US planting car bombs in Iraq

[segovius]

Evidence is continuing to mount that the US are behind many of the car bombs that are increasingly claiming lives in Baghdad and the surrounding areas.

These car bombs are never suicide bombs - and strangely suicide bombing is the main MO of the alleged 'Zarqawi' group and other Islamist resistance cells. So there seem to be two differing phenomena at work: traditional jihadi martyr operations and an unknown group solely utilising remotely detonated car bombs.

Let's look at this second grouping's activities:

Report from Global Research (http://globalresearch.ca/articles/KHA505A.html)

A few days ago, an American manned check point confiscated the driver license of a driver and told him to report to an American military camp near Baghdad airport for interrogation and in order to retrieve his license. The next day, the driver did visit the camp and he was allowed in the camp with his car. He was admitted to a room for an interrogation that lasted half an hour. At the end of the session, the American interrogator told him: ‘OK, there is nothing against you, but you do know that Iraq is now sovereign and is in charge of its own affairs. Hence, we have forwarded your papers and license to al-Kadhimia police station for processing. Therefore, go there with this clearance to reclaim your license. At the police station, ask for Lt. Hussain Mohammed who is waiting for you now. Go there now quickly, before he leaves his shift work”.

The driver did leave in a hurry, but was soon alarmed with a feeling that his car was driving as if carrying a heavy load, and he also became suspicious of a low flying helicopter that kept hovering overhead, as if trailing him. He stopped the car and inspected it carefully. He found nearly 100 kilograms of explosives hidden in the back seat and along the two back doors.

The only feasible explanation for this incidence is that the car was indeed booby trapped by the Americans and intended for the al-Khadimiya Shiite district of Baghdad. The helicopter was monitoring his movement and witnessing the anticipated “hideous attack by foreign elements”.

The same scenario was repeated in Mosul, in the north of Iraq. A car was confiscated along with the driver’s license. He did follow up on the matter and finally reclaimed his car but was told to go to a police station to reclaim his license. Fortunately for him, the car broke down on the way to the police station. The inspecting car mechanic discovered that the spare tire was fully laden with explosives."

This should not be surprising given what we know of he Strausscons preparedness to stop at nothing for their aims but in case it does occasion some surprise we have this revealing snippet from a document prepared for a Mr Donald Rumsfeld (http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MOR505A.html):

According to a classified document prepared for Rumsfeld by his Defense Science Board, the new organization--the "Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group (P2OG)"--would actually carry out secret missions designed to provoke terrorist groups into committing violent acts. The P2OG, a 100-member, so-called "counter-terrorist" organization with a $100-million-a-year budget, would ostensibly target "terrorist leaders," but according to P2OG documents procured by Arkin, would in fact carry out missions designed to "stimulate reactions" among "terrorist groups"--which, according to the Defense Secretary's logic, would subsequently expose them to "counter-attack" by the good guys. In other words, the plan is to execute secret military operations (assassinations, sabotage, "deception") which would intentionally result in terrorist attacks on innocent people, including Americans--essentially, to "combat terrorism" by causing it!

But back to the fake terrorist car bombs - from Riverbend's post The Dead and the Undead (http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/):

The last two weeks have been violent. The number of explosions in Baghdad alone is frightening. There have also been several assassinations- bodies being found here and there. It's somewhat disturbing to know that corpses are turning up in the most unexpected places. Many people will tell you it's not wise to eat river fish anymore because they have been nourished on the human remains being dumped into the river. That thought alone has given me more than one sleepless night. It is almost as if Baghdad has turned into a giant graveyard.

The latest corpses were those of some Sunni and Shia clerics- several of them well-known. People are being patient and there is a general consensus that these killings are being done to provoke civil war. Also worrisome is the fact that we are hearing of people being rounded up by security forces (Iraqi) and then being found dead days later- apparently when the new Iraqi government recently decided to reinstate the death penalty, they had something else in mind.

But back to the explosions. One of the larger blasts was in an area called Ma'moun, which is a middle class area located in west Baghdad. It’s a relatively calm residential area with shops that provide the basics and a bit more. It happened in the morning, as the shops were opening up for their daily business and it occurred right in front of a butchers shop. Immediately after, we heard that a man living in a house in front of the blast site was hauled off by the Americans because it was said that after the bomb went off, he sniped an Iraqi National Guardsman.

I didn’t think much about the story- nothing about it stood out: an explosion and a sniper- hardly an anomaly. The interesting news started circulating a couple of days later. People from the area claim that the man was taken away not because he shot anyone, but because he knew too much about the bomb. Rumor has it that he saw an American patrol passing through the area and pausing at the bomb site minutes before the explosion. Soon after they drove away, the bomb went off and chaos ensued. He ran out of his house screaming to the neighbors and bystanders that the Americans had either planted the bomb or seen the bomb and done nothing about it. He was promptly taken away.

The bombs are mysterious. Some of them explode in the midst of National Guard and near American troops or Iraqi Police and others explode near mosques, churches, and shops or in the middle of sougs. One thing that surprises us about the news reports of these bombs is that they are inevitably linked to suicide bombers. The reality is that some of these bombs are not suicide bombs- they are car bombs that are either being remotely detonated or maybe time bombs. All we know is that the techniques differ and apparently so do the intentions. Some will tell you they are resistance. Some say Chalabi and his thugs are responsible for a number of them. Others blame Iran and the SCIRI militia Badir.

In any case, they are terrifying. If you're close enough, the first sound is a that of an earsplitting blast and the sounds that follow are of a rain of glass, shrapnel and other sharp things. Then the wails begin- the shrill mechanical wails of an occasional ambulance combined with the wail of car alarms from neighboring vehicles… and finally the wail of people trying to sort out their dead and dying from the debris.

And if that was not enough - there's more (http://www.uruknet.info/?p=12024&hd=0&size=1&l=x)

On Friday [May 13, 2005], a 64 years old Iraqi farmer, Haj Haidar Abu Sijjad, took his tomato load in his pickup truck from Hilla to Baghdad, accompanied by Ali, his 11 years old grandson. They were stopped at an American check point and were asked to dismount. An American soldier climbed on the back of the pickup truck, followed by another a few minutes later, and thoroughly inspected the tomato filled plastic containers for about 10 minutes. Haj Haidar and his grandson were then allowed to proceed to Baghdad.A minute later, his grandson told him that he saw one of the American soldiers putting a grey melon size object in the back among the tomato containers. The Haj immediately slammed on the brakes and stopped the car at the side of the road, at a relatively far distance from the check point. He found a time bomb with the clock ticking tucked among his tomatoes. He immediately recognized it, as he was an ex-army soldier. Panicking, he grabbed his grandson and ran away from the car. Then, realizing that the car was his only means of work, he went back, took the bomb and carried it in fear. He threw it in a deep ditch by the side of the road that was dug by Iraqi soldiers in preparation for the war, two years ago.Upon returning from Baghdad, he found out that the bomb had indeed exploded, killing three sheep and injuring their sheppard in his head. He thanked God for giving him the courage to go back and remove the bomb, and for the luck in that the American soldiers did not notice his sudden stop at a distance and his getting rid of the bomb."They intended it to explode in Baghdad and claim that it is the work of the 'terrorists'

We need to take the lid of this - things are really starting to stink out there....:mad:

[MagicFingers]

I think the stink has been around since Jan 20th 2001....

[iPoster]

IMHO, it's highly unlikely that rank and file US troops are in on this, and I don't know anything about the credibility of your sources, good or bad. But assuming the stories are correct, I honestly wouldn't put it past the Admin to pull off something like that. Compared to 9/11 it would be small potatoes.

IF it is happening, it would most likely involve CIA or other 'spook' types posing as US military....:wow:

[BRussell]

That really makes no sense. Why would the US want to make things worse than they already are?

[sammi jo]

Not just car bombs, but weapons of mass destruction as well. This was to be expected, but the plan to plant WMDs in Iraq, so they could be uncovered later on and therefore "justify" the Bush war policy was bungled. I'm half surprised that it wasn't attempted again. Maybe it was because the source and age etc. of chemical and biological weapons can be easily traced and determined....and if any samples got into the hands of independent (ie non government allied analysts), this could have spelled huge problems for both the military and the administration.

http://www.trinicenter.com/oops/ciadod.html

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by BRussell
That really makes no sense. Why would the US want to make things worse than they already are? \

The US military is never going to leave Iraq, while we have an administration dominated by the neocons. Already, 4 permanent bases have been built, and there are more to follow. Perhaps the 'false flag' attacks are to give the illusion that the insurgency is more powerful than it really is, and retain the 'justification' for retaining the military presence. Impossible scenario :If peace suddenly 'broke out' all over Iraq, the Iraqis started to successfully get into self government, thereby rendering the troops' presence as redundant, the American public would not be partial to keeping them there at astronomical public expense. That is the very last thing the neocons want...namely the widespread perception that the US presence over there is surplus to requirements.

[dmz]

It seemed like this thread was missing one critical component:

http://www.herbs2000.com/images/herbs_marijuana.jpg

I was going to throw in some 'shrooms but the thought of a group of
conspiracy theorists at the 3 a.m. "reminiscent stage" seemed creepy.;)

[NaplesX]

I think that the DNC has more to gain from this kind of alleged activity that the Bush admin. Of course I jest, but can anyone explain why the admin would do this, and do you not read these things that are oozing off of your fingertips?

[MarcUK]

think China.

[Aries 1B]

Originally posted by MarcUK
think China.

Make your posts more cryptic.:)

V/R,

Aries 1B

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by MarcUK
think China. think.

[johnq]

Right, it couldn't possibly be the 'Zarqawi' group and other Islamist resistance cells/traditional jihadi martyr operations suddenly realizing how fucking stupid suicide operations are and deciding to utilize remotely detonated car bombs when possible. :rolleyes:

But, that said, I've also no doubt the U.S. government/military/neocons/BushCo would do that either.

It's in their interest to keep the various wars and terror going.

More attacks on our troops just translates into increased funding and more and more so-called moral authority to do whatever we want, wherever, and to whomever, like, oh, Israel does. Or Russia.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by johnq
But, that said, I've also no doubt the U.S. government/military/neocons/BushCo would do that either. And this sureness is based on what?

[johnq]

Originally posted by NaplesX
And this sureness is based on what?

