Iran caught red-handed shipping weapons to the Taliban

[clarky003]

This ones fresh.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/11/world/middleeast/11iraq.html

 

[repiV]

Basically in the eyes of RepIV and Nemesis anything Israel does is completely justified because it is for the defence of Israel (even though they are the occupiers..). I find it quite tragic that neither of these two is actually Israeli (though they are Jewish apparently) and they won't acknowledge that maybe, just maybe the continued conflict/colonisation in Palestine isn't doing the Israelis and by association the wider Jewish community any favours internationally.

I'm Jewish? News to me. Last I checked I was a staunch atheist, but hell, what do I know?
No, not everything Israel does is completely justified. My viewpoints on the situation are a hell of a lot more balanced than your Israelis wrong, Palestinians right monologues.
Arabs in Israel (and they make up over 20% of the population) can live prosperous and free lives equal to Jews. Jews living in the Arab world? Funny thought.
Clearly Israel is by far the more civilised country here, and why the Palestinians deserve any symapthy from me I have no idea.

I'm all for Israel existing, but they (the Israelis) really need to forgive and forget past conflicts and withdraw completely out of Gaza and the Northern territories and let the Palestinians govern themselves without restrictions (unlike the Clinton era treaty). If after that Hamas or whomever kick off again, then I'd say the IDF are wholly justified in reigning terror down on them, but I'm not seeing it being so whilst the IDF and settlers continue to illegally occupy the Palestinian land. It's a back door attempt at colonisation through subjugation which stinks to high heaven tbh.

They already did withdraw from the occupied areas, and the Palestinians took this gesture of goodwill, threw it out the window, and started launching rockets at Israeli cities. Hence why I don't give two shits about the "Palestinian people" or their fate.
Why does this need to happen twice before the IDF are justified in doing what they do? Is it ok to accept an olive branch and then use it to kill civilians once but not twice?
If Israel really wanted to colonise the Middle East, they would have absolutely no problem doing so and it wouldn't take them 60 years.

 

[Dan]

Israel is in a really bad position. Basically all of their neighbours hate them. So they have to keep attacking and persecuting their neighbours because they are stronger militarily. Their neighbours outnumber them by many times and have faster growing populations and nothing to lose, not even land anymore. Israel can survive only because of it's US funded military. Eventually US is going to be over-extended in Iraq, Afghanistan, and possibly Iran. When there is economic problems at home, someone will run on a platform of not mucking around in the middle east and Israel will get ****ed.

 

[Nemesis6]

I'm Jewish? Sweet! When do I get to eat Matza? Oh yeah, passover. Now, according to leading Islamic scholars, what Jews do is, they bake their matza with the blood of a Christian or a Muslim. I think the Palestinian blood in my weekly Zionist cheque will do.

A to the NE way, Dan, if the U.S are gonna be busy in Iran, Israel's enemies will be weak as this is the source of their weapons, training, financial support, and even manpower. Just a stray thought.

 

[Dan]

A to the NE way, Dan, if the U.S are gonna be busy in Iran, Israel's enemies will be weak as this is the source of their weapons, training, financial support, and even manpower. Just a stray thought.

you fail to understand yet again

 

[kathaksung]

When wolf wants to eat a goat, it always find some reason. But after all, look at when they gave such a story, in which country those NATO troops and US troops are?

Quote, "U.S. Government Uses Al-Qaeda To Attack Iran

Bush authorizes group formerly headed by alleged 9/11 mastermind to be bankrolled & armed by CIA for covert regime change

Prison Planet | May 28, 2007 <http://www.prisonplanet.com/index.html>
Paul Joseph Watson & Steve Watson

Recent revelations illustrating the fact that the U.S. government is using a Sunni Al-Qaeda terrorist group formerly headed by the alleged mastermind of 9/11 to carry out bombings in Iran undermines the entire war on terror as a monumental hoax that is being exploited purely to realize a geopolitical agenda.

