck the world' there isn't damn thing that any of them could do about it.
Mind you, unlike Iraq, I really would love to see the China's, the EU's and Russia's response to an invasion plan. China would be feeling very jumpy right now, the US practically surrounds it, Russia has just got it's fingers burnt in Iraq, but would lack the capabilities to realistically do anything about it (unless they declare Iran under the nuclear umbrella which I highly doubt), and finally the EU. Which unlike the member states relation with Iraq which ranged to cordial to down right hostile, they all have diplomatic relations in Tehran, trade relations and one (according to rumour) has a mutual defence treaty with Iran.
Very interesting. Although I freely grant that if the US goes the military option, and says 'fuck the world' there isn't damn thing that any of them could do about it.
Η ζωή, η ζωή εδω τελειώνει!
"Science is one cold-hearted bitch with a 14" strap-on" - Masuka 'Dexter'
"Angela is not the woman you think she is Gabriel, she's done terrible things"
"So have I, and I'm going to do them all to you." - Sylar to Arthur 'Heroes'
Basically, like normal people, they want to be left alone to run their own affairs- any US strongarming of Iran will set back the reform movement years and give the Ayatollahs more power, yup.Crown wrote:The everyday middle class Iranian (if I can presume to speak for one) would be happy to see a regime change, or at least the toppeling of the ayotolahs (or however you spell them). But I don't think that they would welcome US intervention. They still remember the Shah, and they, unlike the Iraqis, haven't been sent to death camps for being a certain muslim...
Which one does the rumor say?Mind you, unlike Iraq, I really would love to see the China's, the EU's and Russia's response to an invasion plan. China would be feeling very jumpy right now, the US practically surrounds it, Russia has just got it's fingers burnt in Iraq, but would lack the capabilities to realistically do anything about it (unless they declare Iran under the nuclear umbrella which I highly doubt), and finally the EU. Which unlike the member states relation with Iraq which ranged to cordial to down right hostile, they all have diplomatic relations in Tehran, trade relations and one (according to rumour) has a mutual defence treaty with Iran.
Well, they could do what they're doing in Iraq now and say "neener neener neeeeeenerrrrrrrrr". I hear Rumsfeld is going to India asking for Indian troops in Iraq. Pathetic.Very interesting. Although I freely grant that if the US goes the military option, and says 'fuck the world' there isn't damn thing that any of them could do about it.
Like Legend of Galactic Heroes? Please contribute to http://gineipaedia.com/
Imagine that, people want to be left alone. People are really strange that way. (Incase someone didn't get it, yes that was sarcasm)Vympel wrote:Basically, like normal people, they want to be left alone to run their own affairs- any US strongarming of Iran will set back the reform movement years and give the Ayatollahs more power, yup.
I'll give you a hint; it starts with 'H' and ends with 'ellas'Which one does the rumor say?
You are joking right?Well, they could do what they're doing in Iraq now and say "neener neener neeeeeenerrrrrrrrr". I hear Rumsfeld is going to India asking for Indian troops in Iraq. Pathetic.
Η ζωή, η ζωή εδω τελειώνει!
"Science is one cold-hearted bitch with a 14" strap-on" - Masuka 'Dexter'
"Angela is not the woman you think she is Gabriel, she's done terrible things"
"So have I, and I'm going to do them all to you." - Sylar to Arthur 'Heroes'
To certain so-called 'conservatives' in America they'd be shocked at the concept.Crown wrote: Imagine that, people want to be left alone. People are really strange that way. (Incase someone didn't get it, yes that was sarcasm)
Serious? Nai kala! Er ... maybe. It's *possible*.I'll give you a hint; it starts with 'H' and ends with 'ellas'
Oh I'm deadly serious- it's quite funny, they acted originally like the US was handing out favours when they said "France etc will have no participation in Iraqi peacekeeping forces", and who wants to look after Iraq now? The Polish and the Ukrainians (who are only in it for the money- peacekeeping duty pays good in the Ukranian Army). Most impressive.You are joking right?
Oh, correction, Rumsfeld didn't go to India, the Deputy PM went for a week-long visit to the US but this says exactly what I remember it saying (it's from a few days ago):
"Topping the agenda is the immediate question of Indian troops for Iraq, where the American military is getting bogged down in an increasingly hostile situation. New Delhi has so far hedged on US request on various technical grounds, but Rumsfeld is expected to aggressively push for an Indian commitment."
Just plain sad, isn't it?
Like Legend of Galactic Heroes? Please contribute to http://gineipaedia.com/
Well I said rumoured, I will have to verify, but as my understanding goes, it's a mutual defence treaty against an un-provoked attack. Although the part that I am not sure about, is that it is either limited to un-provoked attack from a 'neighbour' in general or 'Turkey' specifically.Vympel wrote:Serious? Nai kala! Er ... maybe. It's *possible*.Crown wrote:I'll give you a hint; it starts with 'H' and ends with 'ellas'
Η ζωή, η ζωή εδω τελειώνει!
