How To Sabotage Ahmadinejad When He Arrives In Ny

[P_Funk]

Originally Posted by August

Gee, maybe the fact that they invaded our embassy and took 50 of our people hostage for well over a year had something to do with our feelings on the issue...

Oh and the fact that the Shah was a stooge of the US for years and that the US encouraged Iraq under saddam to invade Iran as a response to Iran's popular revolution is somehow forgotten here?

50 Americans hostage... Hundreds of thousands dead in Iran-Iraq war...

Do you ever read history books not approved by the American High School curriculum?

[Skybird]

You'll hate this posting, and others will hate it, too, and think I lost my mind. But I mean it bloody damn serious.

Originally Posted by P_Funk

You make a good point, except that Iran is in the same situation, with political and religious opponents flanking them with nuclear arms. So what do you suggest as the course of action against Iran? Invasion is ridiculous. The current political attitudes towards Iran are ones that barre other forms of copromise and inevitably state that war will happen. The West is intentionally cornering Iran and trying to bully it like it does smaller nations. Iran is not Iraq or Afghanistan, and they don't give up as easily. A war with Iran is the most irresponsible thing that could happen.

If you look back one year or so you will see that I have posted repeatedly the same things: no invasion possible, airstrikes alone extremely unlikely to bring their program down. My conclusion back then was that any war with Iran is very likely to include small nukes on the program-relevant hardened sites (whose entrances - weak spots - we do not even have GPS coordinates of: we only know that they are somehwere in a given area, often deep inside the ground, or a mountain, where even the greatest conventional bombs will probably not do more than just minor damage - if even that). Back then i said it is unacceptable to attack iran with nukes, but probably would be done in that manner. The events of the time since then have forced me to chnage my mind. I don't like that, but that is the logic of war. Preventing the Iranian bomb is a must. not using nukes if that is the only way to acchieve that, is not necessarily a must. As little violence as possible - but as much as is needed, withiout fould compromises: the stakes are too high this time.

I cant see the West bullying Iran, they do bully the West in fact. After Iraq, the US cannot afford to launch a war again in the way like they did with Iraq, based on lies and manipulation. It would cost them any remaining sympathy in europe - even more so if nukes will be used. Nobody will ever deal with them anymore.

You seem to conclude that war against Iran to destroy it's military program on nukes will be such a grim thing that it prohibits itself. I agree that it will become an extrfmely nasty affair. Due to the inevitable pollution even when subterranean nukes explode, people in the region will suffer health problems and will die for decades to come, so the death toll all in all will probabaly not only reach into the hundreds of thousands, but go beyond that over the years and decades. But I do not conclude from that that this fact rules out to use the needed ammount of force necessary to stop the nuclear bomb for Iran. If we allow that, the next nuclear detonations will not be in Iran, but a european city, or an American one - just a question of time. If you think your own position to the logical end, then you have already willed to allow Iran the nuclear bomb - you state that you shy away from the ammount of brutality needed to prevent it, so according to you - they already have won. They will not back down in last minute.

Don't think I take this thing easy. It costed me a long time to come this far.

The US started the ball rolling on nukes in the mid east 40 years ago with Israel and they associate and do not put presure on Pakistan. Iran's position is a poor one.

that is not true, as long as the West shies away from using small nuclear weapns on accoridng sites, they are in a winning position. they eiother get what they want, the bomb, or they get massive support and sympathy from the Islamic world for becoming attacked and their poor big-eyed babies suffering. as long as the West does not accept top use every ammount of violence needed to stop the bomb, they are in a win-win situation.

and anyone familiar with history would recognize that Iran cannot and should not trust the US to protect their interests in the region. So where is this going? If war is declared then its a catastrophy that will make Vietnam look reasonable.

