Iran Leader Calls for Israel's Destruction
-
Iran lets senior al Qaeda suspects roam free: report "Iran is permitting around 25 high-ranking al Qaeda members to roam free in the country’s capital, including three sons of Osama bin Laden, a German monthly magazine reported on Wednesday."
Iran has admitted holding 150 Al-Qaeda or Taliban operatives. But when one conservative magazine claims that 25 of these operatives are in fact free of roaming, it has to put evidences. One source is not reliable enough. And BTW, the article was published in April 2005[^]
See I try, and look up To the sky, but my eyes burn Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051026/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_israel Should Iran be allow to get the bomb? This is a huge red flag.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_will_bury_you[^] Israel is believed to have over 400 nuclear and thermonuclear warheads (cf http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/farr.htm[^]). Would they be attacked by Iran would be Iran changed into a desert of glass...and I'm pretty sure Iran knows it.
See I try, and look up To the sky, but my eyes burn Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
Will you join the invasion force or stay on your couch enjoying the show?
See I try, and look up To the sky, but my eyes burn Fold with us! ¤ flickr
All the army has to do is ask. I'm ready to go back in anytime they want me. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
Iran has admitted holding 150 Al-Qaeda or Taliban operatives. But when one conservative magazine claims that 25 of these operatives are in fact free of roaming, it has to put evidences. One source is not reliable enough. And BTW, the article was published in April 2005[^]
See I try, and look up To the sky, but my eyes burn Fold with us! ¤ flickr
K(arl) wrote:
One source is not reliable enough.
:wtf: So everytime a newspaper gets a scoop, in other words the only sorce to report the story, it should be dismissed? Do you have a personal reason for dismissing this story?
K(arl) wrote:
And BTW, the article was published in April 2005[^]
Your point? Is there a statute of limitations on outrage???
-
kgaddy wrote:
Forced too? Read stan's post again. He said he would leave it and hopfully they would see how well Iraq's system was going and follow it.
Yes, because Iraq is going so well with what ... 2.000+ US casulties and an estimated 26,690 and 30,051 iraqi civilians. Source And furthermore with: • 82 per cent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops; • less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security; • 67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation; • 43 per cent of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened; • 72 per cent do not have confidence in the multi-national forces. Source And no sign of any kind of slowdown in uprising - other then the accepted constitutional document. Yes, I'm sure things in Iraq is going very well, indeed and is a model for other middle eastern countries to abandon their ways and embrace the way of Iraq. --------------------------- 127.0.0.1 - Sweet 127.0.0.1
-
Pakistani president and neither any leader from Pakistan ever called for attack on Israel, instead Pakistan moved a step further by shaking hands with Israel (Pakistan held first official contact with Israel last month). But motivation behind this is nothing but the resolution of Palestine dispute. While sitting in US or Europe, you just cant imagine level of grievances prevailing in this part of world against Israel. Everyday there are news of Israeli attacks on Palestinians. Palestanians are poor, they dont have money enought to eat well, dress well, get educated. yet Israel attacks them every now and then very proudly as they were fighting with some super power. You must understand this thing fuels resentment against Israel. Few people says only muslims are against Israeli aggressions... no gentleman, no! every sane person when watches prevailing situation in israel/palestine with clear adn unbiased mind, very easily deduces who is the aggresser (Israel) and who is the oppressed. (Palestine) So when Irani president says Israel would be destroyed, you should see this in full context. One last word, Pakistan though never said it would attack Israel ever, but angry emotions of Pakistani people against Israel are known to everyone. So if ever Israel attacks Iran (as some of my coder fraternity proposed here) Pakistan would be forced to retaliate and help Iran. I hope I made my point clear... dont comment on something without going deep into history and visualising the whole context...
We mr. Ali, I'm sure you know for a fact that if Israel attacks Iran Pakastan will attack Israel. I say your full of it. The didnt attack Israel when it attacked Iraq in 1981. And Pakistan relies on the US. If it attacks Israel, the US will blow away every square inch.