"President George W Bush has given the CIA approval to launch covert "black" operations to achieve regime change in Iran, intelligence sources have revealed. Mr Bush has signed an official document endorsing CIA plans for a propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilise, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the mullahs."
"The CIA is giving arms-length support, supplying money and weapons, to an Iranian militant group, Jundullah, which has conducted raids into Iran from bases in Pakistan," the London Telegraph

<http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/270507ops.htm>reported yesterday.
Jundullah is a Sunni Al-Qaeda offshoot organization <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jundullah>that was formerly headed by alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Even if you believe the official story of 9/11 to the letter, the fact that Bush has personally authorized U.S. support for this group completely dismantles the facade of the war on terror.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/ww3/iran_us_uses_al_qaeda_to_attack_iran.htm

 

[Sidewinder]

I wish people would realize that if the U.S didn't support Isreal the it way it does,there would been no 9/11.....

 

[Nemesis6]

Dan, saying I fail to understand is not an argument... Israel is able to survive even if it's cut off from America. It still has other trade partners and is the technological peak of the world, so playing devil's advocate here, if it would indeed struggle as a cause of it, it would still be able to defend itself. With Iran gone, at its weakest position, Israel would still defeat its enemies because they're pretty much all proxies. The only real threat Israel would face would be Syria and Egypt, and they've both been beaten before when Israel was much smaller and weaker, so... you know. And if Israel was indeed attacked on a scale that would pose a threat to its being, it could pound both countries into oblivion several times over, starting with Damascus and Cairo.

 

[No Limit]

Dan, saying I fail to understand is not an argument... Israel is able to survive even if it's cut off from America. It still has other trade partners and is the technological peak of the world, so playing devil's advocate here, if it would indeed struggle as a cause of it, it would still be able to defend itself. With Iran gone, at its weakest position, Israel would still defeat its enemies because they're pretty much all proxies. The only real threat Israel would face would be Syria and Egypt, and they've both been beaten before when Israel was much smaller and weaker, so... you know. And if Israel was indeed attacked on a scale that would pose a threat to its being, it could pound both countries into oblivion several times over, starting with Damascus and Cairo.

I believe that in that war you are refering to they were still being supported by the US. Without all those weapons and all that money we gave them they would have been ****ed.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

As it's all from a US source it's difficult to be sure of authenticity.

Bah! Discrimination is bliss to be sure.

 

[repiV]

I wish people would realize that if the U.S didn't support Isreal the it way it does,there would been no 9/11.....

So what's the moral of that story exactly, don't do anything controversial?

If I didn't know better I'd think you were blaming the US for 9/11.

 

[No Limit]

So what's the moral of that story exactly, don't do anything controversial?

If I didn't know better I'd think you were blaming the US for 9/11.

If I didn't know better I'd think you were trying to say the US was not liable for 9/11.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

 

[repiV]

If I didn't know better I'd think you were trying to say the US was not liable for 9/11.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

I'm glad you changed your wording from "largely responsible" to "liable", because there's a big difference between the two...

 

[No Limit]

I'm glad you changed your wording from "largely responsible" to "liable", because there's a big difference between the two...

You're quick! I didn't want to upset big brother, but in the end responsible means virtually the same as liable.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Well, there's a difference between moral culpability and causal connection.

 

[repiV]

You're quick! I didn't want to upset big brother, but in the end responsible means virtually the same as liable.

Well responsibility implies outright blame, which is frankly wrong. The terrorists are to blame.
Liability implies that you could have taken steps to avoid it happening, regardless of whether or not you were responsible.

Also, what Sulkdodds said.

(WTF is a Sulkdodds anyway? Does it even mean anything?)

 

[CptStern]

dodds is his name ..and he sulks ..so sulkdodds

 

[No Limit]

Well responsibility implies outright blame, which is frankly wrong. The terrorists are to blame.
Liability implies that you could have taken steps to avoid it happening, regardless of whether or not you were responsible.

Also, what Sulkdodds said.

(WTF is a Sulkdodds anyway? Does it even mean anything?)

Yeah, but who is responsible for creating those terrorists?

Also, I don't think he said anything about responsibility, if you want to mix words you should have said that he is tyring to imply america is liable for 9/11. No? Therefore he was right and your straw-man argument wrong.

 

[repiV]

Yeah, but who is responsible for creating those terrorists?

