Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!
Iran To Ready Thousands Of Graves For Enemies
uk.news.yahoo.com — Iran is to dig 320,000 graves in border districts to allow for the burial of enemy soldiers in the event of any attack on its territory. General Mir-Faisal Bagherzadeh said, "We have plans to dig 15,000 to 20,000 graves in each of the border provinces or a total of 320,000, some of them mass graves if necessary."
sungoddess808- 1471 diggs
- digg it
- lazycat, on 06/30/2008, -36/+365They would get more respect, if they use all that energy to plant trees.
- earthandeconomy, on 06/30/2008, -29/+1Yeah, let's a couple of the following devices on legs (and arms) and all the walking and flag waving can turn into energy!
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08039/855827-32.stm - sodade, on 06/30/2008, -22/+137Actually, we have proved to the Iranians that the ONLY way for them to get respect is to get nukes.
- subterfuge, on 06/30/2008, -21/+13remember north korea? they HAD nukes, and that's why america never touched it.
- sifuchar, on 06/30/2008, -45/+22Actually, the lack of respect wasn't due to the lack of nukes - it's the fact that they sponsor terrorism both morally (rhetoric and policy) and materially (money and arms).
- koft, on 06/30/2008, -5/+66It worked for Pakistan.
- MattFid, on 06/30/2008, -2/+39...and North Korea.
- ericmerrill, on 06/30/2008, -8/+36@sifuchar: So does America, what's your point?
- sanman, on 06/30/2008, -12/+2eric, the most credible way to oppose terrorism is to live apart from the terrorists. pack your bags.
it's not very credible to protest against fur while you still wear it. - sodade, on 06/30/2008, -0/+10sanman - you are an ***** and your analogy is ***** stupid. As a citizen of the US, it is your RESPONSIBILITY to speak out when our leadership turns criminal.
- digsdigg, on 07/01/2008, -2/+5why the ***** is sifuchar being dugg down? how does an unfortunate US foreign policy suddenly make it taboo to criticize the disgusting, immoral islamist positions the government of iran takes? it's about time people realize there are worse people in the world than george bush.
- klipseracer, on 07/01/2008, -4/+3They will only be using them for their own bodies. If we go to war we'll just bomb/nuke the ***** out of them and it would be over. There won't be anyone left in their country to put the ppl in the graves anyway. I don't condone any war but if it has to be done, why ***** around?
- shna, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2And than someday our own country will be nuked/bombed/*****...
- sodade, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2Ge digsdigg, maybe it's because it was US terrorist (Operation Ajax and the Shah = terrorism) intervention in Iran that led to fundamentalist extremists taking control of the Iranian government.
- DavidBGie, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1"Iran To Ready Thousands Of Graves For Enemies"
Why don't they just use the "Graves for enemies" that Saddam made? They're still empty.
- cheesypoof67, on 06/30/2008, -5/+29Trees are terrific!
- carnag3aus, on 06/30/2008, -1/+8Don't you mean treerific? GET IT? :(
- Gioleb, on 07/01/2008, -0/+7Think again:
http://i30.tinypic.com/33o1507.jpg - SweatyGooch, on 07/01/2008, -1/+0Trees, trees, Carly's Arbor Day Foundation spreads the word across the nation about trees!
- DiggzDE, on 06/30/2008, -22/+4dugg down for improper use of a comma.
- wafla, on 06/30/2008, -3/+0Word.
- troyfoley, on 06/30/2008, -2/+4buried for non-use of the word "buried".
- MattFid, on 06/30/2008, -2/+2buried for reminding me of 10th grade english.
- denizen42, on 06/30/2008, -1/+5Not improper, a comma can call for a pause.
- DiggzDE, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3@denizen: In his case, the pause disrupts the flow of the sentence and has no use. Unless his name is Chandler Bing, it just doesn't work.
- sebek, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1He should have done it in Shatner
"They would, get more respect, if they use all that, energy,
to plant trees"
- DigDugDigger, on 06/30/2008, -9/+20In the desert?
- MattFid, on 06/30/2008, -3/+36Technically he said "plant trees" not "successfully grow trees"
- quaxon, on 06/30/2008, -0/+17study up on some geography, Iran isnt in the dessert (well most of it anyway).
- hfactor, on 06/30/2008, -2/+5It's totally in the hors d'oeuvre.