Ali I. wrote:
Everyday there are news of Israeli attacks on Palestinians.
Do you hear about the attacks from palistians on jewish women and children? How come whenever there is a ceasefire it's the Palestians who break it (see hamas).
Ali I. wrote:
Palestanians are poor, they dont have money enought to eat well, dress well, get educated.
They are given more money than any other group in the world, it's leaders like Arafat who stole this money, look at his wife who uis still in Paris.
Ali I. wrote:
yet Israel attacks them every now and then very proudly as they were fighting with some super power.
Are they censoring your news where you live. Israel only attacks terrorist, who attack them first. Sadly these terrorist hide behind women and children, and when they are killed there are innocent people killed. But the fault of this lies with the terrorist.
Ali I. wrote:
You must understand this thing fuels resentment against Israel.
You can do nothing about stupidity.
Ali I. wrote:
no gentleman, no! every sane person when watches prevailing situation in israel/palestine with clear adn unbiased mind, very easily deduces who is the aggresser (Israel) and who is the oppressed. (Palestine)
total BS. Israel gives up the Gaza strip, and what do they get in return? More terrorist attacks. "Late in the month, over two dozen Palestinian Kassam rockets were fired into Israeli territory over a period of several days, most of them aimed at the frequently-targeted Israeli town of Sderot, where a number of civilians were wounded. The audacious and unprovoked attacks triggered a quick Israeli response, including air strikes on several Hamas targets." http://www.crossrhythms.co.uk/articles/life/Withdrawal\_Pains/16697/p1/
Ali I. wrote:
So when Irani president says Israel would be destroyed, you should see this in full context.
So do you agree with him? Do you want to destroy Israel?
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_will_bury_you[^] Israel is believed to have over 400 nuclear and thermonuclear warheads (cf http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/farr.htm[^]). Would they be attacked by Iran would be Iran changed into a desert of glass...and I'm pretty sure Iran knows it.
See I try, and look up To the sky, but my eyes burn Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
Will you join the invasion force or stay on your couch enjoying the show?
See I try, and look up To the sky, but my eyes burn Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
K(arl) wrote:
One source is not reliable enough.
:wtf: So everytime a newspaper gets a scoop, in other words the only sorce to report the story, it should be dismissed? Do you have a personal reason for dismissing this story?
K(arl) wrote:
And BTW, the article was published in April 2005[^]
Your point? Is there a statute of limitations on outrage???
kgaddy wrote:
So everytime a newspaper gets a scoop, in other words the only sorce to report the story, it should be dismissed?
Not dismissed, but not blindly believed either. I don't say this news is wrong, but I am sceptical and wait for more.
kgaddy wrote:
Your point? Is there a statute of limitations on outrage?
Sometimes there are 'old' news suddenly getting back to the front page without any explanation, this is another example. In these cases, I suspect news agencies to make business, selling something they weren't able to sell in the past. Why this one get there 6 months after its first publication? Why was there no outrage before? Can this be in any way related to a press campaign?
See I try, and look up To the sky, but my eyes burn Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
I hope they know it. Thereby saving millions of people on both sides. This is a perfect example of "Peace through Strength"
-
kgaddy wrote:
Wow, I didm't realize you hated America so much.
Oh, please! You can do better than repeating political propaganda tricks, can't you? Analyze this: a) English is not my native language. It took me time, money and effort to learn it. And it is the language of America. b) I am using a PC (American invention) running Windows (made in...). c) I am posting in a forum (frequented mostly by Americans) in the internet (invented at ...) Now, I might not be too bright, but I can spell "contradiction" and consult a dictionary. If I "hated america", I wouldn't be speaking/writing here, wouldn't be in a language you'd understand and wouldn't be writing to you, right?;) It is not about hating america, it is about hating imperialism. America is wonderfull when is not bad.
kgaddy wrote:
do you think something should be done?
