Iranians carve unit emblem into U.S. Ship

[ASWnut101]

from The Sub Report:

A commander in Iran's Revolutionary Guards said Wednesday that a commando unit has engraved the military organization's emblem into the side panel of an American warship stationed in the Persian Gulf. Nur Ali Shushkari, the head of the Revolutionary Guards ground forces, told Iranian pro-government news agencies that the symbol was etched onto the ship by the crew of a submarine that had managed to reach the U.S. vessel without detection by radar. Shushkari did not release specific details about the incident, but claimed that the operation proved that Iranian forces are following American fleet traffic in the region. Shushkari warned the United States that if a confrontation arises, all American forces in the gulf as well as targets inside the U.S. itself would be targets for attack. In recent months, the U.S. has increased its forces in the Persian Gulf and has carried out a number of exercise maneuvers which have been viewed by the Iranians as threatening. Despite this, U.S. President George Bush has insisted that the American army has no plans to invade Iran.

[http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/826019.html]



They're starting to push it, I wonder how much we will take. I've already had enough.:nope: :nope:

[waste gate]

All I can say is remember Baghdad Bob. He also made outrageous statements.

Personally, I'd teach them a lesson by lobbing an explosive in every time they opened their mouth in a provocative way. Eventually, and with a big enough explosive, they would STFU.

[elite_hunter_sh3]

LMAO, american navy at its finest. all the problems these days revolves around one retarded child..... bush , too bad they didnt take a pic of it on the ship. message to U.S navy good luck with iran

[Skybird]

:lol: So you have enough...? Well, if that is all your concern... :hmm: Assuming that the event is true, of course. Any confirmation from other sources?

[August]

LMAO, american navy at its finest. all the problems these days revolves around one retarded child..... bush , too bad they didnt take a pic of it on the ship. message to U.S navy good luck with iran

Yeah, and good luck when you loose Kosovo.

[CCIP]

I call bluff :hmm:

[elite_hunter_sh3]

thank you, but we wont lose kosovo unless u want world war 3, i mean think about it lol world war 1: caused by serbia :arrgh!: world war 3 (dpeneding on UN decision) : caused by albanians illegally migrating to my country to take over land, Ask avon lady for links she an prove to u how kosovo shud stick with serbia, or we let them split and cause a nuclear holocaust.:hmm:

[waste gate]

LMAO, american navy at its finest. all the problems these days revolves around one retarded child..... bush , too bad they didnt take a pic of it on the ship. message to U.S navy good luck with iran

Even hthat great proliferator of peace William Jefferson Clinton, lobbed a bomb into the Chinese Embasy. Or was that to keep the world's attention off of where his attention really (Monica Lewinski) was?

Either way, someone needs to put the Iranian gov't on notice that they are headed down a risky path.

[ASWnut101]

:lol: So you have enough...? Well, if that is all your concern... :hmm: Assuming that the event is true, of course. Any confirmation from other sources?

No, I've had enough of Iran's comments.


"Wipe Israel off the face of the world"
"Pursuing nuclear weapons"


and now

"carving thier pictures into our ships"


Here's something: We should carve the U.S. 7th Fleet's emblem into Akmadinijad's house with a few TLAM's.

[ASWnut101]

LMAO, american navy at its finest. all the problems these days revolves around one retarded child..... bush , too bad they didnt take a pic of it on the ship. message to U.S navy good luck with iran


Iran would be a pointy stick in the side of the U.S., which we would easily remove, if they tried to do a full scale war.:yep:

[Boris]

Well, if they actually did it, then it's an inventive way of making a threat, I'll give em that.

[SUBMAN1]

Man! This sounds so like Comical Ali, it is almost funny!

Until I see proof, this is about as bad as Comical Ali saying no US troops are within our border when they are practically on his doorstep!

These people are all the same - full of talk and no real action. I know many Iranians and I have to say, they 'all' talk BS like this.

-S

PS. Incase any
one forgot who Comical Ali is, here ya go! http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/

http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/images/07-minister.jpg

[August]

...by the crew of a submarine that had managed to reach the U.S. vessel without detection by radar.

:roll:

[Tchocky]

This is somewhat like a troll. Do not feed.

[Subnuts]

So the Iranians think they are so smart, no? Well, for every ship they carve emblems into, we'll carve emblems into ten of their ships!* And we'll paint those emblems, too, with paint that's non water-solulable! Ha ha ha, I am one evil genius! ;)


*Assuming they have that many.

[August]

Geez if our radar sucks that bad against submarines i sure hope our sonar does better at tracking their aircraft...

[fatty]

Couple of questions:


Why has this item appeared in only one news outlet, according to Google News?
Why does this lone outlet happen to be Israeli?
Why do a couple of blogs suggest that this outlet is of questionable quality?
Who is Nur Ali Shushkari, and why is the only instance of his name on Google in this single item?
Why is the commander of the ground forces commenting on the actions of a submarine crew?


Also of interest is that the symbol pictured there appears to be taken from the Wikipedia entry on the Revolutionary Guards, resized and compressed.

Come on guys, think critically before you start calling for blood.

[Dowly]

Dont you worry about your technology. It wont help you against guerrilla warfare. :nope:

[Bort]

LMAO, american navy at its finest. all the problems these days revolves around one retarded child..... bush , too bad they didnt take a pic of it on the ship. message to U.S navy good luck with iran


Iran would be a pointy stick in the side of the U.S., which we would easily remove, if they tried to do a full scale war.:yep:

I wouldn't be quite so brash about an all out war against Iran. Of course the US will win, but Iran has a much more formidable military than Iraq did in 2003. Add that to the fact that the US military is already being stressed like stretch armstrong and any sizeable conflict with Iran could get very ugly.:huh:

[Torpedo Fodder]

LMAO, american navy at its finest. all the problems these days revolves around one retarded child..... bush , too bad they didnt take a pic of it on the ship. message to U.S navy good luck with iran
Dude, the last time the Iranians tried to tangle with the US Navy, they got spanked. Go read about Operation Praying Mantis.

thank you, but we wont lose kosovo unless u want world war 3, i mean think about it lol world war 1: caused by serbia :arrgh!: world war 3 (dpeneding on UN decision) : caused by albanians illegally migrating to my country to take over land, Ask avon lady for links she an prove to u how kosovo shud stick with serbia, or we let them split and cause a nuclear holocaust.:hmm:
Don't be an idiot. Which major nuclear power is going to start a nuclear conflict over Kosovo? The Russians are closer to Serbia than any other nuclear power, and they certainly won't.

[flintlock]

To the story in the linked article that the OP provided: I'll believe it when I see it (credible source or otherwise).

[The Avon Lady]

Grain of salt.

http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/1858/saltwt9.jpg

[flintlock]

Yeah, that's about the appropriate size too.

[August]

I wouldn't be quite so brash about an all out war against Iran. Of course the US will win, but Iran has a much more formidable military than Iraq did in 2003. Add that to the fact that the US military is already being stressed like stretch armstrong and any sizeable conflict with Iran could get very ugly.:huh:

Well it's never wise to be overconfident but on the other hand the US Military is almost completely made up of highly trained and motivated combat veterans whose organization, unit tactics and equipment is both battle tested and top notch. That too should not be underestimated.

[Bort]

I wouldn't be quite so brash about an all out war against Iran. Of course the US will win, but Iran has a much more formidable military than Iraq did in 2003. Add that to the fact that the US military is already being stressed like stretch armstrong and any sizeable conflict with Iran could get very ugly.:huh:

Well it's never wise to be overconfident but on the other hand the US Military is almost completely made up of highly trained and motivated combat veterans whose organization, unit tactics and equipment is both battle tested and top notch. That too should not be underestimated.