- fuse13, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3Lots of treelined streets in the north of Tehran. Further north over the mountains is what they called the "jungle", though it seemed more like a forest to me.
- topgigmedia, on 06/30/2008, -2/+11Palms and cactus? Joshua trees?
- FrothyA, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2Planting non native evasive species. NO!
- ruddy, on 06/30/2008, -5/+2they're actually going green. those aren't graves, those are holes to plant trees in.
- varun1s, on 06/30/2008, -1/+18If some other nation was threatning invasion of the US, wouldn't we have said the same things?
- PopcornDave, on 06/30/2008, -0/+9With property prices the way they are... oh wait.
- gab00n, on 06/30/2008, -2/+26I highly doubt that, digging the graves of your future enemies is pretty ballsy.
- ericthegreat, on 06/30/2008, -1/+10That's far better trash talking than you'll ever find online.
- whorunbartertwn, on 06/30/2008, -0/+41We should send in highly trained commandos on a moonless night with dump trucks of dirt to fill all the holes back in. That would show 'em.
- bjornski, on 06/30/2008, -0/+19At first I was like: Buried for "We should send in highly trained commandos on a moonless night ..."
And then I was like : LOL at "fill all the holes back in". - PopcornDave, on 06/30/2008, -0/+8And though the holes were rather small
They had to count them all
Now they know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall...
- bjornski, on 06/30/2008, -0/+19At first I was like: Buried for "We should send in highly trained commandos on a moonless night ..."
- LongShlong, on 06/30/2008, -4/+3Too bad Israel is ripping them down.
- ObamaAppleFan, on 06/30/2008, -4/+3Don't worry, corpses make a great fertilizer .
- crazycraka, on 06/30/2008, -1/+6They would get even more respect if every plant they grow was mary jane.
- krait, on 06/30/2008, -2/+4Add 1 shallow grave
plus 1 landmine from Iraq courtesy of crafty US special ops
plus 1 dead body
= exponential return on investment - nwoantibody, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Their environment gets hypercontaminated by the countless carcasses lying everywhere.
- norm7, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2HAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHA
oh wait you're serious - farhanhafeez, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1If Israel can prepare for an attack on Iran .... Iran can make graves for the enemies too ....
- shna, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1When we all will realize that the root of the problem is nothing but our unconditional support to Israel...if you have not read the transcript of the 911 terrorist read it....bastards in whitehouse are hiding these facts...instead they spread this hatred.....these extremest envy us, they dont like the way we will...our freedom.... ***** with our freedom when we dont have our rights to know the truth...when we are being fooled by these scumbags....and what the hell....we continue to support war.....
wake up guys....
- earthandeconomy, on 06/30/2008, -29/+1Yeah, let's a couple of the following devices on legs (and arms) and all the walking and flag waving can turn into energy!
- tbhurst, on 06/30/2008, -14/+227That's very strange. Seems like a political calculation that is just a lot of sword-waving.
- eclipse007, on 06/30/2008, -8/+52He said it's in accordance with Geneva conventions on proper burial, and he's telling the truth:
http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/dead-and-wounde ...
So, Iran is saying if someone attacks us, we'll fight and follow the rules of war in respecting the dead, unlike what happened to American soldiers who died in Vietnam. Don't see what's wrong with it?- arjie, on 06/30/2008, -3/+22Perhaps they would prefer it if the Iranians said, "We don't do body counts."
- quaxon, on 06/30/2008, -26/+11atleast someones still willing to follow the rules of war.... If america/israel attacks Iran i hope the graves get filled to max capacity.
- bradleyland, on 06/30/2008, -2/+13It's sabre rattling, plain and simple. I like it as little when they do it as when my government does it.
- neko6, on 06/30/2008, -7/+32Last time I checked, Iran never denied holding an Israeli POW for years without access to the red cross:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Arad_%28pilot%29
nor have they denied their involvement with other kidnappings of the sort:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3453738, ...
So any talk of "following rules of war" is ridiculous. - bjornski, on 06/30/2008, -2/+23@neko6
Guantanamo.
We're hardly the country that should be bitching about "rules of war". - bagelmaster, on 06/30/2008, -7/+8Quaxon, that was pretty goddamn tasteless. And I've seen many many tasteless things on digg. If you had said you hoped to see the bodies of the politicians who start the war in those graves I would have dugg you, but it isn't fair to hope for the death of thousands, perhaps millions of innocent American and Israeli soldiers only doing what they have been told to do. Once they are in the military THEY don't get to choose where they get stationed, they only follow orders and try to stay alive.