:) Oh, just a hunch really.

But I'm just a "silly conspiracy theorist".

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by NaplesX
think.

yes, im thinking......thinking........oooooohh, I have a thought.........

Hanic.;)

[segovius]

Originally posted by BRussell
That really makes no sense. Why would the US want to make things worse than they already are?

Back OT and to answer this.

The US has realised that is impossible to win in Iraq and the insurgents cannot be defeated - withdrawal is not an option for Bush and the Strausscons on their own ideological grounds so a solution needs to be found. And fast - there is a very small window (ie before July August) to start selling the Iran attack to the sheep - as it is now with the Iraq instabiliy they won't buy it, nor will the military.

So, that's point one: increased attacks reinforce the image of the 'demon Muslim' who must be opposed and plant this meme for the resistance in Iran which will surely take the same form.

This is minor though. The primary aim of these US attacks is to undermine Iraq to such an extent (nearly there but not quite yet) that a previously unacceptable solution becomes acceptable.

That solution is this: dividing the country into three mini-states based on ethnicity and religion - thus making the country governable which it is not, and cannot be, under the present circumstances. It is far easier to manage 3 sub-states.

So the aim is to foment civil was between the Kurds/Shi'i/Sunni and 'annex' them in 3 separate 'States' when the carnage is so bad a solution is demanded. These states will effectively ghettoise these ethnic groups and isolate the insurgents as well as preventing these groups from joining forces when the Iran strike comes or before.

As I said above - the backdrop and over-riding aim is the attack on Iran which WILL happen and is even now being planned. A quick look at the four massive military bases currently being constructed (as opposed to using existing ones as they used Abu Ghraib rather than build new) will show the strategic significance of these base's positions.

Basically the plan is Iran and Syria - always has been. The Iraq insurgents held this plan up and the Strausscons can't let that happen. This is their solution. They will try others of course and it may be they are even 'dummy runs' and one day soon we will see a massive car-bomb against a highly sensitive target causing immense casualties - an event that will be 'irrevocably and demonstrably proved to be the work of Iran'.

[NaplesX]

Talk about made up crap posted by segovius
Back OT and to answer this.

The US has realised that is impossible to win in Iraq and the insurgents cannot be defeated - withdrawal is not an option for Bush and the Strausscons on their own ideological grounds so a solution needs to be found. And fast - there is a very small window (ie before July August) to start selling the Iran attack to the sheep - as it is now with the Iraq instabiliy they won't buy it, nor will the military.

So, that's point one: increased attacks reinforce the image of the 'demon Muslim' who must be opposed and plant this meme for the resistance in Iran which will surely take the same form.

This is minor though. The primary aim of these US attacks is to undermine Iraq to such an extent (nearly there but not quite yet) that a previously unacceptable solution becomes acceptable.

That solution is this: dividing the country into three mini-states based on ethnicity and religion - thus making the country governable which it is not, and cannot be, under the present circumstances. It is far easier to manage 3 sub-states.

So the aim is to foment civil was between the Kurds/Shi'i/Sunni and 'annex' them in 3 separate 'States' when the carnage is so bad a solution is demanded. These states will effectively ghettoise these ethnic groups and isolate the insurgents as well as preventing these groups from joining forces when the Iran strike comes or before.

As I said above - the backdrop and over-riding aim is the attack on Iran which WILL happen and is even now being planned. A quick look at the four massive military bases currently being constructed (as opposed to using existing ones as they used Abu Ghraib rather than build new) will show the strategic significance of these base's positions.

Basically the plan is Iran and Syria - always has been. The Iraq insurgents held this plan up and the Strausscons can't let that happen. This is their solution. They will try others of course and it may be they are even 'dummy runs' and one day soon we will see a massive car-bomb against a highly sensitive target causing immense casualties - an event that will be 'irrevocably and demonstrably proved to be the work of Iran'. This is based on what?

And even if what you say is true, so what? You really don't consider Iran and Syria a threat to the US or any country for that matter?

Edit: I wanted to make clear that I think you are insane. When I said "so what", I meant so what to the plan to take on Iran and Syria, not that the US is behind killing of it's own personnel, which is beyond ridiculous. That whole premise is just... well ludicrous. You have nothing to back up assertions like that.

[segovius]

Originally posted by NaplesX
This is based on what?

And even if what you say is true, so what? You really don't consider Iran and Syria a threat to the US or any country for that matter?

Edit: I wanted to make clear that I think you are insane. When I said "so what", I meant so what to the plan to take on Iran and Syria, not that the US is behind killing of it's own personnel, which is beyond ridiculous. That whole premise is just... well ludicrous. You have nothing to back up assertions like that.

Well, judged by your own opinion of yourself I am insane. Totally. I don't have a problem with that - let's move on to your other 'points'.

Actually, sorry, we can't - there aren't any :lol:

One thing though - if the US did invade Syria or Iran tomorrow and killed another 100,000 civilians or whatever you'd be here saying it's cool and a 'good thing' - so really, that's all we need to know.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by segovius
Well, judged by your own opinion of yourself I am insane. Totally. I don't have a problem with that - let's move on to your other 'points'.

Actually, sorry, we can't - there aren't any :lol:

One thing though - if the US did invade Syria or Iran tomorrow and killed another 100,000 civilians or whatever you'd be here saying it's cool and a 'good thing' - so really, that's all we need to know. Once again you are totally wrong. I never said killing anyone is OK.

But life is full of these kinds of choices - Do we let Iran or Syria develop or acquire means to wipe out 100' of thousands or even millions of innocent lives. Innocent people are going to die, and you are going to blame the US no matter what.

History frowns on those that don't act to stop the aggression of tyrants and despots. France to name one will be remembered for such inaction that you seem to suggest. You would be the first to blame the US for not stopping some huge attack.

The US is damned if they do and damned if they don't.

[segovius]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Once again you are totally wrong. I never said killing anyone is OK.

But life is full of these kinds of choices - Do we let Iran or Syria develop or acquire means to wipe out 100' of thousands or even millions of innocent lives. Innocent people are going to die, and you are going to blame the US no matter what.

History frowns on those that don't act to stop the aggression of tyrants and despots. France to name one will be remembered for such inaction that you seem to suggest. You would be the first to blame the US for not stopping some huge attack.

The US is damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Do Syria or Iran let the US just wipe out 100' of thousands of their citizens ? Innocent people are going to die and you are going to blame Syria and Iran no matter what....

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by segovius
Do Syria or Iran let the US just wipe out 100' of thousands of their citizens ? Innocent people are going to die and you are going to blame Syria and Iran no matter what.... You see, here is where your line of thinking falls apart. Let me explain:

You contend that the US did not follow the suggestions of the international community (the UN), therefor what it is doing in Iraq/ME is unjustified. At the very same time the international community (the UN) has condemned the aggressive stance of Iran and Syria. Yet you reply to my comment as if Iran's/Syria's aggression is somehow justified.

Why not hold Syria and Iran the same standards that you profess to hold the US?

Pick a stance. Oh wait. you have - The US is always wrong.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by NaplesX
You see, here is where your line of thinking falls apart. Let me explain:

You contend that the US did not follow the suggestions of the international community (the UN), therefor what it is doing in Iraq/ME is unjustified. At the very same time the international community (the UN) has condemned the aggressive stance of Iran and Syria. Yet you reply to my comment as if Iran's/Syria's aggression is somehow justified.

Why not hold Syria and Iran the same standards that you profess to hold the US?

Pick a stance. Oh wait. you have - The US is always wrong.

You see, here is where your line of thinking falls apart. Let me explain:

You contend that Iran/Syria did not follow the suggestions of the international community (the UN), therefor what it is doing in where exactly is unjustified. At the very same time the international community (the UN) has condemned the aggressive stance of the US/UK. Yet you reply to my comment as if US/UK aggression is somehow justified.

Why not hold the US to the same standards that you profess to hold the Syria and Iran?

Pick a stance. Oh wait. you have - The US is always right.

[segovius]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Yet you reply to my comment as if Iran's/Syria's aggression is somehow justified.

What aggression ?

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by segovius
What aggression ? Oh come on now.

I have to go play a gig with my band. I will talk to you later.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Oh come on now.

I have to go play a gig with my band. I will talk to you later.

What band is that? The little-ladies-cussing-Iran-Syria band?

[Harald]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Oh come on now.

I have to go play a gig with my band. I will talk to you later.

Aggression is invading a sovereign country and killing up to 100,000 innocents.

What has Iran or Syria done that can match this?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by segovius
Back OT and to answer this... The idea that the mess we're in now was actually part of the plan all along and that the insurgency isn't real but rather a US conspiracy is just silly. They fucked up, shouldn't have gone to war, when they did they should have done a better job at post-war planning, and they should have focused on winning hearts and minds rather than torturing innocent Iraqis.

It's their incompetence that led to where things are now, not their sophistication.

[segovius]

Originally posted by BRussell
The idea that the mess we're in now was actually part of the plan all along and that the insurgency isn't real but rather a US conspiracy is just silly. They fucked up, shouldn't have gone to war, when they did they should have done a better job at post-war planning, and they should have focused on winning hearts and minds rather than torturing innocent Iraqis.

It's their incompetence that led to where things are now, not their sophistication.

I didn't mean to suggest that the chaos was part of the plan but rather that the plan was initially Iraq-> Syria -> Iran in sequential stages.

When Iraq got Fubar the plan had to be abandoned or radically changed. The argument is that it got changed to escalating the chaos (possibly to implicate Iran at some point - certainly in the last few days nonsensical 'info' is leaking out that Zarqawi has fled there and is being shielded by the Iranians which fits right in) with the aim of posting an emergency solution (the three Statelets) which will then bring order of a sort (or at least be more manageable) and then it's hey-ho let's kill some Iranians which was the aim all along.

Iraq was just phase one.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by segovius
I didn't mean to suggest that the chaos was part of the plan but rather that the plan was initially Iraq-> Syria -> Iran in sequential stages.

When Iraq got Fubar the plan had to be abandoned or radically changed. The argument is that it got changed to escalating the chaos (possibly to implicate Iran at some point - certainly in the last few days nonsensical 'info' is leaking out that Zarqawi has fled there and is being shielded by the Iranians which fits right in) with the aim of posting an emergency solution (the three Statelets) which will then bring order of a sort (or at least be more manageable) and then it's hey-ho let's kill some Iranians which was the aim all along.