I'm not underestimating the US military at all, I'm more concerned with the politicians throwing the switches. As we have seen in the past, they like to dive head first into these sorts of things without testing the depth of the pool first...

[August]

I'm more concerned with the politicians throwing the switches. As we have seen in the past, they like to dive head first into these sorts of things without testing the depth of the pool first...

Very true but I think that war with Iran will be something for the next administration to pursue (or not), but certainly not this ones. Short of Iran detonating a nuke in Times Square there is no way the present Congress would authorize any request by this administration for a war against them, or anyone else for that matter.

[Konovalov]

Such a report doesn't even deserve a thread. Baghdad Bob must be jealous of such spin. :lol:

[Skybird]

I wouldn't be quite so brash about an all out war against Iran. Of course the US will win, but Iran has a much more formidable military than Iraq did in 2003. Add that to the fact that the US military is already being stressed like stretch armstrong and any sizeable conflict with Iran could get very ugly.:huh:

Well it's never wise to be overconfident but on the other hand the US Military is almost completely made up of highly trained and motivated combat veterans whose organization, unit tactics and equipment is both battle tested and top notch. That too should not be underestimated.
You are not dealing with an equal enemy who plays to your defined rules. The revolutionary guards are fanatics. Religiously highly motivated fanatics of a considerably higher degree of ruthlessness and unscrupleousness than the usual army- and that should also not be underestimated. The army fears them. They compare to the SS and GeStaPo in Nazi Germany,, but have more far-leading authority and permissions and even interfere with the legislative and "interpret" it. They run their own special air force and special navy units (someone asked why the RG made a claim concerning an navy operation). I had the chance to observe some of their officers repeatedly while staying in Iran, they were from their internal secret police or bodyguards for other representitives who got interviewed, and often shadowed our team. I will not comment on their fighting capabilties, but there certainly was a very tremendous difference between the attitude by which they approached their duties, and the usual big-mouth-small-hands-guys these countries are so crowded with. They are driven by religious rage, but it is an icy-cold one, if I may use some poetry here. We usually were on high alert when having to deal with revolutionary guards. Residents in Teheran have a saying, btw., it compares the memory of revolutionary guards to that of an elephant. Say something that makes them your enemy, and they will never forget, and claim their revenge later, if given a second chance. I don't want to overrate the military efficiency of Iran, but it seems that many Americans still have not learned from the asymmetrical war in Iraq, and still practice the old habit of underestimating an enemy, and with enthusiasm so. The US society, and Europe, is far more vuölnerable to Iranian retaliation, than Iran is likely to submit to military pressure, or "collapse". In a war, the US victory is uncertain, at best, as long as victory is not defined as destruction of their program and using nuclear weapons for that. This scenario is extremely pricey, and any other scenario is infantile self-deception. Anothzer major difference to Iraq: the population of Iraq is not nationally united, but a bunch of diffrent ethnicities and beliefs thrown together in the same pot. Iranians are mainoly one people, with a very high sense of national pride. No matter if they like the mullah regime or not, if it comes to war they will stand united and determined to resist. They are as patriotic as conservative Americans use to be. I would also say that the average urban Iranian living in one of the major cities is better educated and of modest reason than mopst other people in Arab and ME-countries. That'S the difference between Arabs and Persians. Arabs talk, eternally, but Persians eventually also act. - I still tend to doubt that craving-thing, btw. But imagining it put a smile on my face. It surely would have been a coup.

[Dowly]

Bravo Skybird. http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/6392/clap2fz2.gif

[Abd_von_Mumit]

That'S the difference between Arabs and Persians. Arabs talk, eternally, but Persians eventually also act.
If not that single pass that makes me vomit because of its xenophobic and superstitious message, I'd say your post is really good (a bit surprising, isn't it?).

As to the carve — is it enough for you 'hawks' here that someone carves a sign on a ship to rage war against him? "I don't like the guy, he scratched my bike that I left by his house! Let's bomb him, his family and whole the *** country! Oh yes, lets have fun!".

Remember, there are PEOPLE there, not monkeys, not rats nor cockroaches. Seventy million of human beings that wish to live in peace, not die of anyone's bombs. These people live in fear, because a military empire from somewhere in the world wants to tell them how to live, how to manage their country. This empire has allready invaded a neighbouring country (in fact two, if we count Afghanistan), gathered a huge naval force close to Iran's boarder and people from it's government talk to TV/press about "considering/not considering attack" like it was a Sunday morning walk. Wouldn't YOU be affraid?

Has Iran attacked anyone? Did they launch a missile againt any other peace-loving country? You'll tell "they support terrorism". Is it true or not (but also don't forget the year 1953 in Iran and American involvement), there are OTHER MEANS of reacting. War is not an option a civilised man would consider. Or is it? Or maybe the definition of "Western civilisation" has changed, while I was in the toilet?

Best regards!

[Dowly]

That'S the difference between Arabs and Persians. Arabs talk, eternally, but Persians eventually also act. If not that single pass that makes me vomit because of its xenophobic and superstitious message, I'd say your post is really good (a bit surprising, isn't it?).

As to the carve — is it enough for you 'hawks' here that someone carves a sign on a ship to rage war against him? "I don't like the guy, he scratched my bike that I left by his house! Let's bomb him, his family and whole the *** country! Oh yes, lets have fun!".

Remember, there are PEOPLE there, not monkeys, not rats nor cockroaches. Seventy million of human beings that wish to live in peace, not die of anyone's bombs. These people live in fear, because a military empire from somewhere in the world wants to tell them how to live, how to manage their country. This empire has allready invaded a neighbouring country (in fact two, if we count Afghanistan), gathered a huge naval force close to Iran's boarder and people from it's government talk to TV/press about "considering/not considering attack" like it was a Sunday morning walk. Wouldn't YOU be affraid?

Has Iran attacked anyone? Did they launch a missile againt any other peace-loving country? You'll tell "they support terrorism". Is it true or not (but also don't forget the year 1953 in Iran and American involvement), there are OTHER MEANS of reacting. War is not an option a civilised man would consider. Or is it? Or maybe the definition of "Western civilisation" has changed, while I was in the toilet?

Best regards!

I agree. :yep:

[The Avon Lady]

Has Iran attacked anyone?
http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/2656/iranhostagesra5.jpg

Tip of iceberg.

[Abd_von_Mumit]

Has Iran attacked anyone?

Tip of iceberg.
And what? (a photo without comment. Halloween party in Florida?) :| Could as well post some pictures of Guantanamo, or point you to the "Road to Guantanamo" film. American camps for Japanese, Vietnam war crimes, blacks killed by white policemen. Ukrainians, Jews, Russians and Germans murdered brutally by Polish, Polish murdered by Ukrainians, Germans, Jews and Russians. I could could even post a photo of an Iraqi baby torn apart by American bomb. Or post some photos of Nablus, a city I used to live in, bombed to ruins (check at Google Earth). But what would be the point of posting such crap? It says nothing and isn't any help in the topic. Almost ANY country in the world has blood on its hands. Blood of innocent killed in wars, on sentenced to death, lynched, tortured, forgotten. That doesn't mean I can pick any of the world's countries froim the map and bomb them, cause I'm bored and I've got too much money to spend on military.

[bradclark1]

'hawks'
It's chickenhawks.

[fatty]

By the way, if I'm right, this would not be the first time a paper in a liberal democracy has sensationalized or even invented news to steer a nation towards war.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/staff/fredt/Maine_Headline.jpg

The business calls this "yellow journalism."