- megamod, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3Wouldn't most families want to bring the bodies back home for a burial here? Which would mean undigging all 320K holes, shipping them over to the US, identifying them and shipping them to the proper cemetery?
- fuse13, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3 Hey, neko6 - http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=%22red+cro ...
- solid12345, on 07/01/2008, -5/+2@bjornski
Yet we allow the Red Cross to inspect those held at Guantanamo and catalog who we have there. The Iranians and Hezbollah smuggle IDF troops to a mysterious basement hell hole somewhere never to be seen again. - Papajohn56, on 07/01/2008, -2/+2it's still saber rattling. you act as if they're doing it out of the generosity in their hearts
- ElderBieler, on 07/01/2008, -2/+2Quaxon is a freakin' moron. I've tried having intelligent conversations with him in the past. No matter the article, the asswipe just throws in some Anti-American, hate the troops and the country statement for reaction.
Don't even pay him the time of day. He's a chubby cheeto stained ***** face. - bjornski, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3@solid12345
Did you not read the links in the post above yours?
- MattFid, on 06/30/2008, -5/+31Not that the US should attack Iran, but even if they did, I feel like 320,000 enemy casualties is a bit optimistic.
At least the soil will be nice and aerated. - SixOrSoPapers, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Disturbing actions, placed in a disturbing context:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/29/us.iran/ ... - kerosion, on 06/30/2008, -0/+35"Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak." - Sun Tsu
Given a superior enemy against which there is little or no hope for victory the only option may be to make oneself look stronger than one is in reality in order to dissuade that enemy from attacking in the first place. We saw this demonstrated by Iraq in what became one of the follies of the United States most recent War in Iraq. In order to dissuade an attack by Iran, Iraq let the world believe weapons of mass destruction existed in the country. Aware that Iraq could not fight another war with Iran at the time Iraq made itself appear strong, even though they were weak.
Iran is in a position today similar to what Iraq was then, a superior enemy force exists along one of their borders. They are acting accordingly by flexing international power and giving the world something dangerous to consider. Iran wants to appear stronger than they actually are in order to avoid an attack by the United States, without making themselves appear so dangerous that it causes the attack in and of itself. At the same time, if the country is to have any say in politics and future of the region they cannot appear passive. The aim is to ride that fine line in between (perceived) cause for attack.
Although on paper Iran looks in a terrible position in a military exchange with the United States, public opinion need be maintained to sustain a war. US casualties in Iraq upsets a large number of US citizens, the digging of graves is designed to tap into that segment of society. For many Vietnam embodies the idea of dead US soldiers as well, voicing this is meant to further emphasize the idea of just how many soldiers could die in Iran. Iran is taking advantage of the fact that Western News organizations will carry the story and put the idea into the mind of apprehensive citizens.
As a whole, the nuclear weapons threat, threats to disrupt shipping lanes, cause further instability in Iraq, disrupt the world oil economy, so on and so forth is Iran trying to appear big. The country is threatened by the US presence in Afghanistan and Iraq, and should be considered as such. Given the hostile nature of the current US administration, Iran will most likely ride out its current strategy until a new administration is in place. The question remains whether Iran has walked the knife's edge, or taken things too far.- bjornski, on 06/30/2008, -0/+8Well written, thanks.
- ThickGreenPuke, on 07/01/2008, -1/+5US will not be fighting just Iran if they attack. it is going to stir up the whole middle east. People in the middle east will unite under the banner of religion once again. Of course, US is much powerful compared to Iran especially when Israel is also an ally. Iran is a bigger threat to Israel than to US so you will be looking at more Israeli causalities. Also disrupting oil supply in the middle east is in Iran's capability and also China and Russia won't be silent this time since they have interests in Iran.
- chuckDontSurf, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2Is the US that powerful that it can sustain a war on (at least) 3 fronts?
- ThickGreenPuke, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2Well, if US is fighting on 3 fronts then that will be a perfect time for an invasion from other country or a revolution. And if people in US won't revolt against this ongoing system, then they won't be too far from the downfall of US.
- bdbr, on 07/01/2008, -1/+5I just feel bad for the poor bastards who have to spend the next several (summer) months digging holes just to make their leaders feel auspicious for a week or so.
