[lil'babykitten]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3905509.stm
Snippets:

The CIA's acting director says eight of the 9/11 hijackers passed through Iran, but there is no evidence Tehran was connected with the attacks in 2001.

John McLaughlin told US TV the CIA had known for some time that eight of the hijackers travelled through Iran.

He was speaking ahead of publication of a final report by an inquiry into the attacks on Washington and New York.

But he added: "However, I would stop there and say we have no evidence that there is some sort of official sanction by the government of Iran for this activity.

"We have no evidence that there is some sort of official connection between Iran and 9/11."

Iran said this weekend it had taken action to dismantle al-Qaeda's network in the country, and dismissed the latest US criticism.

"The more we approach the [US] presidential elections, we will witness more of such news fabrications," said Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi.

Well, it was either going to be Syria or Iran next. Looks like it is Iran's turn!

Let the baseless justifications for invasion begin!

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3905509.stm
Snippets:




Well, it was either going to be Syria or Iran next. Looks like it is Iran's turn!

Let the baseless justifications for invasion begin!

Ok, I had my money on Syria. guess I lose. Guess we all lose.

[Millennium]

Once again, they have stated outright that there is no evidence of any kind of official tie. At best, this only provides for a decent point of investigation.

[slow moe]

In the 2002, Bush mentioned Iran in the axis of evil speech, so don't anyone act surprise.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by slow moe:
In the 2002, Bush mentioned Iran in the axis of evil speech, so don't anyone act surprise.

so, preemptively invading everyone on the list should be acceptable?

explain to me again how Bush is NOT like Hitler?

[BRussell]

The irony is that there's a lot more justification for invading and occupying Iran than there was Iraq: Iran is the country that gassed the Kurds, not Iraq; they have a real nuclear program; they support terrorism much more than Iraq ever did; they are an anti-American Islamic theocracy.

Of course, it would be ridiculous to invade and occupy Iran, but that just shows how much more ridiculous it was in Iraq.

[PacHead]

I have always been for war against Iran, Iraq and Syria, and a few others since the very beginning. This report just strengthens my positions.

From what I understand, Iran has quite a few of the younger generation who are against their govt also, so a full out war might not be neccesary, but those idiot mullahs and religious dictators need to go.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by PacHead:
I have always been for war against Iran, Iraq and Syria, and a few others since the very beginning. This report just strengthens my positions.

From what I understand, Iran has quite a few of the younger generation who are against their govt also, so a full out war might not be neccesary, but those idiot mullahs and religious dictators need to go.

What are the "few others" Maybe we should just announce that we're ruling the world. Your statement that a "full out war might not be necessary", shows complete and utter lack of understanding. If we attack "those idiot mullahs and religious dictators" we will do nothing different than we did in Iraq, which is start a war in which many Muslims believe we're attacking their religion, not terrorism. This will only increase the problems we have now, as another country's terrorists will become even more determined to wipe us from the face of the planet.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by KarlG:
This will only increase the problems we have now, as another country's terrorists will become even more determined to wipe us from the face of the planet.

Eventually, we will have to deal with all of them, IMO.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Eventually, we will have to deal with all of them, IMO.

That isn't hard to do. First, we fix the problems this country has, before trying to Westernize the whole world. Second, we stop driving tanks to work, and turn the lights off when we leave a room, and make sure our tires are inflated, and stop trying to air condition the planet, etc., etc., and when the Arab world stops receiving the boatloads of money that supports their attacks on us, they'll be left to solve their own problems.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Eventually, we will have to deal with all of them, IMO.

What you're talking about here, ultimately is world domination by BushCo.

[:dragonflypro:]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
so, preemptively invading everyone on the list should be acceptable?

explain to me again how Bush is NOT like Hitler?

OK, lerk, I just gotta bite�

6 million slaughtered jews.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by KarlG:
That isn't hard to do. First, we fix the problems this country has, before trying to Westernize the whole world. Second, we stop driving tanks to work, and turn the lights off when we leave a room, and make sure our tires are inflated, and stop trying to air condition the planet, etc., etc., and when the Arab world stops receiving the boatloads of money that supports their attacks on us, they'll be left to solve their own problems.

Oh, I agree with you that we need to become more independant of arab-dictator oil. Personally, I don't drive a hummer or anything, so I practice what I preach. More drastic methods need to be taken though, in my opinion. A full boycott of fascist, terrorist supporting countries are in order, and a full immigration stop of people from these countries. I also don't believe in the idea that democracy can be forced down people's throat who aren't open to the idea.