[August]

Has Iran attacked anyone?
Tip of iceberg. And what? (a photo without comment. Halloween party in Florida?) :| Could as well post some pictures of Guantanamo, or point you to the "Road to Guantanamo" film. American camps for Japanese, Vietnam war crimes, blacks killed by white policemen. Ukrainians, Jews, Russians and Germans murdered brutally by Polish, Polish murdered by Ukrainians, Germans, Jews and Russians. I could could even post a photo of an Iraqi baby torn apart by American bomb. Or post some photos of Nablus, a city I used to live in, bombed to ruins (check at Google Earth). But what would be the point of posting such crap? It says nothing and isn't any help in the topic. Almost ANY country in the world has blood on its hands. Blood of innocent killed in wars, on sentenced to death, lynched, tortured, forgotten. That doesn't mean I can pick any of the world's countries froim the map and bomb them, cause I'm bored and I've got too much money to spend on military.

You asked a specific question and she answered it (quite well i might add). Now you're claiming that no answer would be valid because of other unrelated actions in other countries throughout history? :roll:

[Abd_von_Mumit]

You asked a specific question and she answered it (quite well i might add). Now you're claiming that no answer would be valid because of other unrelated actions in other countries throughout history? :roll:
A 'blank' picture with no comment nor source given is not an 'answer'.

I suppose it depicts American hostages kept by Iranian revolutionary in 1979 (after seizing the American Embassy). It was absolutely illegal and in terms of international law it was, indeed, almost an act of war. Yes, but it was almost 30 years ago. After more than a year of hostage they were released in 1981 and an agreement has been signed between the USA and Iran, thus establishing quite normal international relations between the two countries again. What's more, none of the Iranian decidents involved in the story is still alive.

Below you'll find some pictures of Warsaw after the "Warsaw Uprising" in 1944. Germans have literally smashed the city from the earth's surface, leaving ruins and rotting bodies. Whole the population was deported West, thousands of civilians died. Should we bomb Berlin now?

http://powstanie44.webpark.pl/10.jpg
http://www.sppw1944.org/poezja/baczynski/08.jpg
http://eela1.blox.pl/resource/placnapoleona.jpg
http://hrady.dejiny.cz/polsko/warszawa/006.jpg
http://www.obieg.pl/kal2005/img/sempolinski09.jpg

I think it's much better to focus on the present issues instead of scratching the old wounds.

[Bort]

Has Iran attacked anyone?
http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/2656/iranhostagesra5.jpg

Tip of iceberg.

Now that's what I call a "delayed reaction" :roll:
I don't think we should be fighting wars now over the 70's

[August]

You asked a specific question and she answered it (quite well i might add). Now you're claiming that no answer would be valid because of other unrelated actions in other countries throughout history? :roll: A 'blank' picture with no comment nor source given is not an 'answer'.

I suppose it depicts American hostages kept by Iranian revolutionary in 1979 (after seizing the American Embassy). It was absolutely illegal and in terms of international law it was, indeed, almost an act of war. Yes, but it was almost 30 years ago. After more than a year of hostage they were released in 1981 and an agreement has been signed between the USA and Iran, thus establishing quite normal international relations between the two countries again. What's more, none of the Iranian decidents involved in the story is still alive.

What agreement? Diplomatic relations between the US and Iran ended in 1979 and have never been reinstituted. Attacking a foreign nations embassy IS an act of war, not "almost". It is also something the Iranians have neither apologized or made restitution for.

Below you'll find some pictures of Warsaw after the "Warsaw Uprising" in 1944. Germans have literally smashed the city from the earth's surface, leaving ruins and rotting bodies. Whole the population was deported West, thousands of civilians died. Should we bomb Berlin now?

IIRC Berlin along with the rest of Germany was bombed quite extensively as a result of their invasion of Poland. Indeed that invasion is what started the war in Europe. After the war those who ordered and led the attack on the Warsaw ghettos were hanged at the Nuremburg war trials. I'd say the Germans paid for their actions. What did the Iranians pay?

I think it's much better to focus on the present issues instead of scratching the old wounds.

Apparently it always seems to depend on whose wound it was. Muslims kill people based on actions that happend centuries ago, yet the west is expected to forgive and forget actions that happened far more recently? Sorry, as they say in my country "that dog just won't hunt".

[Abd_von_Mumit]

What agreement? Diplomatic relations between the US and Iran ended in 1979 and have never been reinstituted. Attacking a foreign nations embassy IS an act of war, not "almost". It is also something the Iranians have neither apologized or made restitution for.
Yes, it is an 'act of war', and US responded to this act of war ordering (failed) attack. Still this was 30 years ago, and the agreement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algiers_declaration) actually was signed (even if not establishing regular diplomatic relations,it is still an agreement). Not having diplomatic relations doesn't mean I could attack someone at will.

Russians never apologised for murdering thousands of Polish military officers in their camps in Katyn. That, however, doesn't change anything, because...

IIRC Berlin along with the rest of Germany was bombed quite extensively as a result of their invasion of Poland. Indeed that invasion is what started the war in Europe. After the war those who ordered and led the attack on the Warsaw ghettos were hanged at the Nuremburg war trials. I'd say the Germans paid for their actions. What did the Iranians pay?
...because we are not talking abour REVENGE, are we? Oh... everybody would have to murder everybody else in Europe in order to take revenge. Maybe Icelanders would stay alive... alone (but weren't they involved in the Vikings' slaughters?).

Apparently it always seems to depend on whose wound it was. Muslims kill people based on actions that happend centuries ago, yet the west is expected to forgive and forget actions that happened far more recently? Sorry, as they say in my country "that dog just won't hunt".
See above. Do we need revenge? The Polish would have to start with bombing Austrians, Germans and Russians who had occupied Poland together for 123 years. Then they would be murdered by Lithuanians, Belarussians and Ukrainians, as well as Czechs and Slovakians, Germans (if there are still any alive), Jews, Gypsies, Romanians, Hungarians, Turks, Mongols, Tatars... Then the Frech would rage war against British and Spanish, not mentioning Algerians... and so on.

Are we going to stop making wars ever because someone feels like revenging for the past?

And NO, it's NOT "Muslims", who kill people you mentioned. There is a difference between a Muslim and a terrorist. There is also a difference between a Jew (or an Israeli) and Baruch Goldstein. There is a difference between a Christian and Josef Mengele. As well as not every Russian's name is Josif Stalin. There are more than billion Muslims in the world, and there are these few guys who put bombs in restaurants. Do not mix these terms, please. Muslim is not equal to terrorist, terrorist is not equal to Muslim. And has never been.

[August]

Now that's what I call a "delayed reaction" :roll:
I don't think we should be fighting wars now over the 70's

So you're saying there should be some kind of statute of limitations on acts of war?
Even when one of the perpetrators later becomes president of the country in question?

There he is 3rd from left (according to the former hostages) who recognize both the face and the voice...

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1578230632.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

[TteFAboB]

Skybird we are already fighting the Iranians in Iraq.

Abd_von_Mumit, I'll try to give you a hand:

American camps for Japanese, Vietnam war crimes, blacks killed by white policemen. Ukrainians, Jews, Russians and Germans murdered brutally by Polish, Polish murdered by Ukrainians, Germans, Jews and Russians.

Relativization. Alot of new elements just came in. Taking it further, we could say that you could post every single example if you had the time. But what would that accomplish? This:

It says nothing and isn't any help in the topic.

Next,

Almost ANY country in the world has blood on its hands. Blood of innocent killed in wars, on sentenced to death, lynched, tortured, forgotten. That doesn't mean I can pick any of the world's countries froim the map and bomb them, cause I'm bored and I've got too much money to spend on military.

The fallacy you fail to see is that when you relativize all these things they loose their importance. All the facts dissapear together with their relevance, we can't use them in comparisons. Who, how, when, then what, none of this is said, "it says nothing". We are currently in an imaginary and quite abstract world. Everything is abstract, except the blood itself, though the facts surrounding it are still abstracted, and except for the name of the countries.