- norm7, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1yea, because no civilized country would ever think to indulge in a practice as low and barbaric as sword-waving
nooooo... it's just IMPOSSIBLE... no one would stand for it! - diggingaround, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2I see some of my fellow Diggers are blood thirsty already.
- Laughsatyou, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1steaks are getting ready to hit the coals. yum.
- eclipse007, on 06/30/2008, -8/+52He said it's in accordance with Geneva conventions on proper burial, and he's telling the truth:
- Sheri123, on 06/30/2008, -38/+280No one ever said that Iran's leaders were sane.
- subterfuge, on 06/30/2008, -26/+21but they DO say that they're religious, which is saying just the opposite.
- eclipse007, on 06/30/2008, -8/+48What's wrong with warning invaders about their fate? Should it be red carpet instead of graves?
- thcobbs, on 06/30/2008, -8/+23France did a pretty good job of the red carpet treatment :)
- iizh, on 07/01/2008, -1/+4The invaders' fate? Iran doesn't exactly have a top of the line military. It'll be Iranian soldiers getting buried in those graves.
- Laughsatyou, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1we basically have air superiority over the entire planet.
- IVillageIdiot, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1Well, I suppose, to answer your question, “what is wrong with warning invaders of their fate”, depends entirely upon whether or not you have the brains and a sense of morals that inform your judgment sufficiently enough to determine the “good guys” from the “bad guys”.
If one is stupid enough, or naïve enough, to swallow the professorate’s indoctrination, you might not be able to tell the “good guys” from the “bad guys” and you might even be inclined to regurgitate the responses they trained such a person to react with in defending such a professor by proxy.
In school, you get a carrot if you do what the teacher wants you to do, and think what the teacher wants you to think. You get bad grades and the “stick” if you do anything else. With a future in the offing, and one’s earning potential on the line, one might be inclined to take the professor’s coin and enjoy the carrots.
The problem, of course, comes when the schooling is done and you walk out into the real world and you find it’s NOTHING like what you were told. That in it, walking down the street right next to you (unbeknownst to you) is a smiling affable enough raping, murdering, fleshing eating savage that cold give a an F what you learned in school today as long as your flesh will cook, you don’t have AIDS, and can be safely eaten after his “date” with you is over.
There are the other types that you won’t be told about as well, they are organized and have whole societies under their boot. They aren’t that much different from the first type, except these are well organized and have influence the world over. They send out squads of low-brow thugs to round up girls that are dressing too “Western” and are hanging out with Boys. They take them back to the dirty, fesses splattered, hell pits they call Prisons and take turns raping them for several days. Sometimes, they let them crawl home, lesson learned, sometimes not. Occasionally they will try them in their courts and then subject them to several strokes of the lash as if the gang raping wasn’t quite enough.
They round up homosexuals and try them under something called Sharia and then they chop their heads off in public executions. They are usually beaten to a pulp prior to their beheadings out of hatred and the personal satisfaction they get out of punishing evil on Earth in the name of Allah.
They also tend to be subject to one of the oldest hatreds of all, the hatred of the Jew.
They have this fantasy they have been trained to covet and pursue since the age of about two or three years of age. They want to kill them all and rid the Earth of them completely if possible.
The Nazis, of course, wanted the same thing, they thought the Jew like an infestation of rats that needed to be incinerated but they had to round them all up and concentrate them into camps where they could be “managed” until a solution was found.
Now, the Jewish state does not need to be rounded up, they are “pre-concentrated” into a tiny sliver of land approximately 263 miles long by 9-71 miles wide. When you think about that you may come to realize, if you have cared to do any research, that it’s about the same area a single modern nuclear weapon could easily destroy. Maybe two of the older types, the small ones of about 15-20 kilotons. Today, they are measured in Megatons, an order of magnitude larger.
So, when you say “what is wrong with warning invaders of their fate”, I have to wonder if you actually have a brain or if it fell out along the way somewhere. I suppose it could be summed up easily enough with a quick, easy to understand narrative:
If the “Good Guys” are invading the location where the “Bad Guys” are holed-up while they are killing, maiming, raping, torturing, indoctrinating and terrorizing the innocents, we don’t really want to aid the “Bad Guys” any more by seeing the world from their point of view. We want to make sure that the naïve and the stupid (like you) see it from the “Good Guy’s” point of view. The “Good Guys” are going to go in there and clean them out so they won’t be killing, raping, torturing, indoctrinating and terrorizing the innocents any longer. So, NO… it’s not Ok to warn the invaders they are going to be killed if they are the “Good Guys” going in to take the “Bad Guys” down. Savvy?