So basically, my view is to isolate them, let them solve their problems, prevent them from exporting their terror to the rest of the world, and when they eventually decide to join the modern world, then perhaps things will improve.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by :dragonflypro::
OK, lerk, I just gotta bite�

6 million slaughtered jews.

true. He also doesn't have that cute little mustache.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
What you're talking about here, ultimately is world domination by BushCo.

Once again, the fanatical left with their idiotic hitler comparisons. There is no hope for you guys.

[placebo1969]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Once again, the fanatical left with their idiotic hitler comparisons. There is no hope for you guys.

Oh, I'm sure they are being "ironic" and/or "sarcastic" but it does seem rather ignorant.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by placebo1969:
Oh, I'm sure they are being "ironic" and/or "sarcastic" but it does seem rather ignorant.

I am not so sure about that. Many on the extreme left hold precisely these views.

[OldManMac]

Just like many on the extreme right hold extreme views.

[Logic]

The story has been updated.

Is it only me that feels like history is repeating itself?

US 'exploring Iranian 9/11 role'

President George W Bush has said the US is exploring whether Iran had a role in the 11 September 2001 terror attacks.

"We're digging into the facts to see if there was one," Mr Bush told reporters at the White House.

His comments come after the CIA's acting chief said some of the hijackers passed through Iran, but there was no evidence Iran was officially involved.

It comes ahead of the publication this week of a final report by a US commission of inquiry into the attacks.

"We will continue to look and see if the Iranians were involved," said Mr Bush.

"As to direct connections with 11 September, we're digging into the facts to determine if there was one."

[slow moe]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
so, preemptively invading everyone on the list should be acceptable?

explain to me again how Bush is NOT like Hitler?

If we can get John Kerry to vote in favor of authorizing the President to use force AGAIN, then yeah sure why not?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by placebo1969:
Oh, I'm sure they are being "ironic" and/or "sarcastic" but it does seem rather ignorant.

was making a point: if you're avocating world domination....the comparison can be made.

[Invictus]

Does anyone have any idea what the U.S. would use in the way of military for this hypothetical invasion?

And does Iran have any oil to make it more saleable?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Invictus:
Does anyone have any idea what the U.S. would use in the way of military for this hypothetical invasion?

And does Iran have any oil to make it more saleable?

Sure. this has been the neocon plan all along: to use Iraq as a base of operations to regime change the entire Middle East. When we invaded Iraq, it was said 7 MOABs were offloaded from ships to ground at military bases in Iraq. Why would we need to move those AFTER "mission accomplished", unless we intended to use them on surrounding targets?

Iraq is strategically located.

[slow moe]

Originally posted by Invictus:
Does anyone have any idea what the U.S. would use in the way of military for this hypothetical invasion?

And does Iran have any oil to make it more saleable?

European oil companies have that wrapped up, and nobody is going to invade Iran, except French businessmen looking for more contracts.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by slow moe:
European oil companies have that wrapped up, and nobody is going to invade Iran, except French businessmen looking for more contracts.

lol! okaay....

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Sure. this has been the neocon plan all along: to use Iraq as a base of operations to regime change the entire Middle East. When we invaded Iraq, it was said 7 MOABs were offloaded from ships to ground at military bases in Iraq. Why would we need to move those AFTER "mission accomplished", unless we intended to use them on surrounding targets?

Iraq is strategically located.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
What you're talking about here, ultimately is world domination by BushCo.

Originally posted by PacHead:
Once again, the fanatical left with their idiotic hitler comparisons. There is no hope for you guys.

Please don't lump together all of us to the left of the political spectrum, or those who simply do not like President Bush. I find the Hitler comparison just as disgusting as you. Not so much because it belittle's President Bush but because it belittle's the memory of all thsoe who suffered or died due to Hitler's actions.

I don't like our current President but comparing him to Hitler, what a joke? Somebody (lerkfish) needs a tin-foil hat.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Logic:
The story has been updated.

Is it only me that feels like history is repeating itself?

US 'exploring Iranian 9/11 role'

Sweet!

We can all post again by copy-paste and change Saddam by "Iranian enemy of the moment according to the right wingers".

Bonus: changing the "q" of Iraq into an "n" gives... Iran!

I am sure the major media are already at it...



Sorry... I could not help it...