As an aside: before you can pick any of the world's countries from the map and bomb them you need to get yourself too much money to spend on military, which you don't have, so you can't act as if you really did have that option, you don't. :)

Below you'll find some pictures of Warsaw after the "Warsaw Uprising" in 1944. Germans have literally smashed the city from the earth's surface, leaving ruins and rotting bodies. Whole the population was deported West, thousands of civilians died. Should we bomb Berlin now?

I think it's much better to focus on the present issues instead of scratching the old wounds.


What does the Warsaw uprising have to do with the present issue that was being discussed (Iran and US)? You have answered the hostage pic in the same fashion but haven't really brought anything up. The hostage pic still has some relevance, even if little and even if we relativize it, because it is dealing with Iran. The Warsaw uprising has absolutely nothing to do with Iran.

Russians never apologised for murdering thousands of Polish military officers in their camps in Katyn.

I think I understand the point you are trying to express but making an argument through relativity only takes away the importance of both Katyn and whatever else it's being compared to. What's the relation between Katyn and Iran? Why is this relevant? You create a huge abstract world where no conclusions can be drawn, since nothing relates to reality and the only fixed point that does not get relativized is your last point.

everybody would have to murder everybody else in Europe in order to take revenge

The Polish would have to start with bombing Austrians, Germans and Russians who had occupied Poland together for 123 years. Then they would be murdered by Lithuanians, Belarussians and Ukrainians, as well as Czechs and Slovakians, Germans (if there are still any alive), Jews, Gypsies, Romanians, Hungarians, Turks, Mongols, Tatars... Then the Frech would rage war against British and Spanish, not mentioning Algerians... and so on.


Even if somebody decided to act on revenge, this is reductio ad absurdum. As a side effect of your relativism you fail to properly impute guilt. The guilt is spread to the entire society, to entire peoples. The children were never guilty of anything nor were the very old, considering proper guilt is imputed, the killing of children, old and innocent people is hideous because they are innocent, not because they are material for revenge. Otherwise you'd have to figure out who was simply taking revenge and was justified by it and who actually commited a crime, you say "and so on" but you can't actually continue, you can't carry this out to the final consequences. Going back in time generation after generation to find out who started it is an impossible project: the genealogy will dissappear before you can find a time without wars and crimes. You will find that only personal revenge is possible, an entire people against another entire people isn't. You may call it a revenge or you may call it anything else. But the fact is the whole is paying for a part, simply because it's too difficult to single out this part, and as we go back in time, it becomes more and more difficult when finally it reaches impossibility, unless you build a time-machine.

Your examples could be considered revenge only if we considering nothing else other than the example being picked out, which doesn't mean that there isn't a previous episode that allowed for the event you're basing yourself upon to have been taken against you in the name of or justified by revenge.

And NO, it's NOT "Muslims", who kill people you mentioned. There is a difference between a Muslim and a terrorist. There is also a difference between a Jew (or an Israeli) and Baruch Goldstein. There is a difference between a Christian and Josef Mengele. As well as not every Russian's name is Josif Stalin. There are more than billion Muslims in the world, and there are these few guys who put bombs in restaurants. Do not mix these terms, please. Muslim is not equal to terrorist, terrorist is not equal to Muslim. And has never been.

But you haven't made the difference clear. You have relativized once again. A muslim is not a terrorist because a jew or an israeli is not Baruch Goldstein or because a Christian is not Josef Mengele. What's the relation Jew/Israeli/Baruch Goldstein? What does being called Josef Stalin has to do with being a terrorist or not? Does only Russians named Stalin count or does people from other nationalities with the same name count too?

To attempt to say that Muslim and terrorist must not be regarded as equal, you've brought in: Jew, Israeli, Baruch Goldstein, Christian, Mengele, Russia, Stalin, personal names. You're saying that there is an equal relation somewhere in here. Equally excludent relations. And that the part cannot be taken as the whole. But so there's more than one part. Which one is right to call itself a Muslim?

Sure Muslim is not equal to terrorist. That's why they're different terms, if they were equal they wouldn't be two, and if they had equal meaning they would be synonyms. Every term is related to an object of reality, the fact is Muslim terrorists are told and believe that they are as Muslim as it gets. Your relativity missed this fact, for some reason you now talked in pure absolute form for the first and only time.

In the end you are right and wrong. You are right to say Muslim is not equal to terrorist, call CCIP, grab the gramatics, the dictionary, the two terms are definitely not the same and are not even interchangeable. You are right when you mean that not all Muslims must be regarded as terrorists because not all of them are terrorists. But you are wrong to conclude "And has never been", because the Muslim terrorists believe to be Muslims. When you talk of someone, you must always make it a two-way path, you must consider what the person would think of your opinion of him because he is a person just like you, with potential intelligence, feelings, beliefs, knowledge. If a Muslim terrorist entered this room, he would speak of himself as a Muslim with all his conviction, could you contest him or even prove him wrong?

Now, it is impossible to execrate revenge. Revenge is an important step of our ancestry. For millenia revenge was used in Europe (along with the entire world) to resolve "criminal" cases. Europeans stopped using revenge after centuries of judicial development when finally, first the Kingdom and later the Nation-State, took the job, once and for all, of carrying out the punishment.

However, there are still Muslims carrying out revenge, even in Europe, today. And they consider themselves to be Muslims. What would they say to us if we told them that they must not act on revenge? How do we prove the Mufti or Mullah or Imam who passed on a fatwah permitting revenge to be wrong? How do we contest him? Not by relativizing and saying that since Europeans don't do revenge anymore he must be wrong, but by remaining within the realm of Islam, without leaving or mixing with other fields.

I hope this is of any help.

[Abd_von_Mumit]

Now that's what I call a "delayed reaction" :roll:
I don't think we should be fighting wars now over the 70's

So you're saying there should be some kind of statute of limitations on acts of war?
Even when one of the perpetrators later becomes president of the country in question?

There he is 3rd from left (according to the former hostages) who recognize both the face and the voice...
Even if the man on the picture is Ahmadinejad himself, it's not a reason to bomb Iran. His victims can try bring him to court, if in need, if they think he has committed a crime.


@TteFAboB:
Second time you answer my post saying, that I relativize everything. And that's true. However in my opinion there is nothing wrong with relativisation. Ability to think, to compare, to give examples, to think abstract, reasoning - these are all the disctinctive characteristics of a human. First - it's always good to estimate, what you would do if you were in the opposite side. Second - it's good to try to find some examples of a given (similar) situation in the past/present/abstract. Three - it's good to try to predict any consequences of acting or not acting in a given way. Etc. So, using your words, I won't stop relativizing.

I asked a question rhetorically: "Has Iran attacked anyone?". The real answer is "no". Iraq attacked Kuwait, USA attacked Iraq etc., but Iran has not been using its military force against others recently. As the answer to my question I got a picture without comment, so I gave some examples of similar situations in international relations. Nothing wrong in them, I think. They help to see the problem in its full spectrum, from other points of view. And, as I said, I consider it good.

Iran has exactly the same reason and right to be as the USA. If a Northern American wants to attack Iran because some hostages were kept (illegally) there 30 years ago, he should ask himself some questions. The first would be: does Iran have right to attack us because some prisoners are kept illegally in Guantanamo? Does Iran have right to attack us because we shot down their passenger AirBus in 1988, killing 290? What would I say if they started bombing my city? Would I say they've just gone mad? That they act unreasonably aggressive? Or would I say: "Ok, lets have the war, you're right, you had your [i]casus belli!"?