Again, this maybe upcoming war in my view is about preventing the Iranian nuclear bomb. I do not compare this to Iraq which was launched for corporate interests, geostrategic missionising and such. I will oppose the Iran war when I see that it is handled as half-heartly like the last Lebanon war, or as dilletantic like the Iraq war - if you're about to kill so many people over the long time, you better make sure that you have a damn good reason for that and don't make mistakes. Better an end with horror, than horror without end, and in vain. If there will be an Iran war, it must be conducted as hard and brutal as possible to get those sites beeing taken out, and that most likely cannot be accieved without nukes being used on these sites. If one is chasing illusions and wants to do it with the wrong means, I will never agree to such a war taking place, becasue then it is a monumental waste of life for no purpose. we then better simply surrender and accept Iran having the bomb. The blood toll then will be hours, and our societies' one. So, this is no option for me any longer. Iran alone having the bomb maybe, eventually, would be acceptable, but they have too close links to terrorism, and Iran being nuclear would be the deciding argument for toher nations in the region also to get nukes. This scenario is even greater horror for me than using nukes on Iranian bomb-related hardened installations. One thing is sure, that after the attack on Iran the world will no more be the same, and life in the West becoming more dangerous anyway: if we attack Iran, it will be more dangerous due to hostile sentiments, and if we allow them the bomb, it will be more dangerous due to nuclear terrorism.

Note that I nowhere set up the scenario of iran itself striking at europe. I would sleep bad with Iran having the bomb, but the far greater danger is from terrorists getting access to the bomb. Iran is training and educating Hezbullah to set up ammo dumbs and firing positions inside hospitals, on roofs of kindergardens, and to hide in the cellar below civilian structures, so that every strike at them must necessarily provoke the killing of civilians which then can be used in the picture war on TV. This is not the kind of people I consider to be reasonable, ethical, and want them to see possessing nukes. they must be prevented that access, no matter what it costs.

that all is very grim and brutal, yes. And it cannot be decided on ethical terms, yes. The threat we are confronted with simply is beyond ethics. Do we allow nuclear terrorism in the future, yes or no? It comes down to this simple question. Terrorists have used chemical weapons on civilians and killed and injured hundreds (Japan), they already have used airplanes as bombs (NY), killing thousands, and islamic terorists have slaughtered hostages like a butcher is slaughtering cattle, and they are even proud of their bloodthirsty barbarism and know that they must do it this way to acchieve the greatest shock in the West, and so they call for others to follow their example.

To think they would shy away from using nukes if only they have access to them, is naive.

[elite_hunter_sh3]

i think the US shud change their foreign policy.. from "lets fight all of israel's wars!!" to " let them see if they can walk the walk... they talk the talk.. so lets see what REALLY happens.."

then there would be no threat from al qaeda etc... why do you think 9/11 happened!!

[August]

Originally Posted by P_Funk

Oh and the fact that the Shah was a stooge of the US for years and that the US encouraged Iraq under saddam to invade Iran as a response to Iran's popular revolution is somehow forgotten here?

50 Americans hostage... Hundreds of thousands dead in Iran-Iraq war...

Do you ever read history books not approved by the American High School curriculum?

Don't attempt to cloud the issue with events that took place after they kidnapped our people. That's like saying hitler was justified in attacking Russia because of the damage the Soviets would do to Berlin in 1945. The only one forgetting anything is you and it seems to be the proper time line.

BTW you can keep your insults to yourself Sonny. I didn't have to learn about the Iranian hostage crisis from the history books like you apparently did. On November 4th 1979 I had been serving my country as a soldier for over two years already.

The nuclear agreements we had with Iran was with the Shahs government, not the pack of murdering religious fanatics who supplanted him. How can you possibly argue that not giving Khomeni and company the Bomb was not a good thing?

[P_Funk]

Originally Posted by August

Don't attempt to cloud the issue with events that took place after they kidnapped our people. That's like saying hitler was justified in attacking Russia because of the damage the Soviets would do to Berlin in 1945. The only one forgetting anything is you and it seems to be the proper time line.

BTW you can keep your insults to yourself Sonny. I didn't have to learn about the Iranian hostage crisis from the history books like you apparently did. On November 4th 1979 I had been serving my country as a soldier for over two years already.

The nuclear agreements we had with Iran was with the Shahs government, not the pack of murdering religious fanatics who supplanted him. How can you possibly argue that not giving Khomeni and company the Bomb was not a good thing?

A) Don't bring Hitler into this. Using Hitler comparisons is just stupid. Its a whole seperate issue. Hitler was an especially bad person and you are demeaning Hitler by bringing him down to the level of our petty modern despots. Hitler worked hard to be the man that he was, and don't go taking that away from him.