[PacHead]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
Sweet!

We can all post again by copy-paste and change Saddam by "Iranian enemy of the moment according to the right wingers".

Bonus: changing the "q" of Iraq into an "n" gives... Iran!

I am sure the major media are already at it...



Sorry... I could not help it...

Have you ever seen me claim that Saddam was behind 9-11 ? I was for war with Iraq regardless of that. Iraq needed to be dealt with anyhow. Why does it just have to be one country ?

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Have you ever seen me claim that Saddam was behind 9-11 ? I was for war with Iraq regardless of that. Iraq needed to be dealt with anyhow. Why does it just have to be one country ?

Iraq needed to be dealt at the time Rumsfeld shook hands with the monster. Not 25 years later.

Iran has been on its way towards democracy since Khomeiny died. Stop stirring the sauce or it will stick to the bottom like Afghanistan and Iraq...

[tie]

Originally posted by PacHead:
So basically, my view is to isolate them, let them solve their problems, prevent them from exporting their terror to the rest of the world, and when they eventually decide to join the modern world, then perhaps things will improve.

Well, except basically that isn't your view at all, according to your previous post. ("I have always been for war against Iran, Iraq and Syria, and a few others since the very beginning. This report just strengthens my positions.") I sympathize with your difficulty in maintaining a consistent online persona, but losing track within a single thread..

[PacHead]

Originally posted by tie:
Well, except basically that isn't your view at all, according to your previous post. ("I have always been for war against Iran, Iraq and Syria, and a few others since the very beginning. This report just strengthens my positions.") I sympathize with your difficulty in maintaining a consistent online persona, but losing track within a single thread..

No, we are talking about a whole bunch of countries here. The worst ones I am for military action. The other ones I am for what I described above.

[OldManMac]

You still haven't answered my question as to which countries.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by KarlG:
You still haven't answered my question as to which countries.

I'm sorry, but I'd prefer not to get too specific, it's more than a handfull. The ones mentioned in this thread are enough to keep us busy for awhile, and things change with time.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by PacHead:
I'm sorry, but I'd prefer not to get too specific, it's more than a handfull. The ones mentioned in this thread are enough to keep us busy for awhile, and things change with time.

My goodness!

That ice you skate on must be very slippery!

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:

Please don't lump together all of us to the left of the political spectrum, or those who simply do not like President Bush. I find the Hitler comparison just as disgusting as you. Not so much because it belittle's President Bush but because it belittle's the memory of all thsoe who suffered or died due to Hitler's actions.

I don't like our current President but comparing him to Hitler, what a joke? Somebody (lerkfish) needs a tin-foil hat. [/QUOTE]

if you do not understand my point, even after I reexplained it, then sarcasm is a lost art.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Heh. The left pulls out the shameless �Hitler� and �Nazi� comparison so often that�s it�s almost pointless to even invoke Godwin�s law anymore. Virtually every debate on a regular basis would have to be stopped.

Just 5 posts in and this debate would have had to come to a screeching halt as the usual suspects clearly lost.

[villalobos]

So the question is did the US border authorities NOT let the 9/11 terrorists freely go through the US borders? In what is that any different from what happened in Iran? Should the american government be liable for that any less than the Iranian government? I guess the bully can do and pretend whatever it wants eh?

[Invictus]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Have you ever seen me claim that Saddam was behind 9-11 ? I was for war with Iraq regardless of that. Iraq needed to be dealt with anyhow. Why does it just have to be one country ?

Don't you think the Afghanistan/Bin Ladin/Terrorist thing should have been dealt with first before diverting resources to free foreign states of dictatorships?

And as for unseating dictators, shouldn't the ones in the Western Hemisphere be more of a priority to the U.S. then one on the other side of the planet? Ahhh...Cuba's Castro comes to mind.

Bin Ladin should have been THE # 1 priority and screw everything else.

Bush even stated he doesn't care where Bin Ladin is.

[Invictus]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Once again, the fanatical left with their idiotic hitler comparisons. There is no hope for you guys.

yeah...it pisses me of when Zimphire does it too.

I think Napoleon should be used more or Tojo Hideki or maybe even Genghis Khan or even the Caesars or...

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
My goodness!

That ice you skate on must be very slippery!

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Iran is the country that gassed the Kurds, not Iraq;

Um, what? I'm no fan of the Mullahs, but no, Halabja was the work of the Iraqi government.