You create a huge abstract world where no conclusions can be drawn, since nothing relates to reality and the only fixed point that does not get relativized is your last point.
Everything relates to reality. Katyñ was real, and the hostages as well. But this is past, a closed chapter. We shouldn't forget that, but when acting, we should think about future, and present. The main difference between any kind of radicals and nonradicals is in my opinion: the first think in categories of past - "They did", "He started...". The latter being pragmatics and willing to solve current problems without repeating the same all the time about what happened years ago.

So, my conclusion is: put the hostages history aside when discussing scratching American ship in Persian Gulf and raging war against Iran.

A few of us has used the word "pay off". Do you really think it should be like that? Philosophy of pay-off has led nearby Palestinian conflict to nowhere (relativisation :)). None side has won, because both of them think about vendetta instead of solving problems. And, in my opinion, there are still possible solutions leading to a win-win situation. But they will bever be accomplished, if any side acts like a child again and again. And war is not such a solution, nor in Palestine, nor in Iran (nor Iraq, by the way).

But you haven't made the difference clear. You have relativized once again. A muslim is not a terrorist because a jew or an israeli is not Baruch Goldstein or because a Christian is not Josef Mengele. What's the relation Jew/Israeli/Baruch Goldstein? What does being called Josef Stalin has to do with being a terrorist or not? Does only Russians named Stalin count or does people from other nationalities with the same name count too?
Reductio ad absurdum, you said..?. :hmm: Well, lets have it explained using other words:
Most of current terrorists in the world are Muslims. True.
There are terrorists of other religions (and many nations). True.
There are/were Christian/Jewish terorists. True.
There are about 1.3 billion Muslims in the world. True.
There are about (rough estimate) a thousand or a few involved in terrorism in the world. True.
Conclusion: The sentence "Muslims kill us" is extremely exagerrated. While it's still valid if taken literally, as the terrorists are usually Muslims, its overall meaning is false. What is understood from this sentence is: Muslims are terrorists. And that is absolutely wrong, as a huge majority of Muslims are not terrorists, they are not even close to being them.

So I gave an example. Baruch Goldstein, an Israeli Jew in his act of terrorism killed many Muslims in a mosque. That doesn't give me right to construct sentences like: "Jews kill us" nor "Jews are terrorists". It would be considered highly offensive and racist for sure, and that would be, what's more important, a wrong conclusion.

Josef Mengele, a German Christian, has murdered hundreds or even thousands of innocent people in unbelievably cruel manner. Most of them were Jews. That doesn't give me right to say: "Christans killed Jews in times of WWII". While this sentence is valid if taken literally, as most of Nazis were Christians, it should be not used because of its contex. Stating, that holocaust was a war of Christians against Jews, a kind of crusade, would be not true.

Conclusion: It's best not to use such 'shortcuts', because they are misleading and not true. And are really, believe me, offending most Muslims.

I hope I made the clue as clear, as possible.

But you haven't made the difference clear. You have relativized once again. A muslim is not a terrorist because a jew or an israeli is not Baruch Goldstein or because a Christian is not Josef Mengele. What's the relation Jew/Israeli/Baruch Goldstein? What does being called Josef Stalin has to do with being a terrorist or not? Does only Russians named Stalin count or does people from other nationalities with the same name count too?
[and the latter, skipped]
My comment to whole this part of your post is: you need a common base shared by two who discuss a matter, if you want the discussion to make any sense. Thus there is little hope you could have any "sensible" discussion between you, namely TtteAboB, and the said "Mufti or Mullah or Imam who passed on a fatwah permitting revenge". There is almost nothing common between you both and the dialog is nearly impossible, as none of you will be likely to understand the others view. Same applies, for example, to me and a very religious person, when trying to discuss a biblical matter. I'm a sceptic reading linguistic critical research, while the other guy treats the text literally as always-true-source-of-facts. To make the discussion possible, one of us would have to stand in the other's shoes for the time. And probably noone would be willing to. :)

But, when we both, namely you and me, discuss the matter of terrorism in relation to Islam, basing on some values we share, like logic, reasoning, love to facts, we can still do well. No need for any of us to stay in the said fatwa-Imam's shoes. Thus the sentence "And has never been" stays valid in our world of meanings.

Otherwise we would have to conclude, that no discussion at all is ever possible. That would lead us to silence, and that would be no good at all. :up:

PS. I know my English is poor, to poor to be an equal partner for a discussion like that. It's difficult to me to express myself, and the words try to live their own lives, sentences may seem unclear or even can have other meaning than intended. It's a loss, as this discussion could be a real pleasure, I suppose. Maybe I'll try to improve my English... :hmm: There must be a way. :)

Best regards.

[Skybird]

Skybird we are already fighting the Iranians in Iraq.
Yes. And I was probably the first in this place telling you so, back in late 2002 and early 2003. :smug:

[TteFAboB]

@TteFAboB:
Second time you answer my post saying, that I relativize everything.

"Everything", relatively speaking! :rotfl: Really, if you relativized everything, this would be an absolutized relativisation.

And that's true. However in my opinion there is nothing wrong with relativisation.

Of course not. It is far from my intention to say that there is something wrong with relativisation, in generic like this. If I left that implied it is because I couldn't find a better way to express myself. There is nothing wrong with relativisation. There can be. Depends on its use.

I won't stop relativizing.

That would be a most unintended consequence that would have the most catastrophic effects, as I believe I've shown you a good relativization at the end of my post. Let's put it this way: we must relativise properly, avoid unproper relativization. Better? You concur we can all make mistakes, yes? To compare then, I can crash my car by accident, not because I'm stupid or a bad driver.

And, as I said, I consider it good.

I'm not making any judgements on the "goodness" of anything here. You are the only person apt to know and judge what's good for you.

The main difference between any kind of radicals and nonradicals is in my opinion: the first think in categories of past - "They did", "He started...". The latter being pragmatics and willing to solve current problems without repeating the same all the time about what happened years ago.

I agree. Don't mix me with anybody else please! I'm an individual and I have nothing to do with the posting of that picture. "They did it!" :rotfl:

A few of us has used the word "pay off". Do you really think it should be like that?

What I want is not to be put into any "us". :D I've used "we" myself, mostly between you and me. That's as many "us" as I'll allow myself to be dragged into, at least in this case, two people.

But you haven't made the difference clear. You have relativized once again. A muslim is not a terrorist because a jew or an israeli is not Baruch Goldstein or because a Christian is not Josef Mengele. What's the relation Jew/Israeli/Baruch Goldstein? What does being called Josef Stalin has to do with being a terrorist or not? Does only Russians named Stalin count or does people from other nationalities with the same name count too?
Reductio ad absurdum, you said..?. :hmm:


About the revenge point, not this one! I've just used a little sarcasm. But the unintended result is that this is an example of how we can end up confused with sentences, if we focus only on the sentences, and not try to understand what the author wanted to say to us.

Well, lets have it explained using other words:
Most of current terrorists in the world are Muslims. True.

I disagree. There are many Muslim terrorists currently out there, perhaps by numbers it would be true that most of them would proclaim to be Muslims, and while their body-count may be relatively high, there are other terrorists, perhaps less in total numbers indeed, with a much greater body-count or with more people currently living under their grasp of "terror". I know, the latter aren't blowing bombs in restaurants or busses and etc. Well, but my point is, if the current Iraqi terrorists took power in Iraq wouldn't their terror increase? And even decrease later in time once the population submitted to their will. But for the sake of the argument I'll ignore these "terror rulers" and consider only the homicidal bombers, which makes it true.

There are terrorists of other religions (and many nations). True.
There are/were Christian/Jewish terorists. True.
There are about 1.3 billion Muslims in the world. True.
There are about (rough estimate) a thousand or a few involved in terrorism in the world. True.
Conclusion: The sentence "Muslims kill us" is extremely exagerrated.