Iraq was just phase one. Once again... based on?

[tonton]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Once again... based on?

I agree with Segovius, and our opinion is based on the pattern of propaganda release and media manipulation by the US.

It is abundantly clear that the US uses the media to villanize countries in the eyes of the American public in advance of an attack (they do so slightly less successfully with the international media, as internationally, anything the US says is now taken with a grain of salt due to the Iraq disaster). The villainization of Iran and Syria had been under way, especially in 2004, in such a way that it points to a US intent to attack those countries without UN approval. This has for the most part died down in 2005 because of all of the problems with Iraq and the US realization that they no longer have the resources and enough public trust to launch any action.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by tonton
I agree with Segovius, and our opinion is based on the pattern of propaganda release and media manipulation by the US.

It is abundantly clear that the US uses the media to villanize countries in the eyes of the American public in advance of an attack (they do so slightly less successfully with the international media, as internationally, anything the US says is now taken with a grain of salt due to the Iraq disaster). The villainization of Iran and Syria had been under way, especially in 2004, in such a way that it points to a US intent to attack those countries without UN approval. This has for the most part died down in 2005 because of all of the problems with Iraq and the US realization that they no longer have the resources and enough public trust to launch any action. So let's say you are right.

I suppose the media and government in your country (and seg's) does any different?

[segovius]

Originally posted by NaplesX
So let's say you are right.

I suppose the media and government in your country (and seg's) does any different?

He did it first, no he did , no.......mummy, mummy waiillllllllllll :rolleyes:

Addressing your point - the media in my native land is a sycophantic propaganda tool of Blair who is himself a mere toady of the US and has no discernible independent thought processes. That's why I left actually, well - one of the reasons - and in my current country of residence it is quite possible to pick up a newspaper from a news-stand and read objective facts. you have to get the right one of course - some are as under the cosh as those in the US/UK.

I was reading an interesting article only the other day about a death chamber being constructed at Gitmo. Interesting stuff.

Anyway, just read this (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/052905Z.shtml) and I thought of you as the person who might be able to answer this man's question. Here it is:

"I only want to put this question to you," said Sana Abdul-Kareem, a dentist with four children. "Why can't the US, with all its might and capabilities, impose security here? How come with all our oil they cannot provide us with electricity? My son was so happy when the American soldiers first came. But after two years of failure to make good on their promises, he abhors them."

Leaving aside the issue of whether the US is responsible for the escalation of the chaos, what would your answer be to Mr Abdul-Kareem ?

Why can the world's only superpower not provide stability, stop these bombs and provide electricity in two years ?

[Harald]

And another thing.

Do you suppose Tariq Aziz, in his comfy room at the Hilton Baghdad International Aiport has broadband? He must be visiting moveon.org or some other left-wing blogger.

You see, he just issued a couple of letters from there with some fairly exasperated exclamations, such as:

In a note scribbled on his lawyer's diary, Aziz says: 'I was asked if I had recommended giving money or oil to President Chirac [of France], or Petros Gali [former UN general secretary Boutros Boutros-Ghali], Ekius [UN weapons inspector Rolf Ekeus]. My answer is NO. The same to President Megawati [Sukarnoputri of Indonesia]. NO.'

It's really obvious that he's attempting to portray his questioners as having political motivation to smear France or the UN. So he must know that's a really hot issue right now.

We know that's a left-wing smokescreen don't we?


The Observer (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1494897,00.html)

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by segovius
Why can the world's only superpower not provide stability, stop these bombs and provide electricity in two years ? The utilities in Iraq are mostly all above SH levels.

Your and his question tie into another question - why do people tolerate terrorism?

Whatever the answer to that question, it is why security in Iraq cannot be maintained. It has more to do with the indigenous population that with the US military. "All that is necessary for the forces of evil to triumph is for enough good men to do nothing."

Much like the decades before this war and now in Iraq among it's population.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by segovius
He did it first, no he did , no.......mummy, mummy waiillllllllllll :rolleyes:

Addressing your point - the media in my native land is a sycophantic propaganda tool of Blair who is himself a mere toady of the US and has no discernible independent thought processes. That's why I left actually, well - one of the reasons - and in my current country of residence it is quite possible to pick up a newspaper from a news-stand and read objective facts. you have to get the right one of course - some are as under the cosh as those in the US/UK. So. We seemed to have established that every government uses all resources to it's own advantage. This is not about justification based on other bad behavior. I am just trying to establish from where your utopian vantage point is based. It certainly is not based in the here and now.

[iPoster]

Step 1: Invade Iraq.

Step 2: ???

Step 3: Profit!

:no: :rolleyes: :no:

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by iPoster
Step 1: Invade Iraq.

Step 2: ???

Step 3: Profit!

:no: :rolleyes: :no:

No!

Step 1: Sugar.

Step 2: Power.

Step 3. Women.

[segovius]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Whatever the answer to that question, it is why security in Iraq cannot be maintained.

No it's not.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by segovius
No it's not. Is too.

[New]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Is too.

No way I saw that one comming...

[Gene Clean]

The issue why with all the oil in the world the US can't secure electricity is that people there 'tolerate terrorism'.

Terrorrriiisssmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Terrrrroooorrrrriiiiiiisssmmmm. :lol:

[tonton]

Originally posted by NaplesX
So let's say you are right.

I suppose the media and government in your country (and seg's) does any different?

In a democratic environment, the media should be a tool of the people, not of the government!

Aside from the domestic issue of governance, the Hong Kong government steers clear of international politics. The Chinese propaganda machine has little reach here, fortunately. I say "little" but that does not mean none. We do have Chinese TV news here, but basically only mainland immigrants watch it. The Chinese TV channels are biased in a very clear way, meaning, for example, that when the Amnesty International report came out last week, their condemnation of the US human rights record was briefly reported but the comments about Hong Kong and China itself were ignored.

In Hong Kong, as I've said, half of the newspapers and politically involved magazines are pro-China and half are "neutral" with one major player (very popular magazine and newpaper) "liberal". But that's only concerning domestic politics.

In terms of international politics, all of the newspapers reported on the AI report criticizing the US. All of the newspapers reported on the AI criticism of Hong Kong. But placement and depth of reporting, as well as editorial input obviously varied according to the tone of the paper. And there are papers of varying tones.

In terms of domestic politics, all of the papers will report on the upcoming June 4 candlelight vigil to mourn and condemn the Tienanmen Square crackdown in 1989. But the "pro-Beijing" papers will report very little on an inside page, and the neutral and liberal papers will fill the front page. The "pro-Beijing" papers might print editorials criticizing the demonstrators, while the neutral papers will print editorials and letters from both sides. The Apple Daily and Next magazine will report on the issue for days or weeks.

[rageous]

Rumor has it that he saw...
The bombs are mysterious.
He found a time bomb with the clock ticking...

Quotes one and two hardly constitue hard evidence. The third probably ought to have set off a bullshit detector somewhere in the house.

[DanMacMan]

Originally posted by segovius Evidence is continuing to mount that the US are behind many of the car bombs that are increasingly claiming lives in Baghdad and the surrounding areas.
Not bloody likely.

[groverat]

Personally, I am still waiting for how Iran and Syria have been aggressive.

To me, this activity of pro-actively apologizing for the indefensible actions of those in authority smells a lot like Stalin's "useful idiots".

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by NaplesX
So let's say you are right.

I suppose the media and government in your country (and seg's) does any different?

NaplesX is this the best you can do?

On another note,, I know a guy who works for a defense contractor here in my area, and he knows my wife and I are going to Paris this year. He loves to insist that the French were polite to me the last time I visited Paris simply because "They just want your money when you are in town" because he believes that the French are supposed to be "rude". The funny thing is that he is completely wrong. He only supposes that the French "want my money" in order to be polite and nice. Yet he does not extend his bullshit logic to America. He would never say that "Americans are just friendly to tourists from abroad simply because they are taking money out of the hands of foreign tourists. He is a bigot and he is filled with ignorance and hate to those who are not "American"

His problem is that he thinks Americans are "superior" to others in this world most especially those who were in opposition to the war in Iraq.

The arguments used in your day to day postings smell just like the empty bigoted nonsense this guy spouts off when he talks politics to me.

I can't understand why some Americans feel that they are "superior" to others in the world and somehow self-righteous and entitled to be in a place of authority to put the rest of the world "in it's place" if you will.

It is hatred at the core of it all.

Fellows

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by groverat
Personally, I am still waiting for how Iran and Syria have been aggressive.

To me, this activity of pro-actively apologizing for the indefensible actions of those in authority smells a lot like Stalin's "useful idiots".

Breaking news October 06, 2004:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134597,00.html (AP story)

IAEA Full Text
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3669530.stm

and Iran reacted this way to that:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,139598,00.html (AP story) 7 days later
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/3/3/151215.shtml

And now further ballistic missile developments
http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=13813498

No aggression? This from a known terror supporter and you see no red flags?

I know, I know. It's ALL GWB's fault.


:rolleyes: :no:

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Fellowship
NaplesX is this the best you can do? Not by far, but I think that we need to touch base with reality every once in a while.

Who cares about your friend, and what does that have to do with me? I don't hate anyone, not even you "progressives".

:D

[groverat]

Originally posted by NaplesX
No aggression? This from a known terror supporter and you see no red flags?

I see nuclear weapons development. It's a problem, sure, but I wouldn't qualify it as "aggression" since there is already a definition for the word "aggression" and the incident you posted does not fit that definition.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by groverat
I see nuclear weapons development. It's a problem, sure, but I wouldn't qualify it as "aggression" since there is already a definition for the word "aggression" and the incident you posted does not fit that definition. Fine, I see it as aggression and you see it as a mere "problem".

Lack of foresight on your part, IMO.

[groverat]

How many nations have used nuclear weapons against other nations?

Don't you know that only democracies can get away with nuking civilians?

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by groverat
How many nations have used nuclear weapons against other nations?

Don't you know that only democracies can get away with nuking civilians? Is that your argument?

I thought I was talking with adults.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by groverat
Personally, I am still waiting for how Iran and Syria have been aggressive.