[Logic]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Um, what? I'm no fan of the Mullahs, but no, Halabja was the work of the Iraqi government.

Yup, true.

The problem is that it was the U.S. that started spreading the rumour that it was Iran who was behind the attack.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by PacHead:
I'm sorry, but I'd prefer not to get too specific, it's more than a handfull. The ones mentioned in this thread are enough to keep us busy for awhile, and things change with time.

Sounds like you're either privy to classified information, or you have no ****ing clue.

I wonder which.

-s*

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Um, what? I'm no fan of the Mullahs, but no, Halabja was the work of the Iraqi government.

Well, that's not as clear cut as you make out.

The CIA officially blamed Iran and the last I saw they stick to that version. Clearly they had an agenda which was to make their man, Saddam, look good, but it's interesting to note that the people involved at the CIA at the time insist that this wasn't the case. They insist that the gas used was an Iranian gas and that the airspace in the area was controlled by Iran at the time.

Stephen C. Pelletiere, who was a senior CIA official at the time wrote in the NYT last year, "All we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair."
Pelletiere Link CIA Link

It's actually Human Rights Groups that have consistently disagreed with the US Government. Human Rights Watch conducted its own investigation and found Iraq responsible.

I wonder why Iran would bomb a town repeatedly (two days of bombing with 14 sorties of 8 planes) when the inhabitants were among the core supporters of their ally, the PUK. News reports of the deaths started circulating before the mission had ended. Even if the Iranian air force thought that Iraqi troops were still in Halabja, it doesn't really make sense. That said, Iraq apparently never had hydrogen cyanide in its arsenal and this chemical was used. I've also read that the VX gas used was of the Russian strain not the American strain that Iraq had.

I tend to side with the Human Rights Groups on this one as I think the US had an interest in making Saddam look good. Still, I think it will be very difficult to pin Halabja on Saddam given the evidence and the historical stance the US has taken.

[Logic]

The Cyanide claim is one of the reasons for some people continuing to claim that it was Iran and not Iraq since Iraq didn't have any cyanide weapons. But that is easily explained by that when TABUN isn't completely refined it may leave behind traces of cyanide and hence you'll find some victims who seem to have been attacked with cyanide.

Interesting article on the subject by the IHT.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Troll:
I tend to side with the Human Rights Groups on this one as I think the US had an interest in making Saddam look good. Still, I think it will be very difficult to pin Halabja on Saddam given the evidence and the historical stance the US has taken.

That is the same conclusion I have come to (with a little filling in by Logic on AIM ). More inclined to believe the Human Rights groups. But the evidence is still very scarce, making it difficult to reach a decisive conclusion.

[BRussell]

Hmm, I was under the impression that it was pretty well accepted that Iran was responsible, but maybe I was just duped by US gov't propaganda.

[Logic]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Hmm, I was under the impression that it was pretty well accepted that Iran was responsible, but maybe I was just duped by US gov't propaganda.

Most likely

Here are two article's on the subject.

From wiki

From thenausea.com


Have no idea what kind of site thenausea is but that article does a good job of explaining this.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Hmm, I was under the impression that it was pretty well accepted that Iran was responsible, but maybe I was just duped by US gov't propaganda.

Aye, me too. But it was in the US's interests to place the blame on Iran at the time since they were trying to maintain their cozy relationship with Saddam. The authors of the report blaming Iran had political interests in maintaining friendly ties with Iraq.

http://www.thenausea.com/elements/Iraq/iraq-doc1.html

So why did these authors take this line? Well, the focus of their study is not on Halabja, human rights in Iraq or international welfare, but is indicated by the title of the study, "US security in the Middle East". Straight after making their claim on Halabja, the authors detail what they mean by "US security in the Middle East":


"As a result of the outcome of the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq is now the most powerful state in the Persian Gulf, an area in which we have vital interests. To maintain an uninterrupted flow of oil from the Gulf to the West, we need to develop good working relations with all of the Gulf states, and particularly with Iraq, the strongest." (p.53)


This is two sentences after their take on Halabja. Human rights organisations� attempts to penalise Iraq are "without sufficient thought for the adverse diplomatic effects" (p.53). Again, p.57: "under pressure from the Iraqis, all the Arab states of the Gulf - with the possible exception of Oman - would tacitly support a move to withdraw US privilieges in the Gulf" - and so Iraq needs to be kept on side, lest "US privileges" be withdrawn.