B) The US overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran and threw the Shah into power. Before the 79 revolution Iran was another one of America's manufactured autocracies. You want to talk about who did what before the US did plenty to Iran long before the Embassy event. Just like in Nicaragua, Chile, Panama and many others the US intervened against democracy when it looked that their economic and political interests would be supplanted by self-interest on the part of the local population. How insensitive of them.

I'm sorry, I shouldn't have implied that you didn't know what had happened. It just seems that you either choose to ignore what happened to lead to the 79 revolution or you simply don't care. America has been dicking with Iran's sovereignty ever since the end of the 2nd world war. Cause and effect foes back farther than 1979.

[P_Funk]

Originally Posted by elite_hunter_sh3

i think the US shud change their foreign policy.. from "lets fight all of israel's wars!!" to " let them see if they can walk the walk... they talk the talk.. so lets see what REALLY happens.."

then there would be no threat from al qaeda etc... why do you think 9/11 happened!!

Without the US there is no bloody Israel. Isreal is an artificial state. Its placed in the middle of un-arable land. The US had to pour mountains of money into an irrigation program to make it so that people could actually live off that land. Their weapons are either directly from the US or are bought with over 2 billion dollars of American taxpayer money every year. And without the US's support at the UN all of Israel's regional nemesies would be able to actually assert an independant foreign policy and possibly develop an economy.

9/11 has nothing to do with it.

EDIT.
Sorry but I didn't want to be a total prat and triple post.

@Skybird. First I have to thank you for your intellect. Yours is the first reply that while I was reading it it didn't feel as if you were yelling at me. Others it seems as if whenever I disagree with them I'm personally in this moment helping Iran win.

I agree with your conclusions as to the likely fallout of events following an attack on Iran, including a nuclear attack. However I don't believe that it is worth it in the end. How can it possibly stand that a nuclear attack on a muslim nation is the only way to prevent nuclear proliferation? It is the height of irrationality. Indeed it would cripple the threat of Iran developing a nuke and distributing it to terrorist groups. However it would I believe set into motion a kind of Muslim rage that would create a world in which terrorism would grow exponentially and in which all muslims would unite against the West.

A nuclear attack on a muslim state would unite the muslim world and end peaceful political dominion of the US and its allies. Such actions would also legitimize for the first time since WW2 the tactical use of nuclear weapons. It would if anything make proliferation more likely in that nations would see that the threat of use is no longer sufficient when the most powerful nation in the world used them. I completely disagree on this Skybird, and I think that it would be a far better thing to see a small nuke explode in a western city than to see Iran levelled by American stealth bombers. In the end both are terrible but the deliberate and legitimized use of nukes on a muslim nation would... I can't even imagine how to say it. There would be no peace for as long as we lived thats for sure.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by P_Funk

However it would I believe set into motion a kind of Muslim rage that would create a world in which terrorism would grow exponentially and in which all muslims would unite against the West.

Islam already is united against anything that is not itself, including the West. That'S what Islam is about by teaching and inner essence.

Why are we expected to always take care of muslim rage and and always pay obedience in advance not to enflame their precious, holy, Islamic sentiments? They ALWAYS are offended by something, if not by this than by something else, and ALWAYS make demands, and more demands, and demanding more, and after that: what a surprise - demands, anyone? This is not because they have bad genes or are stupid by birth, but their damn idiotic ideology educates them to be stupid, and arrogant to demand all world in the name of this thing Islam. So if they yell in the streets and burn flags and such - what would be new? They ALWAYS do it, no matter what! The new swedish cartoon painter - is in hiding, since there have been calls for his murder again, and many demonstrations and mass hysteria and gaga-events which the Western media did not report so much about this time, since it has lost its attractiveness a bit. But when they run thorugh their nstreets in some Godforsaken place thiusands of miles away, of what interest must that be for us? Let them, if they want, if they want, and if the approach the borders and try to enter our countries, show them what nice big sticks we have. So what...?

A nuclear attack on a muslim state would unite the muslim world and end peaceful political dominion of the US and its allies.

????

Such actions would also legitimize for the first time since WW2 the tactical use of nuclear weapons.

No, that legitimiation does already come from an aggressive power not hiding it's intention to drive Islam into the West at all cost and means available, trying to get the nuclear option.