Honestly? I think this imbroglio (or quagmire) can only have a chance of success if you redefine success. Iraq is lost for the mobs already. The better the Bush administration can do now is try to save some of it's interests: the Saudi cleptocracy, Kuwait, Bahrein, Mubarak, etc. Dadinho é o caralho! Meu nome agora é Zé Pequeno, porra!
Leandro Firmino da Hora in the best movie[^] you'll ever see.Diego Moita wrote:
If I "hated america", I wouldn't be speaking/writing here, wouldn't be in a language you'd understand and wouldn't be writing to you, right? It is not about hating america, it is about hating imperialism. America is wonderfull when is not bad
This is so funny. Explain how America is being imperialistic. Here is a good definition: "is a policy of extending control or authority over foreign entities as a means of acquisition and/or maintenance of empires, either through direct territorial conquest or through indirect methods of exerting control on the politics and/or economy of other countries. The term is often used to describe the policy of a country in maintaining colonies and dominance over distant lands, regardless of whether the country calls itself an empire." Ameria wants to give control to Iraq and get the hell out. It goes and gets rid of a criminal, gives the country a lot of it's own money, then leaves. How is this imperialism? If it were imperialism the US would stay in Iraq, like Syria did in lebanon, and take all their goods. It took 13 years for America to agree on a constution. Ask most in the area, besides the media, who only concentrates on the negative they they say there is good proigress in Iraq. You believe what you want to believe.
-
kgaddy wrote:
So everytime a newspaper gets a scoop, in other words the only sorce to report the story, it should be dismissed?
Not dismissed, but not blindly believed either. I don't say this news is wrong, but I am sceptical and wait for more.
kgaddy wrote:
Your point? Is there a statute of limitations on outrage?
Sometimes there are 'old' news suddenly getting back to the front page without any explanation, this is another example. In these cases, I suspect news agencies to make business, selling something they weren't able to sell in the past. Why this one get there 6 months after its first publication? Why was there no outrage before? Can this be in any way related to a press campaign?
See I try, and look up To the sky, but my eyes burn Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
kgaddy wrote: This is a perfect example of "Peace through Strength" I prefer "MAD theory" :-D Nonetheless, I agree, the old adage "Si vis pacem para bellum" is still valid
See I try, and look up To the sky, but my eyes burn Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
Diego Moita wrote:
If I "hated america", I wouldn't be speaking/writing here, wouldn't be in a language you'd understand and wouldn't be writing to you, right? It is not about hating america, it is about hating imperialism. America is wonderfull when is not bad
This is so funny. Explain how America is being imperialistic. Here is a good definition: "is a policy of extending control or authority over foreign entities as a means of acquisition and/or maintenance of empires, either through direct territorial conquest or through indirect methods of exerting control on the politics and/or economy of other countries. The term is often used to describe the policy of a country in maintaining colonies and dominance over distant lands, regardless of whether the country calls itself an empire." Ameria wants to give control to Iraq and get the hell out. It goes and gets rid of a criminal, gives the country a lot of it's own money, then leaves. How is this imperialism? If it were imperialism the US would stay in Iraq, like Syria did in lebanon, and take all their goods. It took 13 years for America to agree on a constution. Ask most in the area, besides the media, who only concentrates on the negative they they say there is good proigress in Iraq. You believe what you want to believe.
kgaddy wrote:
Ameria wants to give control to Iraq and get the hell out. It goes and gets rid of a criminal, gives the country a lot of it's own money, then leaves. How is this imperialism? If it were imperialism the US would stay in Iraq, like Syria did in lebanon, and take all their goods.
Ahem - isn't the US troops still in Iraq? It goes about removing a criminal they created, in search of weapons they thought existed, given by them, and then gets the hell out.... except they are still there. (mighty noble of "you" - now I do basically agree that removing Saddam was a good idea, but hey - it is just spring cleaning your own mess) Once the troops leaves Iraq - you can say they have left, but up until now - the troops are still there occuping the country. --------------------------- 127.0.0.1 - Sweet 127.0.0.1
-
kgaddy wrote:
Wow, I didm't realize you hated America so much.