To me, this activity of pro-actively apologizing for the indefensible actions of those in authority smells a lot like Stalin's "useful idiots". Syria -

Director of cia on syria and Iran.
http://washtimes.com/national/20050317-112954-7044r.htm

and lest we forget the unholy alliance between the two:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4270859.stm

Just shy of a declaration of war, IMO.

[groverat]

So Iran and Syria are aggressors because they are causing violence inside of Iraq?

Eh... :???:

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by groverat
So Iran and Syria are aggressors because they are causing violence inside of Iraq?

Eh... :???: Um, yeah.

Sending forces against US forces is aggression. Please tell me how it's not.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
What band is that? The little-ladies-cussing-Iran-Syria band?


:lol:

Sorry I've just been reading through this thread without comment and that was just too funny!

[groverat]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Sending forces against US forces is aggression. Please tell me how it's not.

Wait wait wait... since when did Iran and Syria "send forces against US forces"?

That's an extremely bold claim.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by groverat
Wait wait wait... since when did Iran and Syria "send forces against US forces"?

That's an extremely bold claim. Wait wait wait... you must then buy into the crap coming from both nations that they are totally oblivious to the hundreds and thousands of Syrian and Iranian jihadists streaming across the borders.

This even though Syria is publicizing the the fact that it has caught hundreds of such people.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-syria-iraq,0,2716205.story?coll=sns-ap-world-headlines

What do you think the ratio of caught versus successful is in Syria?

Of course you would have to ignore this report also:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34366

But hey, you "progressives" are smarter and better intentioned than the rest of us. So, your probably right.

EDIT: sorry forgot this one:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/003832.php

[groverat]

If Syria has caught them, how are they also sending them?

In your article it shows Saudi Arabians also coming into Iraq. Is Saudi Arabia on your list of aggressors? If not, why?

And you really should read your articles before posting them:
Much of the criticism of Syria appears to be political. The foreign fighters issue has been a favorite Washington pressure point, even though U.S. military and intelligence officials in Iraq have long played down Syria's role. The insurgency, they have said, is overwhelmingly Iraqi. The foreign infiltrators have their choice of Iraq's six international borders, not just the frontier with Syria.

*ahem* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot)

Don't give me the gun to shoot you with, Naples, that takes all the sport out of this.

I have no doubt that Iranians, Syrians, Saudi Arabians and others are coming into Iraq to blow things up. I have large doubts that the governments of those nations are playing any meaningful role in the Iraqi insurgency. And you know what? US military and intelligence officials agree with me.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Wait wait wait... you must then buy into the crap coming from both nations that they are totally oblivious to the hundreds and thousands of Syrian and Iranian jihadists streaming across the borders.

This even though Syria is publicizing the the fact that it has caught hundreds of such people.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-syria-iraq,0,2716205.story?coll=sns-ap-world-headlines

What do you think the ratio of caught versus successful is in Syria?

Of course you would have to ignore this report also:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34366

But hey, you "progressives" are smarter and better intentioned than the rest of us. So, your probably right.

EDIT: sorry forgot this one:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/003832.php


I see you waited for Groverat to leave ( true to form ) before posting your reply.

Well still a rather " bold " claim as per this item in your first link :

-----------------------------------------------------------

" Much of the criticism of Syria appears to be political. The foreign fighters issue has been a favorite Washington pressure point, even though U.S. military and intelligence officials in Iraq have long played down Syria's role. The insurgency, they have said, is overwhelmingly Iraqi. The foreign infiltrators have their choice of Iraq's six international borders, not just the frontier with Syria.

Military analysts say there are several U.S. incentives for blaming Syria. Depicting Iraq as a haven for foreign terrorists validates President Bush's claims that Iraq is the center of the global war on terrorism. And branding the insurgency as foreign-inspired hides the fact that many Iraqis actively oppose the U.S.-led invasion.

Even so, Syria appears to be trying to meet U.S. demands by publicizing its actions against would-be border-crossers. Syria said it detained hundreds of foreigners trying to infiltrate Iraq. "

-----------------------------------------------------------

As for the others they're hardly timely. Look at the dates. The last one being more editorial than anything else.

Either way this is hardly proof that Iran or Syria are officially sending forces against U. S. forces ( which by the way shouldn't be there in the first place ).

[segovius]

Again from Naples' Jihad Watch (http://jihadwatch.org/)

Riyadh, 30 May (AKI) - Syria has handed more than 30 Saudis caught trying to cross the border into Iraq back to Saudi Arabia, according to the Saudi interior minister Prince Naif. The Saudi newspaper Arab News reports that in the last few weeks Syria has arrested more than 300 Saudis it suspected of travelling to Iraq to join the insurgency there. Syria is under immense pressure to tighten up security along its "porous border" with Iraq.
Saudi Arabia says it has no idea how many Saudis are in Iraq, but analysts believe hundreds, even thousands may have gone there since the US-led invasion two years ago, which brought down Saddam Hussein's regime.

So let's get it straight Naples style:

Syria is causing 'aggression'.

The form this allegedly takes is in sending fighters to Iraq.

But actually they are arresting fighters and handing them over to the coalition (as they did re the Madrid bomb suspects).

And the fighters are not Syrian but Saudi and estimated to numbers in the thousands.

And the Saudis are 'A-OK' and allies in the WOT and against Syrian aggression.

OK. Got it. :no:

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by groverat


And you really should read your articles before posting them:


Tut tut Naples, not that trick again.

[segovius]

And again - the Syrian regime is in fact an ally of the US in terms of the torture of Islamists and is implicated along with other friendly fascists in the torture jets (http://www.notinourname.net/restrictions/torture-flights-14nov04.htm) scandal.

So against the insane idea that they are sending the fighters, there is also the fact they they are torturing these same alleged fighters at the US's behest.

There's a problem here - as there so often is with Naples's logic - but thankfully in this case it is easily resolved.

Syria is a secular quasi-Marxist State and is in fact run by a branch of the Ba'ath party - which is why they are uniformly hostile to Islamists and were massacring them wholesale for decades before 911 and still are.

In fact, when wingers talk about atrocities perpetrated by the Syrian regime they actually mean atrocities against Muslim fundamentalists and people you would call 'terrorists' - just like the US does in fact.

So there is a lot in common and of course, some deal has been done. Syria is safe now, the committee has chosen Iran to host the fireworks.

You might care inform yourself and Google "Hama massacre" or perhaps "Syria and Muslim Brotherhood" (that is Qutub's outfit btw).

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by tonton
[B]In a democratic environment, the media should be a tool of the people, not of the government!

The media should be defined not only by what they print and broadcast, but also what they omit. Who is the arbiter of what the American public sees, hears and watches? Wealthy, well-connected conservative greying businessmen in boardrooms? Or arty farty lefty radicals in birkenstocks and tie-dyes? Silly question, undoubtedly.

In the U.S. our own national media have become the publicity arm of the Bush junta, i.e. big corporate through and through. Mussolini would be proud!

[NaplesX]

crap posted by jimmac
I see you waited for Groverat to leave ( true to form ) before posting your reply.

Well still a rather " bold " claim as per this item in your first link :

-----------------------------------------------------------

" Much of the criticism of Syria appears to be political. The foreign fighters issue has been a favorite Washington pressure point, even though U.S. military and intelligence officials in Iraq have long played down Syria's role. The insurgency, they have said, is overwhelmingly Iraqi. The foreign infiltrators have their choice of Iraq's six international borders, not just the frontier with Syria.

Military analysts say there are several U.S. incentives for blaming Syria. Depicting Iraq as a haven for foreign terrorists validates President Bush's claims that Iraq is the center of the global war on terrorism. And branding the insurgency as foreign-inspired hides the fact that many Iraqis actively oppose the U.S.-led invasion.

Even so, Syria appears to be trying to meet U.S. demands by publicizing its actions against would-be border-crossers. Syria said it detained hundreds of foreigners trying to infiltrate Iraq. "

-----------------------------------------------------------

As for the others they're hardly timely. Look at the dates. The last one being more editorial than anything else.

Either way this is hardly proof that Iran or Syria are officially sending forces against U. S. forces ( which by the way shouldn't be there in the first place ). Are you purposely trying to be juvenile or does it just come naturally?

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Are you purposely trying to be juvenile or does it just come naturally?
Comeback of the Year.

[groverat]

Jabbing is fine if there is surrounding content. Jabbing alone is not worth posting, my dear fellows. :)

[tonton]

Easy. NaplesX is condemnig Syria because Uncle Sam is condemnig Syria. NaplesX is ignoring Saudi because Uncle Sam is ignoring Saudi.

The boy hasn't had an independent thought in his life. A perfect cog in the Rove machine.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by tonton
Easy. NaplesX is condemnig Syria because Uncle Sam is condemnig Syria. NaplesX is ignoring Saudi because Uncle Sam is ignoring Saudi.

The boy hasn't had an independent thought in his life. A perfect cog in the Rove machine. Easy. Tonton is not condemning Syria because Michael Moore and the "progressives" are not condemnig Syria. Tonton is not ignoring Saudi because Michael Moore and the "progressives" are not ignoring Saudi.

The boy hasn't had an independent thought in his life. A perfect cog in the Dean machine.

See how easy your game is.

[segovius]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Easy. Tonton is not condemning Syria because Michael Moore and the "progressives" are not condemnig Syria. Tonton is not ignoring Saudi because Michael Moore and the "progressives" are not ignoring Saudi.

The boy hasn't had an independent thought in his life. A perfect cog in the Dean machine.

See how easy your game is.

Any luck with the explanation of how the 'Syrians' were actually Saudis and the fact that the Ba'athists are committed to eradicating the Islamists ?

[segovius]

Originally posted by segovius
Any luck with the explanation of how the 'Syrians' were actually Saudis and the fact that the Ba'athists are committed to eradicating the Islamists ?

No.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by segovius
No. You are being extremely dishonest, or you are just choosing to assimilate only what you want. I contend that Anti-US sentiment trumps most alliances in that region right now. That means, to me, that you could easily see alliances between former enemies.

That's how I explain it. Stop acting the ass.

[groverat]

Naples:

You've shifted those goalposts pretty far. That's fine, we all make wild, baseless claims only to later learn that they are ridiculous, but I don't see the point in covering up the fact that you were wrong by participating in catfights and ignoring the giant gaping holes in your logic. It's also not good to completely ignore questions asked directly of you.