While it's still valid if taken literally, as the terrorists are usually Muslims, its overall meaning is false. What is understood from this sentence is: Muslims are terrorists. And that is absolutely wrong, as a huge majority of Muslims are not terrorists, they are not even close to being them


Indeed. But that's how it works. Look at the length of our posts. We can't have a chit-chat if we had to detail everything, follow the logical reasoning, etc. True, we can speak and convey information faster by talking than writing. But in a forum we must do it in writing. We (you and me) need to give the benefit of the doubt to others, if only we want it for ourselves. They might simply be crazy, or they may have a perfectly reasonable explanation behind the sentence, the same as yours, perhaps. I have commented on exaggerated sentences before myself, in a thread with a similar topic : http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=390970&postcount=26
:hmm:

Conclusion: It's best not to use such 'shortcuts', because they are misleading and not true. And are really, believe me, offending most Muslims.


Sometimes it may be difficult to avoid them. I'm not saying that this is the case here, I respect August and believe it's highly possible that he knows of all of this and probably thinks the same, and it's all a confusion of language.

But you haven't made the difference clear. You have relativized once again. A muslim is not a terrorist because a jew or an israeli is not Baruch Goldstein or because a Christian is not Josef Mengele. What's the relation Jew/Israeli/Baruch Goldstein? What does being called Josef Stalin has to do with being a terrorist or not? Does only Russians named Stalin count or does people from other nationalities with the same name count too?
[and the latter, skipped]
My comment to whole this part of your post is: you need a common base shared by two who discuss a matter, if you want the discussion to make any sense.

Exactly. There won't ever be a sensible discussion with a pious Jihadist. What we can do is demonstrate that he is a blasphemer, ashame him, give the public an alternative so that he can't draw all the youngsters. We need to convince the unconvinced before he does, and we must do it better than him.

But, when we both, namely you and me, discuss the matter of terrorism in relation to Islam, basing on some values we share, like logic, reasoning, love to facts, we can still do well. No need for any of us to stay in the said fatwa-Imam's shoes. Thus the sentence "And has never been" stays valid in our world of meanings.

Indeed. I do not contest that. If I left that gate open it's my fault. Thanks for closing it.

PS. I know my English is poor, to poor to be an equal partner for a discussion like that. It's difficult to me to express myself, and the words try to live their own lives, sentences may seem unclear or even can have other meaning than intended. It's a loss, as this discussion could be a real pleasure, I suppose. Maybe I'll try to improve my English... :hmm: There must be a way. :)

Best regards.

Non-sense. Your english is good, I can't say I express myself better than you and so far we're doing fine. Optimism! :up: :D This is all we can do, humans, try to make sense out of the massive confusion that is the world. When we succeed, it's just like completing a great project, like building a giant bridge or a huge skyscrapper, and we do it all by ourselves, without sweating (too much!), the only requirements being food and health. Given the opportunity, it's worth a try! Even if it fails.

[Ishmael]

Let me see if I have this right.

The CIA overthrows the Mossadegh govt. in Iran in 1953 and installs the Shah with the help of the mullahs to stop naionalization of Iranian oil, then trains SAVAK for the Shah to unleash on the same mullahs, paving the way for 1978.

The Carlyle Group sells chemical weapons to Saddam in the 1980's which he uses on the Iranians and the Kurds with the blessings of the Reagan Administration. Then we use those same weapons as an excuse to topple Saddam after he opens an oil bourse trading in euros. Instead of sending in 500,000 troops like 1991 to secure the country & order, we send 100,000 & then disband the Iraqi army & send them home with their guns while not employing any of them in Iraqi reconstruction so Bush & Cheney's friends can steal billions. Then the insurgency begins whose existence is denied until it is full-blown. Meanwhile, Halliburton fails to even install metering valves on the oil pipeline terminals in Basra so no one knows how much oil is being stolen. Statistics show that 92% of US casualties in Iraq are caused by the Sunni insurgency, funded by Saudi Arabia, among others. At the same time, oil production privitization bills are rammed through the Iraqi interim govt. to ensure US oil companies control of Iraqi oil.

The same Halliburton, while Cheney is CEO, sells centrifuge technology to Iran in the 90's through it's Cayman Islands subsidiary, directly aiding the Iranian nuclear program.
in 2003, under Khattami, Iran sends an offer to the US govt through Switzerland to, among other things, recognize Israel's right to exist and aid Nato forces in combatting the Taliban in Afghanistan. Condi Rice doesn't recall seeing the offer even after Flynt Leverette, her deputy, all but calls her a liar. Iran, worried about having US troops on 2 of it's borders, ramps up acquisition of thousands of antiship missles to prepare for a confrontation in the Gulf. the Iraqi invasion leads directly to the election of Ahmedinajad.

The Iran Study Group, similar in form to the White House Iraq Group and the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans, begins to beat the drum for confrontation with Iran using sources like the MEK(Mujaheddin-el-Khalq) for intelligence whose reliability is on a par with the thoroughly discredited Ahmed Chalibi. The one group that had real intelligence on Iran's nuclear program, Brewster-Jennings & Assoc., is neutralized and rendered impotent by the Office of the Vice-President in order to discredit Joe Wilson because his wife, Valerie Plame, ran BJ&A as a covert CIA analyst.

The reports of Iranian involvement in weapons smuggling to Iraq are trumpeted to the media, even though not one US official in the military or government will actually go on record. Meanwhile, Gen. Pace, the new Army Chief-of-Staff, downplays those same reports but receives no airtime for his analysis. The photos of weapons shown, actually show date & type information in English with American-style date stamps(mm-dd-yyyy versus dd-mm-yyyy) and no farsi script on them whatsoever. Bush and co. rail against Muqtada al-sadr(an Iraqi nationalist) and the Mahdi militia while meeting personally with Abdul Aziz Al-Hakim who is actually funded by the Iranians with his Badr Brigade militia.

We have one carrier group in the Gulf with two more enroute as well as a Marine amphibious force with two more carrier groups enroute. At the same time, Iran opens an oil bourse trading in euros and has their coastline littered with the aforementioned antiship missles. All of this while our troops in Iraq, most on their 2nd to 4th deployment, are in the middle of a Sunni-Shia civil war and defacto partition of the country. The man who failed to adequately train & equip the Iraqi security forces, Gen. David Petraeus, is promoted to command of US forces in Iraq while command of CENTCOM is given to an admiral with more experience in naval & air operations than ground operations.

A car bomb blows up a busload of Iranian revolutionary guards just across Iran's border with Afghanistan while US forces in Iraq hunt Iranian agents instead of Sunni insurgents and Al-qaeda in Iraq who blew up the Golden Dome Mosque last year, igniting the current level of "sectarian violence" or civil war. John Negroponte, who oversaw the creation of death squads in Central america in the 80's is ambassador to Iraq at the time of the formation of Shi'ite death squads in Iraq.

Now we have an Iranian group claiming to have marked a US warship in the Gulf. No small feat if the ship is underway at 17 knots. Bush claims to be pursuing diplomatic options with Iran after ignoring the previous Iranian peace offer. Meanwhile, 60% of Iranians are under the age of 25 and want more openess and reform in their government without any outside(read US) meddling.

But we're not going to attack Iran. The Decider has spoken. Considering the bang-up success of Bush's "strategy in Afghanistan & Iraq and the number and blatancy of the lies his admin. have already told, I hope you will forgive my skepticism about his statements on Iran or our chances of success in any such confrontation. As I see it, If Iran is attacked, we will lose a good portion of any Naval assets in the gulf with a casualty rate in the tens of thousands and a shooting war with the entire Muslim world.