One other item to keep in mind. At the beginning of WWII when Hitler and his freak-show first cranked up, there was a political party in the US called the Bund. It was, like most third parties, full of cranks and hopefuls and a few spectators that just wanted to entertain themselves by watching fools at play.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_American_Bund
But, it was not all fun and games. By the time the US and it’s Allies were fully committed to that conflagration we call WWII, these people were subsequently outcast. The refuse of a bygone era that none of them will admit to (even today) because of the stigma and shame associated with their choice of support. One lapse in judgment, perhaps even a total lapse in a succession of judgments. One stupid moment in which naïve idiots choose the wrong side on the eve of a worldwide conflagration that committed them, to the extent they were know actors, to a course in life no longer of their choosing. Their only hope lay in the possibility that no one else knew or remembered what they had said or done.
And now, many voices in this forum are going to need to take a very hard look in the mirror and decide on the eve of THIS conflagration. Are you going to stand there with the professor and a bunch of books written by certifiable twits, and in some cases inimical malefactors, and proclaim to the future world, “You didn’t know”?
Did it work for the Bund? Did it work for the German citizens living within smelling distance of a death camp? Do Germans today proudly claim affiliation with the Hitler Youth and the SS? I don’t think so.
In the ’30s-‘40s, if you said something stupid and somebody heard it, it would have to be remembered and well enough to associate it with you years later. As is common in people, a great deal is forgotten and I suspect many of those in the Bund are now safe from accusation. Nobody remembers, and probably, nobody EXCEPT… those who were brutalized and still remember night after night.
But this the 21st Century and you are writing everything down. It won’t be forgotten. It will live on and on and on. It will be on backup tapes. If will be in files and snapshots and perhaps saved to hard drives on a hundred or more desktops, and those will make it to tape. And echoes of your thoughts now, will reverberate into your future whether you like it or not.
I advise you, not out of the satiation of my ego or at my benefit, I am completely content with my choice at the side of the “Good Guys”, BUT rather for your benefit, to think carefully and research carefully, and reject the notions you have been given by the professorate. Your choice will effect/affect you, not me, and NOT your professors. You will have to live with the effects, and they are playing a dangerous game you just don’t quite understand yet.
The Iranian government is a fascist dictatorship that brutalizes it people and spreads that brutality as far as it can sling it’s stink. They claim to vote for their leaders, it’s a lie. They routinely throw out opposition candidates that have a chance of winning. They rig the elections so that soft headed idiots in the West will think they are a Democracy and afford them cover and a faux legitimacy.
The survivors, and there will be survivors, throughout the area when this regime falls and militant, murderous, Islamist are no more; those survivors will be free to speak without the threat of reprisal that currently exists, and they are rightfully going to point the finger of culpability at YOU and those like you who were duped and who so stupidly aided the cause of these murdering smucks!
You, those who now, believing that they are safely tucked far away from the stage, are taking the word of the fifth columnist and the professorate, and the MSM, at face value in the same way the Bund took Hitler’s word, that they read Mein Kampf, and listened to Gobbles on the radio; they believed that it’s the Jews fault and that the Jew must be wiped out, and now you are listening to them and writing down your proxied support for that opinion in a thousand different ways.
It is a mistake, it is a bad mistake, and advise you to consider carefully for your own good and that of humanity, not to support Iran and it’s murdering anti-Semitic freak-show.
- SAc0balt, on 06/30/2008, -6/+23Well then. I'm sure this will end well. While I admire their ploy at igniting pride and patriotism in their own people and waving their dick around with this news to I guess try and scare others into not attacking them, it's still quite obvious that Iran would have a snowflake's chance in hell of doing much harm to us.
An air strike would pretty much take place without a hitch, and with our technology, it would be ***** amazing if they managed to knock even one of our stealth bombers out of the air. Iran can say whatever it likes, but against the US war machine, it's as ***** as a drunk girl in a frat house.
On the other hand, a ground war would be a completely different story, but they're still ***** considering the ratio of losses these days that occur in war with America vs. Whoever.- t1am, on 06/30/2008, -19/+13WOW!! you actually think that Iran is like 60 years behind in technology?