Neither do I see the point in other posters doing nothing but trying to start flamewars.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by groverat
Naples:

You've shifted those goalposts pretty far. That's fine, we all make wild, baseless claims only to later learn that they are ridiculous, but I don't see the point in covering up the fact that you were wrong by participating in catfights and ignoring the giant gaping holes in your logic. It's also not good to completely ignore questions asked directly of you.

Neither do I see the point in other posters doing nothing but trying to start flamewars. You are a "global moderator" on a well known website. You know the function of this medium we call an "electronic bulletin board" is to allow people to post items for others to read when they get a chance.

I ignored nothing. I happened to be tied up with something of real importance and could not post.

You people are growing exponentially childish in your assumptions.

EDIT: Please humor me and tell me what goal-posts I defined, please.

[segovius]

Originally posted by NaplesX
You are being extremely dishonest, or you are just choosing to assimilate only what you want. I contend that Anti-US sentiment trumps most alliances in that region right now. That means, to me, that you could easily see alliances between former enemies.

That's how I explain it. Stop acting the ass.

But it doesn't explain it.

If anti-US sentiment trumps anything else (and that's a very big if - one I do not believe for a minute) then why are Syria arresting these Saudi fighters and shipping them out to the coalition ?

Why co-operate with US outsourced torture ?

The fact is that whatever the anti-US feeling in the region at street level, the governments are the ones who make decisions - and those decisions are pragmatic. It is not an emotional issue - especially when you have the US military camped on your doorstep and your name on a list of evildoers.

Btw - re sniping and jabbing: if people continually enter debates and then refuse to discuss or discuss from a position of willful blindness, some people just say 'what's the point' and that's when it all deteriorates.

Because really, what is the point if facts mean nothing here ? There's no learning element.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by segovius
But it doesn't explain it.

If anti-US sentiment trumps anything else (and that's a very big if - one I do not believe for a minute) then why are Syria arresting these Saudi fighters and shipping them out to the coalition ?

Why co-operate with US outsourced torture ?

The fact is that whatever the anti-US feeling in the region at street level, the governments are the ones who make decisions - and those decisions are pragmatic. It is not an emotional issue - especially when you have the US military camped on your doorstep and your name on a list of evildoers.

Btw - re sniping and jabbing: if people continually enter debates and then refuse to discuss or discuss from a position of willful blindness, some people just say 'what's the point' and that's when it all deteriorates.

Because really, what is the point if facts mean nothing here ? There's no learning element. I don't suppose Syria would extend token measures to create a smokescreen for the benefit of those with low testicular fortitude?

No, that would never happen.

[segovius]

Originally posted by NaplesX
I don't suppose Syria would extend token measures to create a smokescreen for the benefit of those with low testicular fortitude?

No, that would never happen.

And this smokescreen would involve what exactly - shipping in thousands of Saudi Jihadis so they could arrest them and ship them out again ?

[groverat]

Everyone:

Stop with the off-topic nattering immediately.

Naples X:

You are a "global moderator" on a well known website. You know the function of this medium we call an "electronic bulletin board" is to allow people to post items for others to read when they get a chance.

Ok.

I ignored nothing. I happened to be tied up with something of real importance and could not post.

You can post now, so why not address the responses to the articles you posted?

Why not answer the following questions that were asked directly to you:
If Syria has caught them, how are they also sending them?

In your article it shows Saudi Arabians also coming into Iraq. Is Saudi Arabia on your list of aggressors? If not, why?

EDIT: Please humor me and tell me what goal-posts I defined, please.

From:
(Iran & Syria) Sending forces against US forces is aggression. Please tell me how it's not.

To:
I contend that Anti-US sentiment trumps most alliances in that region right now. That means, to me, that you could easily see alliances between former enemies.

That's a really huge shift in goalposts.

I don't suppose Syria would extend token measures to create a smokescreen for the benefit of those with low testicular fortitude?

They might, but you quoted US military and intelligence saying that Syria and Iran really don't factor into it in any significant way. So how do you reconcile your supposition against the US military and intelligence officials who disagree with you?

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by groverat
Why not answer the following questions that were asked directly to you:
If Syria has caught them, how are they also sending them? Asinine and juvenile question. Can you really blame me for not answering this one?

Fine. Syria has caught supposed insurgents that have come from SA. That does not exclude the possibility even likelihood that they are turning the other way so that Syrians could enter Iraq. I don't know how you or anyone can go from the fact they are catching Saudis to they are therefore catching everyone or even trying for that matter.

Originally posted by groverat
In your article it shows Saudi Arabians also coming into Iraq. Is Saudi Arabia on your list of aggressors? If not, why?[/B] Well, that is an awful black and white approach for an enlightened and nuanced "progressive". The difference between the SA Govmt. and Iran/Stria Govmt. is that SA did not declare an alliance AGAINST the US. Let's be honest here, please.

Originally posted by groverat
From:
(Iran & Syria) Sending forces against US forces is aggression. Please tell me how it's not.

To:
I contend that Anti-US sentiment trumps most alliances in that region right now. That means, to me, that you could easily see alliances between former enemies.

That's a really huge shift in goalposts. You declared them goal posts, not me. And besides that, you are taking two replies to separate posts from different points in a linear conversation, comparing them without context to try to make it seem I am contradicting myself. I know that is a favored distraction technique among "progressives" but lets attempt to be honest here.

Originally posted by groverat
[BThey might, but you quoted US military and intelligence saying that Syria and Iran really don't factor into it in any significant way. So how do you reconcile your supposition against the US military and intelligence officials who disagree with you? [/B] How often do the words military and intelligence really fit together? Just joking. They may have their reasons not show their hand, perhaps?

[Moe_in_Texas]

These reports are critical of Bush and they are on the interent so they must be true.

[groverat]

Fine. Syria has caught supposed insurgents that have come from SA. That does not exclude the possibility even likelihood that they are turning the other way so that Syrians could enter Iraq. I don't know how you or anyone can go from the fact they are catching Saudis to they are therefore catching everyone or even trying for that matter.

I am not saying that they are doing one thing or the other. You were claiming that Iran and Syria were "Sending forces against US forces" and you have provided absolutely no evidence that your statement is true.

Syria might very well be sending "forces". However, using your own evidence it looks like Saudi Arabia is actually sending "forces" because that's what military intelligence thinks (unless they disagree with the position you decided to take before doing any research, which makes them stupid liars).
And past that, whatever might be coming from Syria and Iran have actually been dismissed by the Bush administration as insignificant.

What's fairly clear here is that your only real goal is to win Internet arguments, because you'll even insult the military and intelligence officials of the US when they get in your way.

Also worth noticing, you include the qualifier "supposed" when discussing insurgents from Saudi Arabia. Interesting qualifier.

Well, that is an awful black and white approach for an enlightened and nuanced "progressive". The difference between the SA Govmt. and Iran/Stria Govmt. is that SA did not declare an alliance AGAINST the US. Let's be honest here, please.

Using your "military and intelligence officials are probably lying to cover the truth" logic wouldn't it be wisest to not rankle our feathers before attacking us?

[pfflam]

Originally posted by Fellowship
he knows my wife and I are going to Paris this year. Your WIFE!!!????

Did I miss something?!! :wow:

Last I heard you were just starting to go out with someone . . . .


A much belated congratulations!!


Now . . . . I wouln't put it past the US to put a bomb or two out in order to foment sectarian strife . . . and thus removing pressure from unilateral Muslim hatred of the us

But I doubt it . . . .

But I still would not assume the US is always innocent . . . we know for a fact that the CIA was responsible for a bomb in the ME that was targetted at a leader but killed almost 25 people outside of a mosque . . . this was in teh 70s . . . anybody know the incedent that I am talking about?

[Gene Clean]

Oh yes, Fellows got married. :)

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by groverat
I am not saying that they are doing one thing or the other. You were claiming that Iran and Syria were "Sending forces against US forces" and you have provided absolutely no evidence that your statement is true. This long friggin back and forth and now you're saying you're not really arguing one way or the other? Unbe-friggin-leavable!

I will walk through my reasoning step by step. OK?:

1. I post an article that is dated March 18, 2005 which states - "CIA Director Porter J. Goss told Congress yesterday that the governments of Syria and Iran are helping insurgents in Iraq, despite U.S. efforts to end the cooperation." - I will assume that this is a fact since the White House did not hold a press conference saying otherwise. OK? How much plainer does it need to be stated? I'll try if I must. Let me know.

2. I post an article dated 16 February, 2005, which states - and I quote ""We are ready to help Syria on all grounds to confront threats," Iranian Vice-President Mohammad Reza Aref said after meeting Syrian PM Naji al-Otari." This is also fact. This establishes a cooperation between the two countries. If I am wrong, please tell me how.

3. Next article dated May 30, 2005, states - "Syria has been trying to show it is tackling the problem of foreign fighters crossing into Iraq, and a state-run newspaper suggested Monday that authorities require visas of some Arab nationals. " Please read it as many times as it takes for you to understand this clearly stated sentence. Syria knows there is a problem and is trying to prove it has approached it. Please, please, please don't insult my intelligence by quoting the second paragraph as proof that the first is not true. The Saudis that were caught were caught trying to cross into Iraq through SYRIA! Get it?

4. Next article goes way back to September 1, 2003 which states - "A reliable source told G2 Bulletin the overall recruitment system for so-called foreign volunteers destined for Iraq is based on disseminating rumors in thousands of madrassas and mosques scattered all over the world. This system is already nicknamed the ''Minaret Network.'' The network is loosely organized, and the role of the local preacher-recruiter is basically to identify willing candidates, incite them and to provide them with enough funds collected from Zakat charities so they can reach Lebanon and Syria." This, if correct, would handily explain why foreigners are in Syrian and entering into Iraq from there.

Now if that is not enough for you ket's take it a couple of steps farther, shall we.

5. I enter an article dated February 10, 2005
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/05/front2453412.0770833334.html - ""As far as I know, one of those who blew himself up was from Chechnya; another one was from Sudan; and a third person, who was killed, was a Syrian," he said. Another Syrian was arrested." The article goes on to say "The captured smugglers provided details of the activities of the Al Fajer, a branch of Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security, which is working to recruit Iraqis for terrorist operations." - Proving there are Syrian Nationals fighting in Iraq.