Arming them really isn't the same as creating them. This isn't Frankenstein we're talking about here...they didn't come out of the CIA's terrorist synthesing machine.
The terrorists are quite responsible for their own actions.

Also, I don't think he said anything about responsibility, if you want to mix words you should have said that he is tyring to imply america is liable for 9/11. No? Therefore he was right.

He? I was talking to you. I need a "confused" emoticon...

 

[No Limit]

Arming them really isn't the same as creating them. This isn't Frankenstein we're talking about here...they didn't come out of the CIA's terrorist synthesing machine.
The terrorists are quite responsible for their own actions.

So...in that case he was right you were wrong.

He never implied the US was responsible, he implied liability.

Sorry about all the edits, I am at work.

 

[No Limit]

He? I was talking to you. I need a "confused" emoticon...

Sidewinder. Look at your reply top of the page.

 

[repiV]

Sidewinder. Look at your reply top of the page.

Oh, right. I was about to accuse you of trying to destroy me with psychological warfare...talking about yourself in the third person like that...

The way he said it indicates that what we should learn from all this is that we should never do anything controversial, because it might piss someone else off. What kind of a way to live is that?

 

[Sulkdodds]

I would say that any causal responsibility that the US government has for 9/11 would in fact be through actually evil acts, not just "contraversial". I refer to various foreign policy initiatives and not just funding of Israel.

 

[No Limit]

Oh, right. I was about to accuse you of trying to destroy me with psychological warfare...talking about yourself in the third person like that...

The way he said it indicates that what we should learn from all this is that we should never do anything controversial, because it might piss someone else off. What kind of a way to live is that?

So I don't have to waste my time typing about mixing words how about next time you just don't use straw man arguments. Cool? Because he is absolutely right, if we didn't support israel 9/11 probably wouldn't have happened.

 

[repiV]

I would say that any causal responsibility that the US government has for 9/11 would in fact be through actually evil acts, not just "contraversial". I refer to various foreign policy initiatives and not just funding of Israel.

To which foreign policy initiatives are you referring? And how could anything that America has ever done even come close to justifying 9/11? Not that I'm saying you think that, but the people who did it would have to be pretty unhinged in the first place regardless of America's actions.

 

[repiV]

So I don't have to waste my time typing about mixing words how about next time you just don't use straw man arguments. Cool? Because he is absolutely right, if we didn't support israel 9/11 probably wouldn't have happened.

Yes, probably true - but what's his point?
The way he words it indicates there is clearly a lot more to it than just a statement of fact. He's suggesting almost that the US deserved it for supporting Israel. Like I said, what's the moral of the story here?

 

[No Limit]

Yes, probably true - but what's his point?
The way he words it indicates there is clearly a lot more to it than just a statement of fact. He's suggesting almost that the US deserved it for supporting Israel. Like I said, what's the moral of the story here?

I was just pointing out how off base you were with that remark to sidewinder.

But...

You don't think from their point of view we didn't deserve it? They are fighting a war, in their eyes americans are just as culpible for their suffering as Israel is. And in many ways they are absolutely right.

Why do you think we should support Israel over any other muslim country/region. What makes them so morally superior?

 

[Sulkdodds]

To which foreign policy initiatives are you referring? And how could anything that America has ever done even come close to justifying 9/11? Not that I'm saying you think that, but the people who did it would have to be pretty unhinged in the first place regardless of America's actions.

Clearly they're mad, yes. And arguably the US government benefited from the attacks (damn sure Bush did - before them he was seen as a lame duck president) while the people who suffered and died - the people inside the towers, and the many innocents who died in America's foreign adventures since - were not responsible for injustices perpetrated in foreign lands. Oh, sure, you could make some sort of argument that ordinary American citizens sustain an unjust system by supporting and legitimising it, but to suggest that leads to their deaths is a huge stretch.

Those foreign policy intiatives I mention include likely (that is, they tried once before, and Colin Powell seemed to admit they tried again) US involvement in Pinochet's Chilean coup, which ousted a democratically elected government and killed 3000 people for political reasons.