"Iran would have a snowflake's chance in hell of doing much harm to us."
Does the Iran-Iraq war ring a bell? US gave so much aid to Iraq in that war that it was pretty much Iran vs US. Iran is much more powerful in terms of military than Iraq was... and the Iraq war isn't even finished so what makes you think that they wouldn't have a chance?
"An air strike would pretty much take place without a hitch, and with our technology, it would be ***** amazing if they managed to knock even one of our stealth bombers out of the air."
LOLOL. what do you think Iran does with all their Oil money?? Build Universities or spend it on health care??? They SPEND IT ON THEIR ARMY!!!! - thatsmyaibo, on 06/30/2008, -3/+12Sorry but they are still very behind on military technologies. You think they have the aircraft or other military vehicles that the US has? Or the weapons technology? Yes they have the money but they don't have the information that goes into building all this.
And to say Iraq was like the US in the Iran-Iraq war is completely off course. The US may have given the Iraqis the weapons, but they were no where close to being trained like US soldiers. - skipdog172, on 06/30/2008, -2/+17In my view, all they are doing is making it clear that unlike Syria, they won't sit there and do nothing if their enrichment facilities get attacked by an airstrike. They want it to be very clear to anyone thinking about it, that they are not going to simply allow it to happen without retaliation. Yeah, it is easy to sit here and say "Iran can't hurt anybody hahahahaha" but they can sure make life a lot harder for us.
- jav1231, on 06/30/2008, -7/+11The idea that Iran would put up a significant fight is simply ludicrous. Yes, they would resist but there is no evidence that they would be any stronger than Iraq. They fought Iraq for years in a virtual stalemate. They are rattling their sabers because they expect us to fall back. And I can assure this will be no Rumsfeld war of sending in light, fast infantry and overtaking the government. Military leaders would likely win the argument and push an overwhelming force upon them, the way war should be fought. Say "uncle" or die.
- B1663r, on 06/30/2008, -5/+5thatsmyaibo,
They have developed an attack hovercraft that can fire silkburn missles (three hits sinks a US air craft carrier, one hit blows a missle frigate into little itty bitty pieces) that flys 10 feet over the water at 300mph. Im not saying the us can't shoot em down, just that, AFAIK no weapons have been developed to match the threat it represents.
Air to ground anti-tank weapons are designed to penetrate stationary or slow moving targets... air to air missles are designed shoot targets down that are in the air... surface to air missles, all the research has been to make them fly higer and faster... The US doesn't maintain ~any~ anti-hovertank weapon system, AFAIK... - caldaan, on 06/30/2008, -0/+8B1663r
US Naval ships do however have highly sophisticated fully automated anti-missle defenses that turn missiles into .5 inch chunks of trash. A 300mph craft approaching a fleet isn't going to survive the air patrol deployed to protect the fleet very long either. - t1am, on 06/30/2008, -5/+10I find it funny that some of you actually think that going to war with Iran is like a cake walk. And please lets stop with all the Our weapons and better than your weapons crap cause that untrue.
For some reason most westerners think that Iran is like a desert where the most common use of transportation are camels and horses...
The capital city of Iran (Tehran) is more advanced than most Cities in US. The youth is Iran has technology available to them that we don't see here in North America.
Iranian businessmen are one of the main driving forces behind Dubi (a city were you find pictures of on this site like once a week).
All I am saying is that the perception that Iran is some desert is really off base. - BossKey, on 06/30/2008, -1/+4Right you are SAc0balt, we could end an Iran war as quickly as we ended it in Iraq. Heck, it would probably end as quickly as the Iran/Iraq war! Slam dunk dude!
"Never get involved in a land war in Asia." - nfury8ing, on 07/01/2008, -1/+0t1am. You ARE aware that the only reason Iraq failed was because Saddam was an absolutely terrible tactician.... right?
- t1am, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1nfury8ing you ARE aware that Iranian War tactics from the times of the Persian Empire is still in use today! even by the Americans. Most people fail to realize that this is what Iran does and this is what it has been doing since it became a nation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Empire
I'm not saying US wont win the war, I'm saying that reading most of these comments i get that feeling that most people think that a war with Iran is like a 5 month thing were it'll be over before it starts...