Then there's this one from May 11, 2005
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/05/10/iraq.main/ - ""The region, a known smuggling route and sanctuary for foreign fighters, is also used as a staging area where foreign fighters receive weapons and equipment for their attacks in the more populated key cities," the U.S. military said." Talking about the recent operation on Syria's border. And also proving fighters from Syria are being sent to Iraq.

Of course if you look at this article dating back to June 20, 2004
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39047 - "The report attributes the information to U.S. intelligence sources who say the transfer of fighters has been carried out through Syria, following an Iranian initiative. The transit through Syrian territory is permitted by Damascus along its porous border with Iraq.

The Hezbollah fighters in Iraq are part of a broader force of pro-Iranian militants operating in Iraq to destabilize the country and undermine U.S.-led coalition forces and the new Iraqi government." - tying this whole thing together. Iran and Syria are both sending bodies into Iraq to help with the chaos and killing.

I can quote you article after article after article showing that large amount af Syrians fighting in Iraq, if you really need all that.


Originally posted by groverat
Syria might very well be sending "forces". However, using your own evidence it looks like Saudi Arabia is actually sending "forces" because that's what military intelligence thinks (unless they disagree with the position you decided to take before doing any research, which makes them stupid liars).
And past that, whatever might be coming from Syria and Iran have actually been dismissed by the Bush administration as insignificant. Read the above again.

Originally posted by groverat
What's fairly clear here is that your only real goal is to win Internet arguments, because you'll even insult the military and intelligence officials of the US when they get in your way. First I stated I was joking.

Second, what is even more clear is that you will side with any argument that is anti-bush or anti-us or anti-military. I am merely pointing out where you are wrong or being dishonest. I am winning this argument because I am right.

Originally posted by groverat
Also worth noticing, you include the qualifier "supposed" when discussing insurgents from Saudi Arabia. Interesting qualifier. Whatever you are implying don't. I was using it because I don't trust ANY information from the Syrian government.

Originally posted by groverat
Using your "military and intelligence officials are probably lying to cover the truth" logic wouldn't it be wisest to not rankle our feathers before attacking us? No. The military is in the middle of battle, my friend. It is in their interest not to show any of their cards.

[groverat]

This long friggin back and forth and now you're saying you're not really arguing one way or the other? Unbe-friggin-leavable!

Why would I pretend to know things I cannot know?

My contention is that you needed to back up your assertion that Syria and Iran were "aggressors". Which you still have not done.

1. I post an article that is dated March 18, 2005 which states - "CIA Director Porter J. Goss told Congress yesterday that the governments of Syria and Iran are helping insurgents in Iraq, despite U.S. efforts to end the cooperation." - I will assume that this is a fact since the White House did not hold a press conference saying otherwise. OK? How much plainer does it need to be stated? I'll try if I must. Let me know.

What does "helping" mean?

2. I post an article dated 16 February, 2005, which states - and I quote ""We are ready to help Syria on all grounds to confront threats," Iranian Vice-President Mohammad Reza Aref said after meeting Syrian PM Naji al-Otari." This is also fact. This establishes a cooperation between the two countries. If I am wrong, please tell me how.

What does "confront threats" mean?

3. Next article dated May 30, 2005, states - "Syria has been trying to show it is tackling the problem of foreign fighters crossing into Iraq, and a state-run newspaper suggested Monday that authorities require visas of some Arab nationals. " Please read it as many times as it takes for you to understand this clearly stated sentence. Syria knows there is a problem and is trying to prove it has approached it. Please, please, please don't insult my intelligence by quoting the second paragraph as proof that the first is not true. The Saudis that were caught were caught trying to cross into Iraq through SYRIA! Get it?

Syria could very well have a problem with insurgents getting into Iraq through Syria without actually sending insurgents on purpose.
If a Mexican crosses the Rio Grande and robs a bank in Laredo, Texas, did Mexico send a bank robber to the US?

4. Next article goes way back to September 1, 2003 which states - "A reliable source told G2 Bulletin the overall recruitment system for so-called foreign volunteers destined for Iraq is based on disseminating rumors in thousands of madrassas and mosques scattered all over the world. This system is already nicknamed the ''Minaret Network.'' The network is loosely organized, and the role of the local preacher-recruiter is basically to identify willing candidates, incite them and to provide them with enough funds collected from Zakat charities so they can reach Lebanon and Syria." This, if correct, would handily explain why foreigners are in Syrian and entering into Iraq from there.

Even if 100% correct, absolutely nothing about the Syrian government.

5. I enter an article dated February 10, 2005
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtr...0770833334.html - ""As far as I know, one of those who blew himself up was from Chechnya; another one was from Sudan; and a third person, who was killed, was a Syrian," he said. Another Syrian was arrested." The article goes on to say "The captured smugglers provided details of the activities of the Al Fajer, a branch of Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security, which is working to recruit Iraqis for terrorist operations." - Proving there are Syrian Nationals fighting in Iraq.

Sure, there could very well be Syrian nationals fighting in Iraq. Jordanian nationals. Iranian nationals. Saudi Arabian nationals. Ad infinitum, it still does not prove your point. You have shown nothing about the governments sending then on purpose and past that,nothing showing there is any significance at all to it (as a matter of fact you posted counter-evidence to that on your own).


Then there's this one from May 11, 2005
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/05/10/iraq.main/ - ""The region, a known smuggling route and sanctuary for foreign fighters, is also used as a staging area where foreign fighters receive weapons and equipment for their attacks in the more populated key cities," the U.S. military said." Talking about the recent operation on Syria's border. And also proving fighters from Syria are being sent to Iraq.

Being "sent" by whom? No evidence.

Of course if you look at this article dating back to June 20, 2004
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/a...RTICLE_ID=39047 - "The report attributes the information to U.S. intelligence sources who say the transfer of fighters has been carried out through Syria, following an Iranian initiative. The transit through Syrian territory is permitted by Damascus along its porous border with Iraq.

The Hezbollah fighters in Iraq are part of a broader force of pro-Iranian militants operating in Iraq to destabilize the country and undermine U.S.-led coalition forces and the new Iraqi government." - tying this whole thing together. Iran and Syria are both sending bodies into Iraq to help with the chaos and killing.

US intelligence says that even if such a thing were happening it is of no significance. Meanwhile, you're trying to use it to justify war against those two nations?

And you can childishly dismiss insulting US military and intelligence as a"joke" yet use it to back you up?

Second, what is even more clear is that you will side with any argument that is anti-bush or anti-us or anti-military.

Yeah, that's been my agenda from the beginning... oh wait... :rolleyes:

No. The military is in the middle of battle, my friend. It is in their interest not to show any of their cards.

So how can you trust the intelligence report saying that Iran and Syria are working together to send troops into Iraq?

[segovius]

Back on-topic and while we're waiting for Naples to answer Groverat's questions let's get back on-topic for a minute or so.

To recap: the US may (or may not) be planting car bombs in Iraq. The purpose of this activity is to destabilise the country (or more properly, ensure continued instability) and incite civil war - possibly in pursuit of causing a wider conflagration in the region and justify an invasion of Iran and/or Syria.

More evidence is emerging of this destabisation/civil war strategy on a daily basis.

Exhibit A: (http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archives/dispatches/000250.php#more)

In yet another horrible PR move (or attempt to raise sectarian tensions?) by the US military the head of Iraq’s largest Sunni political party, Mohsen Abdul Hamid was detained from his home early this morning in western Baghdad. Of course his head was promptly bagged and his hands tied before he was taken away to be interrogated. His three sons were also detained with him. Stun bombs and bullets were said to be used during the raid, according to his wife.

It just so happens that his party, the Islamic Party, opposes the new US-backed security operation now engulfing Baghdad because they believe the security forces will disregard the rights of innocent Iraqis. Later today he was released and the military admitted it made a mistake.

The military statement concerning the matter said, “Coalition forces regret any inconvenience and acknowledge (Abdul-Hamid’s) cooperation in resolving this matter.”

Abdul Hamid refused their apology in the Arab media, and stated that he was humiliated when US soldiers held their boots on his head for 20 minutes.

The Islamic Party released a statement after the release of Abdul Hamid which said, “The U.S. administration claims it is interested in drawing Sunnis into the political process but it seems that their way of doing so is by raids, arrests and violating human rights.”

At least 740 Iraqis have been killed since the new “government” took power in late April, and with the ongoing operations sparking more attacks each day, it doesn’t look like there is an end in sight. Keep in mind, the vast majority of the Iraqi security forces are either Shia or Kurdish battling against a primarily Sunni resistance (for now).

It can easily be argued that we are witnessing a US-backed Iraqi government who is deliberating using its power to wage a civil war.

Certainly the belief that the US has this intent, even if untrue, is very dangerous one to leave un-addressed - but the abuses and suspicious activities continue with no thought for this aspect. Certainly, if civil war is not the aim, no-one seems to care much if it is a by-product.

Consider this astounding article (http://www.watchingamerica.com/corrieredellasera000005.html)

The US - I repeat for the benefit of those that may otherwise wish to downplay this - US Intelligence have told the Italian government in Rome that the Iraqi Insurgents Are Using Italian Firearms. Berettas to be precise.

The thing about these Barettas though is that they have no serial numbers and are of recent manufacture. The numbers have not been erased clumsily - it seems that they have been subject to a high-tech process, possibly even during manufacture. Some numbers were simply never there in the first place.

Due to the cleanly erased or non-existent serial numbers, investigators believe that the late-model Beretta firearms, similar to those carried by U.S. forces, were intended for people with “substantial government backing.”

The phrase similar to those carried by U.S. forces is very interesting but it is the statement intended for people with “substantial government backing.” that is the most interesting. What does it mean ? Which government ? How would the insurgents get hold of a cache of US issue Barettas even with the serial numbers ?

And again:

The lack of serial numbers suggests that the weapons were intended for intelligence operations or terrorist cells with substantial government backing.

Intelligence Operations.

And another one, Italian news report (http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level.php?cat=Politics&loid=8.0.172744838&par=0) from yesterday confirming the plan to subdivide Iraq:

A think tank that acts as a consultant to the White House has proposed a plan to end the war in Iraq by dividing the country into six fully autonomous territories, several Iranian websites have claimed. The reports including, one by the Baztab site, did not, reveal any specific details about the alleged plan by the American Foreign Policy Council, (AFPC) or how the information was obtained.