It would if anything make proliferation more likely in that nations would see that the threat of use is no longer sufficient when the most powerful nation in the world used them.

Proliferation already is a problem, yes. but that does not mean that we need to help it, or allow it where we could prevent it. Ahgain, you already have given up and thus want to do nothing.

I completely disagree on this Skybird, and I think that it would be a far better thing to see a small nuke explode in a western city than to see Iran levelled by American stealth bombers.

Okay, I cannot argue with somebody saying such a self-sacrioficing thing. If somebody accepts his own killing so that he must not raise his hand in self-defense, all hope is lost. By chance, I do not value their lives and culture higher than ours. And concenring the culture, I see it exactly the other way around. If there would be no Islam in the world, mankind would be much better off, and 1.3 billion people would not be raised in an atmosphere of supression, intimidation, and superstitious anti-intellectualism, and no showdown like the one we spoke of here. If there would be no western culture, there would be no desease control centre in Atlanta, helping in global epidemics. No injection at the dentist , and no vaccine to condcut mass-vaccinations for children in the "first" and "third" world. No 70 years of peace in europe, and the tolerance and wealth coming from that. No world food program. no modern medicine saving lifes and curing pain. No tradition of humanism, no values like freedom and liberty and equality and their juristical implementation. No scientiifc understanding of life, man and cosmos. No classcial music, no western arts. No refrigerators, think about that, how important it is to be able to cool your food reserves! No x-ray. No ability to adapt to changing living conditions and environements. no chance to raise an anti-meteorit program in case a cosmic visitor threatens to annihilate all life on earth. No separation of politics and religion. No end to inquisition and witch-hunting. No - go figure yourself.

For a farewell I just say two things:

First, I nowhere talked of indiscriminatory use of nukes, and "levelling Iran". I talked of the use of nukes to destroy relevant hardened installation which cannot be destroyed in conventional ways, what would nevertheless cost a lot of lives over the decades due to the contamination even if the bombs explode sub-terranean, or inside mountains. For this, their CCCI needs to be crippled to a certain degree, especially with regard to their SAM and AA capacity.

Second, in the end, the US prooved to be civilised enough not to use nukes after WWII, so was England, France, and others, even Israel. but with Iran and it'S aggressive pushing and sponsoring or terrorism and declared intention to destroy Israel and push Israelis into the sea, this tradition would come to an end, thus it cannot be accepted. In the end, the real problem at the basis of it all, the real motivation behind this acting of theirs, the real energy for their yearnings to get the bomb - is Islam, once again.

[elite_hunter_sh3]

the reason why 9/11 happened is because US supports israel, arabs instantly started hating israel when they (israelis) came in and wipe out the palestinians and created their own country, then the US started supporting Israel because israelis owned major corporations in the US and had control of the media, US is the only country to give billions in $$ of "no stringd attached" aid..., and obviously if a country is supporting a country that your fighting a war against then that country is your enemy, then the arabs decided ok america supports israel, we attack them too, then they did... then the israelis decided o ok now we have an excuse to send our puppet the united states to fight our wars for us, so the US attacked Iraq and Afghanistan... welll WAKE UP USA... ur fighting a losing war for a nation that technically shouldnt be there...

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by elite_hunter_sh3

the reason why 9/11 happened is because US supports israel, arabs instantly started hating israel when they (israelis) came in and wipe out the palestinians and created their own country,

Try a little truth:

Initially, Jewish immigration to Palestine met little opposition from the Palestinian Arabs. However, as anti-Semitism grew in Europe during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Jewish immigration (mostly from Europe) to Palestine began to increase markedly, creating much Arab resentment.
There was violent incitement from the Palestine Muslim leadership that led to violent attacks against the Jewish population.

On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly, with a two-thirds majority international vote, passed the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine (United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181), a plan to resolve the Arab-Jewish conflict by partitioning the territory into separate Jewish and Arab states, with the Greater Jerusalem area (encompassing Bethlehem) coming under international control. Jewish leaders (including the Jewish Agency), accepted the plan, while Palestinian Arab leaders rejected it and refused to negotiate. Neighboring Arab and Muslim states also rejected the partition plan. The Arab community reacted violently after the Arab Higher Committee declared a strike and burned many buildings and shops. As armed skirmishes between Arab and Jewish paramilitary forces in Palestine continued, the British mandate ended on May 15, 1948, the establishment of the State of Israel having been proclaimed the day before (see Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel). The neighboring Arab states and armies (Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Transjordan, Holy War Army, Arab Liberation Army, and local Arabs) immediately attacked Israel following its declaration of independence, and the 1948 Arab-Israeli War ensued. Consequently, the partition plan was never implemented.