And I'm saying this right now... If US goes to war with Iran then were going to have a WWIII on our hands
- t1am, on 06/30/2008, -19/+13WOW!! you actually think that Iran is like 60 years behind in technology?
- Vodd9, on 06/30/2008, -2/+10Because it's not the case in the US?
- SAc0balt, on 06/30/2008, -11/+3US leaders aren't bat *****. Not all of them at least. They know what they're doing, and the majority of them who have been pushing us to the brink of destruction in every way imaginable (politically, economically, etc) are just really ***** greedy and trying to get as much out of this as possible before the ship sinks.
They may be sociopaths, but certainly not crazy. - BeefBaron, on 06/30/2008, -1/+1What DO the US soldiers do after slaughtering some Iraqis? I'd like to know.
- JoeCool51, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1...reload?
- SAc0balt, on 06/30/2008, -11/+3US leaders aren't bat *****. Not all of them at least. They know what they're doing, and the majority of them who have been pushing us to the brink of destruction in every way imaginable (politically, economically, etc) are just really ***** greedy and trying to get as much out of this as possible before the ship sinks.
- flashman2006, on 06/30/2008, -9/+9Sane? Digging graves as opposed to simply leaving any of our fallen soldiers rotting in the desert is supposed to be a bad thing? They're show respect and that's something all countries should do to enemy soldiers.
- thatsmyaibo, on 06/30/2008, -1/+8I think you missed the point...
- SAc0balt, on 06/30/2008, -8/+8Eh, sorry but most of these nations are not "sane". In fact, most arab nations are run or filled with what would be the equivalent of Christianity without a New Testament. We're talking old world superstition, ignorance and intolerance. Many of these people truly are as nutty as the people who claim to see Jesus in their french toast or demons everywhere, only these guys like to do very violent and senseless things to get their point across about their religion. These are nations with people who still agree with the whole idea of stoning people to death should they violate whatever the hell their invisible sky-ghost told them to do.
Religious nutjobs at their worse. At least Christians have calmed down for the most part, and only resort to the occasional bombing of an abortion clinic, speaking in tongues, or dancing around with rattlesnakes. Outside of that, most of them are harmless. I'm not trying to say that Arabs are all bad. There are plenty of them who are good people that want to live their lives safe and happy, and to them I would say get as ***** far away from these nations you live in with these crazy ***** religious nuts so you don't end up dying with them.
- rexblade, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3No one ever said Americans aren't manipulated by our media either. Oh wait yeah they did.....
- SAc0balt, on 07/01/2008, -0/+0Rexblade. Why do you hate our troops/freedom/etc...?
- zolthar, on 06/30/2008, -48/+36Better getting those Bit... I mean Virgins in heaven ready to welcome them.
- seraph582, on 06/30/2008, -8/+11how many is it? Seventy?
- qwertydvorak, on 06/30/2008, -4/+5video related:
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids. ... - KlogereEndGrim, on 06/30/2008, -8/+3BitTorrent Clients
- gbudavid, on 06/30/2008, -43/+23They will need them I hope they make them comfy,They will be in them a long time
- littlebiker, on 06/30/2008, -30/+5IS war in IRAN likely in the first place, http://www.tezaa.com/view/iran_at_war_in_2008__lik ...
- greytfriend, on 06/30/2008, -33/+242Who thinks, hey, let's dig some mass graves just in case? Those leaders are seriously crazy.
- jake8689, on 06/30/2008, -7/+25always be prepared
- Laughsatyou, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1they were boyscouts?
- TrevorPace, on 06/30/2008, -0/+68I think it's more of an intimidation thing. No country especially Israel is going to want to lose their soldiers let alone to have them buried on Iranian soil.
- HoratioHellpop, on 06/30/2008, -26/+17True, but one Israeli soldier can probably take out a few dozen Iranians.
- 9bpm9, on 06/30/2008, -2/+10Iranian's aren't Arabic, and if Israel did suddenly have a hatred for Iran, they could just nuke them.
- TrevorPace, on 06/30/2008, -4/+4I'm sorry what? Israel and Iran hate each-other with a passion. Both countries have said they want to annihilate the other.
And you can't just nuke a country. There is this whole problem with radiation...and the fact that Israel isn't part of the select group of countries that is allowed nukes...so it might look kind of bad if they suddenly use one. On top of the fact that the Americans have been going on a conquest to make sure there enemies (like Iran) don't even get nuclear power, let alone bombs. - neko6, on 06/30/2008, -4/+9I don't think u "nuke" people because you "hate" them, it usually takes a bit more than that.