"Science is one cold-hearted bitch with a 14" strap-on" - Masuka 'Dexter'
"Angela is not the woman you think she is Gabriel, she's done terrible things"
"So have I, and I'm going to do them all to you." - Sylar to Arthur 'Heroes'
- Col. Crackpot
- That Obnoxious Guy
- Posts: 10228
- Joined: 2002-10-28 05:04pm
- Location: Rhode Island
- Contact:
JDAM? That there is a W-88 Sonny boy! yeeee-haw!Col. Crackpot wrote:only two more countries to go, and the state of New Texas will be complete! I'll be the biggest! baddest! root-inist, toot-inist place around! yeeeeeeeee-haw!
"This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we’ll be lucky to live through it.” -Tom Clancy
-
- Vympel's Bitch
- Posts: 3893
- Joined: 2003-03-02 10:45am
- Location: Pretoria, South Africa
- Contact:
Iraq is a useful example for Iran. That was part of the early discussion floating around before the invasion.
Saddam is more "central" to the Arab world. Iran, as a Persian nation, is slightly removed despite its fundamentalism. And as was said before, its particular hatred for the United States. But the conventional power and unconventional power of Khemeni also put Iraq higher on the island than Iran. A base of operations - i.e. Iraq - was always necessary in order to tackle questions like that. We could go from Kuwait or Saudi Arabia to Iraq, but not to Iran. And a huge collection of military strength in Pakistan would have been difficult to keep from becoming a larger mess than our invasion of Iraq.
Saddam is more "central" to the Arab world. Iran, as a Persian nation, is slightly removed despite its fundamentalism. And as was said before, its particular hatred for the United States. But the conventional power and unconventional power of Khemeni also put Iraq higher on the island than Iran. A base of operations - i.e. Iraq - was always necessary in order to tackle questions like that. We could go from Kuwait or Saudi Arabia to Iraq, but not to Iran. And a huge collection of military strength in Pakistan would have been difficult to keep from becoming a larger mess than our invasion of Iraq.
- Peregrin Toker
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 8609
- Joined: 2002-07-04 10:57am
- Location: Denmark
- Contact:
The US shouldn't attack Iran either - I'd rather have them restoring order to Iraq.Vympel wrote:The US doesn't have the forces to attack Iran- it is probably looking at 'regime change' and invoking a new boogeyman to make the people piss their pants over for a while.Simon H.Johansen wrote:Am I just a Paranoid Conspiracy Theorist (TM), or is the US government starting to use possible Al-Qaeda affliation as an excuse to attack countries which oppose them?
"Hi there, would you like to have a cookie?"
"No, actually I would HATE to have a cookie, you vapid waste of inedible flesh!"
"No, actually I would HATE to have a cookie, you vapid waste of inedible flesh!"
I would leave them completely to their own devices.
Howedar is no longer here. Need to talk to him? Talk to Pick.
- Dahak
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 7292
- Joined: 2002-10-29 12:08pm
- Location: Admiralty House, Landing, Manticore
- Contact:
Ah yes, the ubiqitous justify-all-means argument these days... After a while it really gets annoying.Axis Kast wrote:I'm worried about their potential to deploy WMD.
Great Dolphin Conspiracy - Chatter box
"Implications: we have been intercepted deliberately by a means unknown, for a purpose unknown, and transferred to a place unknown by a form of intelligence unknown. Apart from the unknown, everything is obvious." ZORAC
GALE Force Euro Wimp
Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.
- Sea Skimmer
- Yankee Capitalist Air Pirate
- Posts: 37390
- Joined: 2002-07-03 11:49pm
- Location: Passchendaele City, HAB
A dozen bombs or missiles can remove most of that threat.Axis Kast wrote:I'm worried about their potential to deploy WMD.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
-
- Vympel's Bitch
- Posts: 3893
- Joined: 2003-03-02 10:45am
- Location: Pretoria, South Africa
- Contact:
You are of the opinion that any interested party – especially Iran – should be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons?Ah yes, the ubiqitous justify-all-means argument these days... After a while it really gets annoying.
There is a very limited range of consequences that could result of our flattening the research reactors conventionally. Not to mention numerous justifications. Take every argument about Iraq on which Bush failed to convince you and look next door. Now tell me that any of those are wrong. Iran does have weapons of mass destruction. Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. Iran is harboring al-Qaeda. Iran is a dictatorship predisposed to be at odds with the United States of America.
Will we expose ourselves to additional terrorism by lobbing a few missiles at Iran? Potentially. And certainly it won’t be anything more serious than we’re seeing as a result of Iraq. When you weight that against the potential for Iran to have passed on fissile material or threaten its neighbors (i.e. Afghanistan and Iraq) with a fully-functional nuclear arsenal however, the gamble is clearly in our favor. An Osirak, Part II if you will.
Saudi Arabia worries me far more than Iran ever will.
I'd rather be against a hostile government and an apathetic people than an apathetic government with a hostile people.
I'd rather be against a hostile government and an apathetic people than an apathetic government with a hostile people.
Howedar is no longer here. Need to talk to him? Talk to Pick.