Oh, please! You can do better than repeating political propaganda tricks, can't you? Analyze this: a) English is not my native language. It took me time, money and effort to learn it. And it is the language of America. b) I am using a PC (American invention) running Windows (made in...). c) I am posting in a forum (frequented mostly by Americans) in the internet (invented at ...) Now, I might not be too bright, but I can spell "contradiction" and consult a dictionary. If I "hated america", I wouldn't be speaking/writing here, wouldn't be in a language you'd understand and wouldn't be writing to you, right?;) It is not about hating america, it is about hating imperialism. America is wonderfull when is not bad.
kgaddy wrote:
do you think something should be done?
Honestly? I think this imbroglio (or quagmire) can only have a chance of success if you redefine success. Iraq is lost for the mobs already. The better the Bush administration can do now is try to save some of it's interests: the Saudi cleptocracy, Kuwait, Bahrein, Mubarak, etc. Dadinho é o caralho! Meu nome agora é Zé Pequeno, porra!
Leandro Firmino da Hora in the best movie[^] you'll ever see.Well - remember. If you disagree with current policies of the US, you are either A) unpatriotic and hates america if you an american. B) you just hate america if you are non-american. You know - the good and strong arguments. :doh: --------------------------- 127.0.0.1 - Sweet 127.0.0.1
-
I have seen polls that say diffrently. Funny how they never give the source of the poll and at one time call it a "seceret" poll. I call BS. Lay off the koolAid.
-
Yes. It is BS because the numbers and casualty list disagrees with your worldview. Mighty fine argument. --------------------------- 127.0.0.1 - Sweet 127.0.0.1
-
kgaddy wrote:
Ameria wants to give control to Iraq and get the hell out. It goes and gets rid of a criminal, gives the country a lot of it's own money, then leaves. How is this imperialism? If it were imperialism the US would stay in Iraq, like Syria did in lebanon, and take all their goods.
Ahem - isn't the US troops still in Iraq? It goes about removing a criminal they created, in search of weapons they thought existed, given by them, and then gets the hell out.... except they are still there. (mighty noble of "you" - now I do basically agree that removing Saddam was a good idea, but hey - it is just spring cleaning your own mess) Once the troops leaves Iraq - you can say they have left, but up until now - the troops are still there occuping the country. --------------------------- 127.0.0.1 - Sweet 127.0.0.1
Alsvha wrote:
Ahem - isn't the US troops still in Iraq?
Ahem, yes, but have already stated that when the Iraqi troops are ready they will leave. Have you not read the news?
Alsvha wrote:
It goes about removing a criminal they created
Just because they supported him when he was against Iran does not mean they created him. That a big streach.
Alsvha wrote:
now I do basically agree that removing Saddam was a good idea, but hey - it is just spring cleaning your own mess
If you agree that removing him was a good idea, why do critize the troops there. How would you remove him without troops?????
Alsvha wrote:
Once the troops leaves Iraq - you can say they have left, but up until now - the troops are still there occuping the country.
On the same note, how can you call it imperialism if you have not given them the chance to get out. It's a two way street.
-
Well - remember. If you disagree with current policies of the US, you are either A) unpatriotic and hates america if you an american. B) you just hate america if you are non-american. You know - the good and strong arguments. :doh: --------------------------- 127.0.0.1 - Sweet 127.0.0.1
I'll repost his statement: "Wow! I'd love to see that too, but for the oposite reason of yours. It would be like trying to extinguish fire with gasoline. Americans would become radioactive in the middle-east for the next 20 years. You would have to say goodbye for cheap oil, goodbye to any influence in the region, ... Oh, well, it would be to good to be true. Even Bush can't be so crazy.." Now, he may disagree with policies, but it also looks like he wants the US to fail.