Another example would be Operation PBSUCCESS - that is, the CIA operation to overthrow Guatamala's also-democratically-elected leader in 1954 and igniting a civil war. They would later fund the Nicuraguan Contras who stood accused of enormous amounts of human rights abuses, and in Iraq they supported a coup against the democratically-elected Quassim government.

Stern's very good on these and I hope he'll post more that I simply don't have the time for now.

 

[repiV]

I was just pointing out how off base you were with that remark to sidewinder.

Not really - as I have already outlined.

But...

You don't think from their point of view we didn't deserve it? They are fighting a war, in their eyes americans are just as culpible for their suffering as Israel is. And in many ways they are absolutely right.

I don't give a damn about their point of view. First of all, how could any of their beliefs justify killing thousands of civilians actually from countries all over the world? You almost sound like you're defending 9/11.
Secondly, who are "they"? Last I checked, most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, and they certainly weren't Palestinians; and neither is Bin Laden. The Arab world is responsible for its own suffering and misery which is perpetuated by an unceasing system of ignorance, theocracy and oppression. America is just a nice, convinient scapegoat. A bit like how Satan was responsible for the suffering of the poor in medieval times.
The only thing that separates the vast majority of the Middle East from 9th century Europe is the access to modern technology they have thanks to the rest of the world. The best thing we could possibly do is get rid of our dependency on foreign oil and completely cut ties with the region. They can **** themselves up if they want, it's of no concern to me so long as they don't drag us down with them.

Why do you think we should support Israel over any other muslim country/region. What makes them so morally superior?

They're morally superior in every regard that I can possibly imagine, and more importantly, they're a useful ally. In case you had forgotten, Saudi Arabia are also allies of ours. But not because we like them.

 

[repiV]

Clearly they're mad, yes. And arguably the US government benefited from the attacks (damn sure Bush did - before them he was seen as a lame duck president) while the people who suffered and died - the people inside the towers, and the many innocents who died in America's foreign adventures since - were not responsible for injustices perpetrated in foreign lands. Oh, sure, you could make some sort of argument that ordinary American citizens sustain an unjust system by supporting and legitimising it, but to suggest that leads to their deaths is a huge stretch.

Those foreign policy intiatives I mention include likely (that is, they tried once before, and Colin Powell seemed to admit they tried again) US involvement in Pinochet's Chilean coup, which ousted a democratically elected government and killed 3000 people for political reasons.

Another example would be Operation PBSUCCESS - that is, the CIA operation to overthrow Guatamala's also-democratically-elected leader in 1954 and igniting a civil war. They would later fund the Nicuraguan Contras who stood accused of enormous amounts of human rights abuses, and in Iraq they supported a coup against the democratically-elected Quassim government.

Stern's very good on these and I hope he'll post more that I simply don't have the time for now.

Yes, these all are clearly gross injustices. However, not one of them justifies blowing up the World Trade Centre.
Frankly, these injustices continue not because the American people condone them, but because they are ignorant of them. In my experience Americans tend to be some of the most caring people around, their downfall is they live in their own little bubble. I bet the vast majority of people aren't even aware of these interventions...make people aware of what's going on and it will eventually stop.
I can't remember what it was called, but there was an operation planned to sabotage some equipment and murder some US astronaut and then blame it on Cuba in order to justify a war - signed by all the joint chiefs of the time. It was Truman or someone of his era that put a stop to it.
Hardly anyone knows about that, despite it being public knowledge.

 

[Kadayi]

They're morally superior in every regard that I can possibly imagine

How can you remotely adjudge an entire people as morally superior? Please free to explain how you arrive at this conclusion through strict assessment. Mere Millions superior to billions....

and more importantly, they're a useful ally

During WW2 Stalin was a useful ally to the West, but afterwards he was abandoned.

 

[repiV]

How can you remotely adjudge an entire people as morally superior? Please free to explain how you arrive at this conclusion through strict assessment. Mere Millions superior to billions....

The same way I can judge that Western civilisation is morally superior to Islamic civilisation (and also superior in every other major way, for that matter).
The Middle East doesn't contribute anything whatsoever to global civilisation. It's a useless dead weight that's also trying to bring the rest of the world down to their level...rather like a blood sucking parasite.

During WW2 Stalin was a useful ally to the West, but afterwards he was abandoned.