But, Henny-Penny, I'm just being alarmist. I don't have any defense contractor stocks so I won't be making money off of these wars, although, Bush, Cheney and their Saudi friends/masters certainly will.

[MadMike]

"Iran
Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism. Its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) were directly involved in the planning and support of terrorist acts and continued to exhort a variety of groups, especially Palestinian groups with leadership cadres in Syria and Lebanese Hizballah, to use terrorism in pursuit of their goals. In addition, the IRGC was increasingly involved in supplying lethal assistance to Iraqi militant groups, which destabilizes Iraq.

Iran continues to be unwilling to bring to justice senior al-Qaida members it detained in 2003. Iran has refused to identify publicly these senior members in its custody on "security grounds." Iran has also resisted numerous calls to transfer custody of its al-Qaida detainees to their countries of origin or to third countries for interrogation and/or trial.

Iran maintained a high-profile role in encouraging anti-Israeli terrorist activity -- rhetorically, operationally, and financially. Supreme Leader Khamenei and President Ahmadi-Nejad praised Palestinian terrorist operations, and Iran provided Lebanese Hizballah and Palestinian terrorist groups -- notably HAMAS, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command -- with extensive funding, training, and weapons.
Iran pursued a variety of policies in Iraq, some of which appeared to be inconsistent with its stated objectives regarding stability in Iraq and with the objectives of the Iraqi Transitional Government and the Multi-national Forces in Iraq. Senior Iraqi officials have publicly expressed concern over Iranian interference in Iraq, and there were reports that Iran provided funding, safe passage, and arms to insurgent elements."

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2005/64337.htm

Country Reports on Terrorism

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2005/65275.htm

Yours, Mike

[loynokid]

LMAO, american navy at its finest. all the problems these days revolves around one retarded child..... bush , too bad they didnt take a pic of it on the ship. message to U.S navy good luck with iran
Even hthat great proliferator of peace William Jefferson Clinton, lobbed a bomb into the Chinese Embasy. Or was that to keep the world's attention off of where his attention really (Monica Lewinski) was?

Either way, someone needs to put the Iranian gov't on notice that they are headed down a risky path.

I absolutely agree with this guy, i think i would rather have president bush heading up our armed forces than a liberal cook like hillary clinton or john kerry who might be running for office in 08, u guys mark my words, if u want our navy and army and airforce to be the strongest in the world like it is today, you better not vote for a "bargain with terrorist" liberal. Believe me people, that would be the end to our powerful military status that we have today

[Enigma]

I absolutely agree with this guy, i think i would rather have president bush heading up our armed forces than a liberal cook like hillary clinton or john kerry who might be running for office in 08, u guys mark my words, if u want our navy and army and airforce to be the strongest in the world like it is today, you better not vote for a "bargain with terrorist" liberal. Believe me people, that would be the end to our powerful military status that we have today

Absolute drivel. :up:

[NefariousKoel]

We're finally starting to handle these Iranians as we should.

Send more Navy there. Thumb our noses at them. Their leadership is so full of itself, they'll make a stupid move against us and we're blame free to bomb them to sh*t.

We don't have to invade Iran. We only need to retaliate so much that not much is left after a severe bombing once they make a move.

F*ck 'em since '79. :rock:

[loynokid]

Thanks for the poitive comments on my post (enigma). Isnt it interesting how most armed forces enthusiasts and soldiers choose the conservative ideology instead of the liberal one. just food for thought. thanks again

[Mush Martin]

Couple of questions:

Why has this item appeared in only one news outlet, according to Google News?
Why does this lone outlet happen to be Israeli?
Why do a couple of blogs suggest that this outlet is of questionable quality?
Who is Nur Ali Shushkari, and why is the only instance of his name on Google in this single item?
Why is the commander of the ground forces commenting on the actions of a submarine crew?
Also of interest is that the symbol pictured there appears to be taken from the Wikipedia entry on the Revolutionary Guards, resized and compressed.

Come on guys, think critically before you start calling for blood.


A Fascinating discussion gentlemen I would be interested to hear answers
to Fatty's post.:hmm:

[Fish]

Let me see if I have this right.

The CIA overthrows the Mossadegh govt. in Iran in 1953 and installs the Shah with the help of the mullahs to stop naionalization of Iranian oil, then trains SAVAK for the Shah to unleash on the same mullahs, paving the way for 1978.

The Carlyle Group sells chemical weapons to Saddam in the 1980's which he uses on the Iranians and the Kurds with the blessings of the Reagan Administration. Then we use those same weapons as an excuse to topple Saddam after he opens an oil bourse trading in euros. Instead of sending in 500,000 troops like 1991 to secure the country & order, we send 100,000 & then disband the Iraqi army & send them home with their guns while not employing any of them in Iraqi reconstruction so Bush & Cheney's friends can steal billions. Then the insurgency begins whose existence is denied until it is full-blown. Meanwhile, Halliburton fails to even install metering valves on the oil pipeline terminals in Basra so no one knows how much oil is being stolen. Statistics show that 92% of US casualties in Iraq are caused by the Sunni insurgency, funded by Saudi Arabia, among others. At the same time, oil production privitization bills are rammed through the Iraqi interim govt. to ensure US oil companies control of Iraqi oil.

The same Halliburton, while Cheney is CEO, sells centrifuge technology to Iran in the 90's through it's Cayman Islands subsidiary, directly aiding the Iranian nuclear program.
in 2003, under Khattami, Iran sends an offer to the US govt through Switzerland to, among other things, recognize Israel's right to exist and aid Nato forces in combatting the Taliban in Afghanistan. Condi Rice doesn't recall seeing the offer even after Flynt Leverette, her deputy, all but calls her a liar. Iran, worried about having US troops on 2 of it's borders, ramps up acquisition of thousands of antiship missles to prepare for a confrontation in the Gulf. the Iraqi invasion leads directly to the election of Ahmedinajad.

The Iran Study Group, similar in form to the White House Iraq Group and the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans, begins to beat the drum for confrontation with Iran using sources like the MEK(Mujaheddin-el-Khalq) for intelligence whose reliability is on a par with the thoroughly discredited Ahmed Chalibi. The one group that had real intelligence on Iran's nuclear program, Brewster-Jennings & Assoc., is neutralized and rendered impotent by the Office of the Vice-President in order to discredit Joe Wilson because his wife, Valerie Plame, ran BJ&A as a covert CIA analyst.

The reports of Iranian involvement in weapons smuggling to Iraq are trumpeted to the media, even though not one US official in the military or government will actually go on record. Meanwhile, Gen. Pace, the new Army Chief-of-Staff, downplays those same reports but receives no airtime for his analysis. The photos of weapons shown, actually show date & type information in English with American-style date stamps(mm-dd-yyyy versus dd-mm-yyyy) and no farsi script on them whatsoever. Bush and co. rail against Muqtada al-sadr(an Iraqi nationalist) and the Mahdi militia while meeting personally with Abdul Aziz Al-Hakim who is actually funded by the Iranians with his Badr Brigade militia.

We have one carrier group in the Gulf with two more enroute as well as a Marine amphibious force with two more carrier groups enroute. At the same time, Iran opens an oil bourse trading in euros and has their coastline littered with the aforementioned antiship missles. All of this while our troops in Iraq, most on their 2nd to 4th deployment, are in the middle of a Sunni-Shia civil war and defacto partition of the country. The man who failed to adequately train & equip the Iraqi security forces, Gen. David Petraeus, is promoted to command of US forces in Iraq while command of CENTCOM is given to an admiral with more experience in naval & air operations than ground operations.