You can find a lot of information if you want to.

[August]

Originally Posted by P_Funk

A) Don't bring Hitler into this. Using Hitler comparisons is just stupid. Its a whole seperate issue. Hitler was an especially bad person and you are demeaning Hitler by bringing him down to the level of our petty modern despots. Hitler worked hard to be the man that he was, and don't go taking that away from him.

B) The US overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran and threw the Shah into power. Before the 79 revolution Iran was another one of America's manufactured autocracies. You want to talk about who did what before the US did plenty to Iran long before the Embassy event. Just like in Nicaragua, Chile, Panama and many others the US intervened against democracy when it looked that their economic and political interests would be supplanted by self-interest on the part of the local population. How insensitive of them.

I'm sorry, I shouldn't have implied that you didn't know what had happened. It just seems that you either choose to ignore what happened to lead to the 79 revolution or you simply don't care. America has been dicking with Iran's sovereignty ever since the end of the 2nd world war. Cause and effect foes back farther than 1979.

A. I didn't bring hitler into this, history did. You're conveniently omiting the fact that the WW2 allies were forced to occupy Iran to keep it from joining the axis powers.

B. You're also omitting the fact that the "democraticaly elected government" you mention was actually one person, Mohammad Mosaddeq, who was removed from power after he illegally dissolved a democratically elected parliment to avoid impeachment.

C. You're omitting the fact that when Khomeni siezed power the first thing he did was to remove all the political freedoms and social improvement programs installed by the Shahs government such as:

Extending the Right to Vote to Women, gone
Land Reforms Program and Abolishing Feudalism, gone
Nationalization of Forests and Pasturelands, gone:
Privatization of the Government Owned Enterprises, gone.
Profit Sharing for industrial workers in private sector enterprises, gone
Formation of the Literacy Corps, gone
Formation of the Health Corps, gone.
Formation of the Reconstruction and Development Corps, gone.
Nationalization of all Water Resources, gone
Urban and Rural Modernization and Reconstruction, gone.
Didactic Education Reforms, gone.
Workers' Right to Own Shares in the Industrial Complexes, gone.
Price Stabilization and campaign against unreasonable profiteering, gone.
Free and Compulsory Education and a daily free meal for all children, gone.
Free Food for Needy Mothers and for all newborn babies up to the age of two, gone.
Introduction of Social Security and National Insurance, gone.

Since then Khomenis thug government has turned one of the most progressive nations in the entire middle east into a backwards and oppressive theocracy whose people are little more then feudal peasants, living and dying at the whim of the mullahs, but in your mind the west are the bad guys for not continuing Irans nuclear program after the Islamists came to power, right?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

C. You're omitting the fact that when Khomeni siezed power the first thing he did was to remove all the political freedoms and social improvement programs installed by the Shahs government such as:

I always take some diabolic satisfaction from pointing out what happened to his allies, socialists and communists, those who helped him to come back to Iran because they thought a common enemy - the Shah regime - makes Islam their friend: once he felt safe and comfortable, they ended up hanging in the streets, at telephone poles and light masts.

Irren ist menschlich.

[elite_hunter_sh3]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...95161238848541

"911 the Israeli connection"

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I always take some diabolic satisfaction from pointing out what happened to his allies, socialists and communists, those who helped him to come back to Iran because they thought a common enemy - the Shah regime - makes Islam their friend: once he felt safe and comfortable, they ended up hanging in the streets, at telephone poles and light masts.

Irren ist menschlich.

Yep. Apparently they still haven't learned either.

[Skybird]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...xt=va&aid=6909

All credit for finding this goes to Fish, who posted this link in another thread tis evening.

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by Skybird

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...xt=va&aid=6909

All credit for finding this goes to Fish, who posted this link in another thread tis evening.

If I read it on CNN...............................