Welcome to international politics. In fact, welcome to life. People stick together so long as there is a mutual benefit in doing so and no longer.

 

[No Limit]

It's a useless dead weight that's also trying to bring the rest of the world down to their level...rather like a blood sucking parasite.

Really? Care to point our some examples? What Arab countries have tried to bring us down to their level? What arab countries have ever launched an attack against us?

Then turn around and take a look at all the attacks we lunched against them.

When I say us I am talking about the western world. When I say them I am talking about the arab world. Go on, I'm waiting for your examples.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Yeah, but who is responsible for creating those terrorists?

The men who chose to become them, thats who.

You're not forced into anything so long as the human will has freedom of choice, with or without imposed mock ups of Democracy or Socialism.

 

[No Limit]

As much as I know you would love to derail this topic once again I won't respond to that as I am still waiting on repiV to post some examples of arab countries launching attacks against western worlds to "bring us down to their level". This is a too important of a point to ignore when you look at all the aggression we launch at them on a regular basis, maybe you want to help him with it?

 

[Tagaziel]

The men who chose to become them, thats who.

You're not forced into anything so long as the human will has freedom of choice, with or without imposed mock ups of Democracy or Socialism.

Uhm, delusions, delusions...

Rebels in Afghanistan and Iraq (no, they're not terrorists, because they do not want to spread fear. They want occupants out of their country) are created through a mix of circumstances, including most importantly the presence of American and other NATO country occupation forces, peers and religion. In these circumstances there is hardly a choice.

Same goes for actual terrorists (you know, those who blow things up or shoot people down to spread fear and terror).

So your claim that "They can choose." is more or less, FALSE.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

I would say that any causal responsibility that the US government has for 9/11 would in fact be through actually evil acts, not just "contraversial". I refer to various foreign policy initiatives and not just funding of Israel.

The United States did'nt fund Israel's creation, if thats what you were inferring.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_war_for_independence

However, Russia and the United States both gave military equipment and training to the Israelis, Egyptians, Syrians, Iraqi's, Iranians, Saudi Arabians, Lebonese, and Jordanian armies after the Suez Canal incident of 1953.

America to Israel.

Russia to Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and Jordan.

Uhm, delusions, delusions...

So, you're saying a man cannot choose for himself? What do you - believe in a God?

 

[No Limit]

So, you're saying a man cannot choose for himself? What do you - believe in a God?

I kill your family, I burn down your house, and then throw the rest of your family in prison and continually torture them there without filing any charges. You have an ak47 with a few rounds in it and you just so happen to know where I live. What will you choose to do?

Also, you don't want to help repiv out but pointing out arab countries aggression toward the western world? I'm still waiting for him to reply.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

I kill your family, I burn down your house, and then throw the rest of your family in prison and continually torture them there without filing any charges. You have an ak47 with a few rounds in it and you just so happen to know where I live. What will you choose to do?

Wait you hypocrite, I just thought you killed my family.

How can they come back and be tortured? ...

Sorry, I just can't involved myself in your, 'emotive example for a fictious atrocity that never occured'. If you ask me, I think your example is a thinly veiled attempt to promote emotional support for Palestinian and Lebanese terrorist groups who intentionally target Civilians over military personel. So besides an atrocity that did'nt happen, what other examples of your otherwordly fiction will you subject to our involving?

 

[No Limit]

Wait you hypocrite, I just thought you killed my family.

How can they come back and be tortured? ...

Sorry, I just can't involved myself in your, 'emotive example for a fictious atrocity that never occured'. If you ask me, I think your example is a thinly veiled attempt to promote emotional support for Palestinian and Lebanese terrorist groups who intentionally target Civilians over military personel. So besides an atrocity that did'nt happen, what other examples of your otherwordly fiction will you subject to our involving?

Israel never killed innocent people who had surviving families?

Israel has never destroyed innocent peoples property?

We have never imprisoned innocent people and tortured them only to release them later with absolutely no charges?

Can you be honest for a second and admit this has all happened or do I really have to cut into my drinking time to post links?

So if this happens to you what will you choose to do? Its a simple question, not sure why you are having such a tough time with it.