According to Baztab, the American Foreign Policy Council (AFPC) believes that the government of the Shiite leader, Ibrahim Jaafari, does not have the capacity to control the country or include the Sunnis within the political process, and to convince them to lay down their weapons.

The Iranian website said the plan was developed by David Philip, a former White House advisor. The plan also calls for three southern regions - of the proposed six - to be palced under Shiite control, for two of the northern regions to be controlled by Kurdish forces and one region to be assigned to the Sunnis.

They need to wrap Iraq up in order to move on to Iran. They will stop at nothing to do that.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by groverat
Why would I pretend to know things I cannot know? No need to pretend if you do some evaluation.
Originally posted by groverat
My contention is that you needed to back up your assertion that Syria and Iran were "aggressors". Which you still have not done. Syria and Iran are providing tactical and monetary help to the people that are killing US troops and blowing up bombs that are killing 700 civilians this last month alone.
Originally posted by groverat
What does "helping" mean? Juvenile but if you insist:

1. To give assistance to; aid: the governments of Syria and Iran are helping insurgents in Iraq.
2. To contribute to the furtherance of; promote.
3. To give relief to: help the needy.
4. To ease; relieve: medication to help your cold.
5. To change for the better; improve: A fresh coat of paint will help a scarred old table.
6. To refrain from; avoid or resist. Used with can or cannot: couldn't help laughing.
7. To wait on, as in a store or restaurant.

In this context. both #1 and #2 apply.
Originally posted by groverat
What does "confront threats" mean?Juvenile again, but here goes:

1. To come face to face with, especially with defiance or hostility: We are ready to help Syria on all grounds to confront threats.
2. To bring face to face with: The defendant was confronted with incontrovertible evidence of guilt.
3. To come up against; encounter: confronted danger at every turn.

In this case and context #1 is the correct choice.

1. An expression of an intention to inflict pain, injury, evil, or punishment.
2. An indication of impending danger or harm.
3. One that is regarded as a possible danger; a menace.

You guessed it. #3 is your man.

This was directed squarely at the US if you will remember the curcumstances surrounding this deal.
Originally posted by groverat
Syria could very well have a problem with insurgents getting into Iraq through Syria without actually sending insurgents on purpose.
If a Mexican crosses the Rio Grande and robs a bank in Laredo, Texas, did Mexico send a bank robber to the US?Bad example. Because in both situations the people in question are being helped by sovereign governments. Oops.
Originally posted by groverat
Even if 100% correct, absolutely nothing about the Syrian government.Put 2 and 2 together... or just do what you're doing now, you seem to be squeaking by on that.
Originally posted by groverat
Sure, there could very well be Syrian nationals fighting in Iraq. Jordanian nationals. Iranian nationals. Saudi Arabian nationals. Ad infinitum, it still does not prove your point. You have shown nothing about the governments sending then on purpose and past that,nothing showing there is any significance at all to it (as a matter of fact you posted counter-evidence to that on your own).I have provided you with more than enough evidence from multiple sources. Just read the or watch the news every day. Pay close attention to the nationalities that are involved in the fighting. These people are coming from somewhere. You have not been able to disprove anything I have posted. All you can do is make claims about lack of proof and pose asinine questions like what "does "is" mean?". Yet another contrarian distraction technique.
Originally posted by groverat
Being "sent" by whom? No evidence.
Sent - 1. To dispatch, as by a communications medium: send a message by radio.
a. To direct to go on a mission: sent troops into the Middle East.

From the WorldNetDaily.com story I quoted: "Assad himself ordered the establishment of these training and assembling centers. The clear purpose of this policy is to avoid accusations Syria is directly supporting the Iraqifada. Syrian intelligence's goal is not to allow volunteers to stay in Syrian territory more than the minimal time needed to reach the border with Iraq or the al-Hasakah refugee camp in Syria, known to be a recruitment station for Arab and Muslim terrorists."

Originally posted by groverat
US intelligence says that even if such a thing were happening it is of no significance. Meanwhile, you're trying to use it to justify war against those two nations? Whoa there cowboy!

You are dwelling on one source despite all others.

Please, please, please explain where I Justified any war against Iran/Syria.

If Syria/Iran are allying themselves with those fighting the US, have they not in essence made themselves the enemy?
Originally posted by groverat
And you can childishly dismiss insulting US military and intelligence as a"joke" yet use it to back you up? More childishness.
Originally posted by groverat
Yeah, that's been my agenda from the beginning... oh wait... :rolleyes: That's the way I see it. That's the way you are coming across. Sorry.
Originally posted by groverat
So how can you trust the intelligence report saying that Iran and Syria are working together to send troops into Iraq? Once again, I am not focusing on only one report as you seem to have the affinity for doing. The big picture.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by segovius
Back on-topic and while we're waiting for Naples to answer Groverat's questions let's get back on-topic for a minute or so.

To recap: the US may (or may not) be planting car bombs in Iraq. The purpose of this activity is to destabilise the country (or more properly, ensure continued instability) and incite civil war - possibly in pursuit of causing a wider conflagration in the region and justify an invasion of Iran and/or Syria.

More evidence is emerging of this destabisation/civil war strategy on a daily basis.

Exhibit A: (http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archives/dispatches/000250.php#more)



Certainly the belief that the US has this intent, even if untrue, is very dangerous one to leave un-addressed - but the abuses and suspicious activities continue with no thought for this aspect. Certainly, if civil war is not the aim, no-one seems to care much if it is a by-product.

Consider this astounding article (http://www.watchingamerica.com/corrieredellasera000005.html)

The US - I repeat for the benefit of those that may otherwise wish to downplay this - US Intelligence have told the Italian government in Rome that the Iraqi Insurgents Are Using Italian Firearms. Berettas to be precise.

The thing about these Barettas though is that they have no serial numbers and are of recent manufacture. The numbers have not been erased clumsily - it seems that they have been subject to a high-tech process, possibly even during manufacture. Some numbers were simply never there in the first place.



The phrase similar to those carried by U.S. forces is very interesting but it is the statement intended for people with “substantial government backing.” that is the most interesting. What does it mean ? Which government ? How would the insurgents get hold of a cache of US issue Barettas even with the serial numbers ?

And again:



Intelligence Operations.

And another one, Italian news report (http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level.php?cat=Politics&loid=8.0.172744838&par=0) from yesterday confirming the plan to subdivide Iraq:



They need to wrap Iraq up in order to move on to Iran. They will stop at nothing to do that. Um, being an ex-machinist, that also made a number of prototype guns, I will tell you anyone with an old Bridgeport Mill could easily remove the pad where they stamp the serial numbers on a gun. They are usually raised and taking off as little a 1/64th of an inch would remove the numbers and not effect the operations of the firearm in most cases. No hi-tech there and everything needed is readily available worldwide.

Sorry, non-story. Waa-waa-wa-waaaa.

[groverat]

There is a sentence that relates specifically to your gun scenario, Naples:
The numbers have not been erased clumsily - it seems that they have been subject to a high-tech process, possibly even during manufacture. Some numbers were simply never there in the first place.

Don't you think if it is specified that the process looked to be "high-tech" that those who know might already know that you could just use a mill to file it off?

Past that, what about that last sentence?
How exactly would insurgents get "prototype" Barettas?

If Syria/Iran are allying themselves with those fighting the US, have they not in essence made themselves the enemy?

I don't know what "made themselves the enemy" would even mean. If the Iranian and Syrian governments were actively recruiting, training and sending foreign fighters specifically to fight US troops then that would have to be stopped, but your nebulous terms lend themselves perfectly to the "useful idiot" status I was talking about earlier.
Defend potential policy first, then backfill with logic and rationale.

Once again, I am not focusing on only one report as you seem to have the affinity for doing. The big picture.

You've only provided one report that actually has anything to say, and that report has US military disagreeing with your entire premise.

Sorry, but WorldNetDaily does not count.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by groverat
There is a sentence that relates specifically to your gun scenario, Naples:
The numbers have not been erased clumsily - it seems that they have been subject to a high-tech process, possibly even during manufacture. Some numbers were simply never there in the first place.

Don't you think if it is specified that the process looked to be "high-tech" that those who know might already know that you could just use a mill to file it off?

Past that, what about that last sentence?
How exactly would insurgents get "prototype" Barettas? First, a mill does not file off anything. It is a precision machine made to do precision machining. here take a look:

http://www.mbari.org/staff/pami/mill.gif

Most big jobs like whole batches of guns. Would be done on a computerized mill and machining equipment. Anyone with access to the CAD/CAM files or the actual prints or a prototype to reverse engineer could produce a prototype gun in any given quantity.

You can also mill off a treated metal (ie the finish on a gun) and retreat just the area that was milled so that it appears to be "factory fresh".

This is an area that I have years of experience, so if you want to argue for the sake of argument, go right ahead. It would be to your folly, though. I have setup entire manufacturing facilities.
Originally posted by groverat
I don't know what "made themselves the enemy" would even mean. If the Iranian and Syrian governments were actively recruiting, training and sending foreign fighters specifically to fight US troops then that would have to be stopped, but your nebulous terms lend themselves perfectly to the "useful idiot" status I was talking about earlier.
Defend potential policy first, then backfill with logic and rationale. You are a funny creature. If you ally yourself with an enemy of the US you are making yourself or choosing to be an enemy of the US also. No offense but you are lending yourself to the simple term of "idiot" by posting these "i don't know what the term "jump up" means" statements. Is this some new approach to logic or something?
Originally posted by groverat
You've only provided one report that actually has anything to say, and that report has US military disagreeing with your entire premise.

Sorry, but WorldNetDaily does not count. Right. Very open minded and "progressive" of you.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Are you purposely trying to be juvenile or does it just come naturally?


Coward.


Also although Groverat came back and posted just right ahead of me and addressed some of the same issues this is the best you can comment on the entire statement?

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by jimmac
Coward.


Also although Groverat came back and posted just right ahead of me and addressed some of the same issues this is the best you can comment on the entire statement? Once again, you start your post with an insult. I don't have to address you, there is no rule that says I have converse with someone that reverts to a 3rd grade level of debate.

When you start of with baseless accusations like this:

"I see you waited for Groverat to leave ( true to form ) before posting your reply"

you only prove that you more time than sense.