A car bomb blows up a busload of Iranian revolutionary guards just across Iran's border with Afghanistan while US forces in Iraq hunt Iranian agents instead of Sunni insurgents and Al-qaeda in Iraq who blew up the Golden Dome Mosque last year, igniting the current level of "sectarian violence" or civil war. John Negroponte, who oversaw the creation of death squads in Central america in the 80's is ambassador to Iraq at the time of the formation of Shi'ite death squads in Iraq.

Now we have an Iranian group claiming to have marked a US warship in the Gulf. No small feat if the ship is underway at 17 knots. Bush claims to be pursuing diplomatic options with Iran after ignoring the previous Iranian peace offer. Meanwhile, 60% of Iranians are under the age of 25 and want more openess and reform in their government without any outside(read US) meddling.

But we're not going to attack Iran. The Decider has spoken. Considering the bang-up success of Bush's "strategy in Afghanistan & Iraq and the number and blatancy of the lies his admin. have already told, I hope you will forgive my skepticism about his statements on Iran or our chances of success in any such confrontation. As I see it, If Iran is attacked, we will lose a good portion of any Naval assets in the gulf with a casualty rate in the tens of thousands and a shooting war with the entire Muslim world.

But, Henny-Penny, I'm just being alarmist. I don't have any defense contractor stocks so I won't be making money off of these wars, although, Bush, Cheney and their Saudi friends/masters certainly will.

Good summarisation Ishmael. :up:

[Skybird]

Let me see if I have this right.

The CIA overthrows the Mossadegh govt. in Iran in 1953 and installs the Shah with the help of the mullahs to stop naionalization of Iranian oil, then trains SAVAK for the Shah to unleash on the same mullahs, paving the way for 1978.

The Carlyle Group sells chemical weapons to Saddam in the 1980's which he uses on the Iranians and the Kurds with the blessings of the Reagan Administration. Then we use those same weapons as an excuse to topple Saddam after he opens an oil bourse trading in euros. Instead of sending in 500,000 troops like 1991 to secure the country & order, we send 100,000 & then disband the Iraqi army & send them home with their guns while not employing any of them in Iraqi reconstruction so Bush & Cheney's friends can steal billions. Then the insurgency begins whose existence is denied until it is full-blown. Meanwhile, Halliburton fails to even install metering valves on the oil pipeline terminals in Basra so no one knows how much oil is being stolen. Statistics show that 92% of US casualties in Iraq are caused by the Sunni insurgency, funded by Saudi Arabia, among others. At the same time, oil production privitization bills are rammed through the Iraqi interim govt. to ensure US oil companies control of Iraqi oil.

The same Halliburton, while Cheney is CEO, sells centrifuge technology to Iran in the 90's through it's Cayman Islands subsidiary, directly aiding the Iranian nuclear program.
in 2003, under Khattami, Iran sends an offer to the US govt through Switzerland to, among other things, recognize Israel's right to exist and aid Nato forces in combatting the Taliban in Afghanistan. Condi Rice doesn't recall seeing the offer even after Flynt Leverette, her deputy, all but calls her a liar. Iran, worried about having US troops on 2 of it's borders, ramps up acquisition of thousands of antiship missles to prepare for a confrontation in the Gulf. the Iraqi invasion leads directly to the election of Ahmedinajad.

The Iran Study Group, similar in form to the White House Iraq Group and the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans, begins to beat the drum for confrontation with Iran using sources like the MEK(Mujaheddin-el-Khalq) for intelligence whose reliability is on a par with the thoroughly discredited Ahmed Chalibi. The one group that had real intelligence on Iran's nuclear program, Brewster-Jennings & Assoc., is neutralized and rendered impotent by the Office of the Vice-President in order to discredit Joe Wilson because his wife, Valerie Plame, ran BJ&A as a covert CIA analyst.

The reports of Iranian involvement in weapons smuggling to Iraq are trumpeted to the media, even though not one US official in the military or government will actually go on record. Meanwhile, Gen. Pace, the new Army Chief-of-Staff, downplays those same reports but receives no airtime for his analysis. The photos of weapons shown, actually show date & type information in English with American-style date stamps(mm-dd-yyyy versus dd-mm-yyyy) and no farsi script on them whatsoever. Bush and co. rail against Muqtada al-sadr(an Iraqi nationalist) and the Mahdi militia while meeting personally with Abdul Aziz Al-Hakim who is actually funded by the Iranians with his Badr Brigade militia.

We have one carrier group in the Gulf with two more enroute as well as a Marine amphibious force with two more carrier groups enroute. At the same time, Iran opens an oil bourse trading in euros and has their coastline littered with the aforementioned antiship missles. All of this while our troops in Iraq, most on their 2nd to 4th deployment, are in the middle of a Sunni-Shia civil war and defacto partition of the country. The man who failed to adequately train & equip the Iraqi security forces, Gen. David Petraeus, is promoted to command of US forces in Iraq while command of CENTCOM is given to an admiral with more experience in naval & air operations than ground operations.

A car bomb blows up a busload of Iranian revolutionary guards just across Iran's border with Afghanistan while US forces in Iraq hunt Iranian agents instead of Sunni insurgents and Al-qaeda in Iraq who blew up the Golden Dome Mosque last year, igniting the current level of "sectarian violence" or civil war. John Negroponte, who oversaw the creation of death squads in Central america in the 80's is ambassador to Iraq at the time of the formation of Shi'ite death squads in Iraq.

Now we have an Iranian group claiming to have marked a US warship in the Gulf. No small feat if the ship is underway at 17 knots. Bush claims to be pursuing diplomatic options with Iran after ignoring the previous Iranian peace offer. Meanwhile, 60% of Iranians are under the age of 25 and want more openess and reform in their government without any outside(read US) meddling.

But we're not going to attack Iran. The Decider has spoken. Considering the bang-up success of Bush's "strategy in Afghanistan & Iraq and the number and blatancy of the lies his admin. have already told, I hope you will forgive my skepticism about his statements on Iran or our chances of success in any such confrontation. As I see it, If Iran is attacked, we will lose a good portion of any Naval assets in the gulf with a casualty rate in the tens of thousands and a shooting war with the entire Muslim world.

But, Henny-Penny, I'm just being alarmist. I don't have any defense contractor stocks so I won't be making money off of these wars, although, Bush, Cheney and their Saudi friends/masters certainly will.

Good summarisation Ishmael. :up:
Yes indeed.

[baggygreen]

oh for gods sake! (pun intended).

lets get back on track..

I'd love nothin more than to see an Iranian publication release a 'photo' of this defaced US ship, with the emblem spraypainted onto the hull! Especially if it was a screenshop from MS paint, with the little spraycan thingy still visible..:rotfl:

[The Avon Lady]

I'd love nothin more than to see an Iranian publication release a 'photo' of this defaced US ship, with the emblem spraypainted onto the hull! Especially if it was a screenshop from MS paint, with the little spraycan thingy still visible..:rotfl:
Please be patient. Iran's graphic artists are currently tied up on another project (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=24492_Iranian_Fauxtography_Bust&only).

[Takeda Shingen]

I have split the off-topic posts for a second time in as many days. Final warning: Keep this thread on-topic or it will close.

Thanks,
The Management

[The Avon Lady]

Previous Iranian fauxtography claims:

Fauxtography: Iranian Edition (http://junkyardblog.net/archives/week_2006_09_10.html#006018)

Which also links to:

Hezbollah sinks Australian warship (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/hezbollah_sinks_australian_warship/). :roll:

[fatty]

I'd love nothin more than to see an Iranian publication release a 'photo' of this defaced US ship

And I'd love nothing more than to see Haaretz retract this nonsense and send Yossi Melman back to J-school :D

[baggygreen]

i spose we're both askin for the impossible then hey fatty!

and AL, love the aussie ship that they sank..

[fatty]

i spose we're both askin for the impossible then hey fatty!

No, just the mutually exclusive.