I mean really, who checks to see if anyone is online when posting? This is nor AIM this is a friggin' bulletin board! You post and get a reply when the other person gets around to reading it.

You are a child mentally, and you prove it every time you post.

Grow up.

[segovius]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Once again, you start your post with an insult. I don't have to address you, there is no rule that says I have converse with someone that reverts to a 3rd grade level of debate.

When you start of with baseless accusations like this:

"I see you waited for Groverat to leave ( true to form ) before posting your reply"

you only prove that you more time than sense.

I mean really, who checks to see if anyone is online when posting? This is nor AIM this is a friggin' bulletin board! You post and get a reply when the other person gets around to reading it.

You are a child mentally, and you prove it every time you post.

Grow up.

How's it going with the research on the Syrian 'Hama massacre' ?

Any thoughts ? Any about the massacre ?

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by segovius
How's it going with the research on the Syrian 'Hama massacre' ?

Any thoughts ? Any about the massacre ? If you have a point, then be a man and make it. I am not gonna chase some phantom argument you are trying to make.

[segovius]

Originally posted by NaplesX
If you have a point, then be a man and make it. I am not gonna chase some phantom argument you are trying to make.

I made it earlier in the thread - just because you are trying to ignore it doesn't mean it isn't there.

I could make it again but you would ignore it again.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by segovius
I made it earlier in the thread - just because you are trying to ignore it doesn't mean it isn't there.

I could make it again but you would ignore it again. The vast majority of people in Syria are of what persuasion?

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by segovius
Syria is a secular quasi-Marxist State and is in fact run by a branch of the Ba'ath party - which is why they are uniformly hostile to Islamists and were massacring them wholesale for decades before 911 and still are. This has bugged me, so I will address it.

The Ba'ath party is a misnomer, since the Ba'ath party in Syria was a left wing and the party in Iraq was a right wing of the party back in the 60's. The Syrian wing of the party adopted adopted 'Unity" and abandoned socialism in it's favor, back in the 50's. Iraq's wing did the same in the 60's

The Origins of Hezbollah

The origins of Hezbollah date back to June 1982, when Syria decided to permit the Shi'ite Islamist revolutionary government in Iran to dispatch around 1,000 Pasdaran (members of the Revolutionary Guards) to the Beqaa Valley of eastern Lebanon, an area occupied by Syrian forces. Syria had previously refused to permit the clerical regime in Tehran to directly involve itself in Lebanese affairs, but the Israeli invasion of Lebanon earlier that month and the cordial reception accorded to the Israelis by Shi'ites in the South convinced Syrian leaders that Iranian involvement could serve to block Israeli influence in the country. An added factor was Iran's supply of oil to the Syrians at greatly reduced prices.

The Iranian delegation, consisting of both military and religious instructors, recruited a number of young, militant Lebanese clerics affiliated with the Lebanese branch of Al-Da'wa, a radical Iraqi Shi'ite fundamentalist group, and Islamic Amal, a breakaway faction of the Amal movement, which had become more secularized under the leadership of Nabih Berri. Most of the radical clerics who formed the nucleus of Hezbollah's leadership had been educated in the Shi'ite seminaries of southern Iraq, particularly Najaf, where Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini and other ideologues in Iran spent many years in exile. As a result of these ties, they embraced Khomeini's concept of the just jurisconsult (al-wali al-faqih), the ideological basis for clerical rule, enshrined in Iran's 1979 constitution. In a 1985 manifesto, the leadership of Hezbollah pledged loyalty to Khomeini and to the goal of establishing an Islamic state in Lebanon.1

Iranian funds and training led to the rapid growth of Hezbollah's military wing, which devoted itself primarily to the expulsion of the American and European multi-national force (MNF) in Beirut and the defeat of occupying Israeli forces - objectives which corresponded with both Iranian and Syrian interests. After a series of deadly Hezbollah operations against MNF forces, most notably the October 1983 twin suicide bombings which killed around 300 American and French servicemen, MNF forces withdrew in 1984. Israel, facing pressure from Hezbollah and other groups in Lebanon, withdrew from central Lebanon in 1985.

Syria supports Hezbollah, a fundamentalist, islamist organization. They may oppress others they don't agree with, but your statement is only half true.

[NaplesX]

Seg, I'll help you it's like 75% sunni. Look it up.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by groverat
Personally, I am still waiting for how Iran and Syria have been aggressive. Would you and Seg consider this as aggression, or are you gonna come up with some excuse for it or find some way to blame GWB?

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050603/D8AG39V01.html

"Syria test-fired three Scud missiles late last week, reinforcing Israeli worries about Damascus' ability to deliver a missile-borne chemical attack against Israeli civilian targets, Israeli military officials said Friday."

"The tests were timed just days before Lebanon holds its first elections since the withdrawal."

Care to excuse this away?

[NaplesX]

With Syrian agents still having free reign in Lebanon I suppose this is just a coinkidinky?:

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050603/NEWS06/506030509/1012/NEWS06

"A journalist known for his writings against Syria's presence in Lebanon was killed in a car bombing in Beirut on Thursday, raising tensions in Lebanon just four days after elections for a new parliament began.

The bomb was placed in a vehicle outside the home of the journalist, Samir Kassir, in a predominantly Christian district.

Kassir, a columnist at the Lebanese daily An Nahar, was known for his opposition to Syria's role in Lebanon. He blamed Syria for the Feb. 14 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri and wrote repeatedly about Syria's need to pull out of Lebanon. He also led a call for the resignation of Lebanon's pro-Syrian security chiefs."

[NaplesX]

Well it appears that Iran has been qietly wooing China and now the wishy washy russians:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/GF04Ad07.html

"To China and Russia, Washington's "democratic reform program" is a thinly disguised method for the US to militarily dispose of unfriendly regimes in order to ensure the country's primacy as the world's sole superpower. The China-Iran-Russia alliance can be considered as Beijing's and Moscow's counterpunch to Washington's global ambitions. From this perspective, Iran is integral to thwarting the Bush administration's foreign policy goals. This is precisely why Beijing and Moscow have strengthened their economic and diplomatic ties with Tehran. It is also why Beijing and Moscow are providing Tehran with increasingly sophisticated weapons."

So we can look forward to Iran and in turn syria getting even bolder as the days ands weeks progress.

I don't suppose you see this as aggression?

[New]

Originally posted by NaplesX
I don't suppose you see this as aggression?

I don't, It's all in your head.

[tonton]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Well it appears that Iran has been qietly wooing China and now the wishy washy russians:

No, the US is posing a significant political, religious and economic threat to the rest of the world, and countries are simply prepared to defend themselves. And there's nothing in that story that backs up claims of "greatly increased weapons sales". It's simply speculation and accusations from a man who has a personal financial interest in promoting US dominance.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Once again, you start your post with an insult. I don't have to address you, there is no rule that says I have converse with someone that reverts to a 3rd grade level of debate.

When you start of with baseless accusations like this:

"I see you waited for Groverat to leave ( true to form ) before posting your reply"

you only prove that you more time than sense.

I mean really, who checks to see if anyone is online when posting? This is nor AIM this is a friggin' bulletin board! You post and get a reply when the other person gets around to reading it.

You are a child mentally, and you prove it every time you post.

Grow up.


Yeah but when someone posts something with obviously bad info ( lacking ) to back it up I'm free to say something just like anyone here. As far as " baseless " you've used the attacking and hang then run away technique many times with me.;)

[NaplesX]

It appears that syria is still bucking the UN.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/10/AR2005061002090.html?nav=rss_print/asection

"Syria, which withdrew its troops from Lebanon six weeks ago, remains in such tight control of their shared 240-mile border that Iranian arms bound for Hezbollah's militia continue to move freely through Syria into Lebanon, according to senior administration officials and diplomats familiar with the operations."

Seems they are taking full advantage of that alliance with Iran.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by NaplesX
It appears that syria is still bucking the UN.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/10/AR2005061002090.html?nav=rss_print/asection

"Syria, which withdrew its troops from Lebanon six weeks ago, remains in such tight control of their shared 240-mile border that Iranian arms bound for Hezbollah's militia continue to move freely through Syria into Lebanon, according to senior administration officials and diplomats familiar with the operations."

Seems they are taking full advantage of that alliance with Iran. Boy, those senior administration officials really know their stuff when it comes to lust-worthy targets in the middle-eastt and large weaponry!!

oh yeah . . . are we invading every ountry that 'bucks the UN' now?

One minute the UN is the Evil-boogie man the next minute we'll cry for every 'evil-doer' that looks at it ascance!

[Gene Clean]

Oooh, ooooooooh. Israel has never respected UN or its resolutions. Why not go after them?!?!?!?! ;)

[segovius]

More evidence on the US use of terror tactics and even terror organisations:

First consider this item: Teheran rocked by rare bombs (http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/06/12/iran-bombs050612.html)

So, someone has been planting bombs in Teheran ahead of the democratic election there. The US has already called on Iranians not to vote (vive democracy) and it stands to reason that the bombers, whoever they are, are anti-government.

The main anti-government group is the MEK which is listed as a terrorist organisation by the State Department. This has their MO written all over it and indeed, there are few other groups it could realistically be.

Now condisder this old report from the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A58296-2004Jan28?language=printer).

Pentagon adviser Richard N. Perle, a strong advocate of war against Iraq, spoke last weekend at a charity event that U.S. officials say may have had ties to an alleged terrorist group seeking to topple the Iranian government and backed by Saddam Hussein.

The day before the function, Treasury sent a letter to the Convention Center warning that the "MEK may have an interest in this event or may attempt to use the event to raise funds." But the Treasury official said officials moved cautiously because in general they did not want to chill possible charitable acts. "This is what makes terrorist financing so complex," he said. "You often have a blending of purposes and interests."

The MEK, though listed on the State Department list of foreign terrorist organizations since 1997, in the past year has been the subject of an administration tug of war over its status. The group maintained for the past decade thousands of fighters armed with tanks, armored vehicles and artillery in three camps northeast of Baghdad along the Iraq-Iran border. U.S. analysts concluded its primary support came from Hussein's government, despite some financial backing from Iranian expatriates.

Nevertheless, some Pentagon officials considered the MEK as a possible vanguard against the Iranian government, which they viewed as a threat in the region. But in May President Bush ordered the group surrounded and disarmed. Even then, repor