BTW, Iran is doing a pretty good job in making Israel hate them with all the "wipe off the map" rhetoric of recent years. We're still waiting for the illegal Islamist occupiers of Persia to be overthrown and make room for a democracy, but it might take a few more years. - floorman56, on 06/30/2008, -2/+4There is this whole problem with radiation
Not with a air burst. that's why Hiroshima and Nagasaki and major cities and not death zones. - RonBurgundy76, on 06/30/2008, -1/+14@9bpm9:
You didn't follow that train of thought to it's conclusion.
Israel nukes Iran.
China/Russia/somebody retaliates in kind.
US wants a piece, so we retaliate.
Calamity ensues.
World = *****. - wpi97, on 06/30/2008, -2/+5"I'm sorry what? Israel and Iran hate each-other with a passion. Both countries have said they want to annihilate the other."
I am sorry, what? Israel had good relations with Iran until the Islamic Revolution of 1979. Since then, Iranian leadership kept up its anti-Israeli rhetoric, financed, trained, and supplied anti-Israeli terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas, and recently made direct threats against Israel. So, saying that both countries hate each other is a bit simplistic, don't you think?
"Israel isn't part of the select group of countries that is allowed nukes"
Actually, there is no international law or treaty that forbids Israel to have nuclear weapons. Israel, as well as India and Pakistan, never joined the non-proliferation treaty. Iran, on the other hand, did join the treaty, which is why it is illegal for it to develop nukes. - bjornski, on 06/30/2008, -6/+3Israel pays zero heed to U.N. regulations.
They shouldn't even be a part of the U.N. - wpi97, on 06/30/2008, -1/+7"They shouldn't even be a part of the U.N."
Of course! Syria should be a part of the UN. Iran should be a part of the UN. Saudi Arabia, this beacon of democracy and human rights, should be a part of the UN. China, which decides what its citizens can and cannot read on the web is on the security council. But Israel, which has maintained a human rights record comparable, if not better than that of any first world country, while fighting for survival since the day it was established, should be thrown out. - fuse13, on 07/01/2008, -1/+0Hi wpi97. For some reason, people seem to think if one side is "bad" the other side is "good". Lauding Israels human rights record is a JOKE. Go talk to some Arabs who live in Israel. I am not talking about Palestine I am talking about Israeli citizens. Talm to some of them for a while and see how well they get treated in theri own country because they are Arabs. And then of course there is the treatment of the Palestinians. No side has the moral high ground. War corrupts us, them, everyone.
- wpi97, on 07/01/2008, -0/+5Hi fuse13
For some reason, people seem to think if one side is "bad" the other side is "good".
This is not at all what I was saying, although it is a fact that in the Arab-Israeli conflict one side has been striving for peace, while the other has been responding with violence. My point is that saying that Israel should be thrown out of the UN is bigoted and hypocritical. It is like demanding a death sentence for someone who has killed in self-defense, while letting someone who murdered in cold blood go free.
"Lauding Israels human rights record is a JOKE."
Really? The fact that Israeli Arabs have the same rights under the Israeli law as all other Israeli citizens, the fact that Israeli Arabs serve in the parliament, the cabinet, and the supreme court are a joke? How many Jews are there in the Saudi parliament? Oh, wait, there are no Jews in Saudi Arabia anymore. They are not even allowed to enter the country.
"Go talk to some Arabs who live in Israel. "
How many Israeli Arabs have you talked to?
I am not saying that Israel is a country of saints. There is certainly prejudice and discrimination against Israeli Arabs. However, there is also an independent judiciary, and human rights groups, who file complaints and win. Israeli society is not perfect, but it is no less perfect that any other society that has faced comparable threats to its very existence. It has a way to go towards full equality, and it is moving in that direction despite the violence.
You cannot judge Israel while ignoring the context. You cannot judge Israel without comparing its actions to the actions of other countries in similar circumstances. Or, rather, you cannot judge it fairly. The US rounded up its own citizens of German and Japanese descent during WWII, and put them into internment camps. Israel has done nothing of the sort. Or should we compare the treatment of the Israeli Arabs to the treatment of Blacks in the American South only 40 years ago? For that matter compare the treatment of Israeli Arabs to the treatment of all the other Arabs by their own governments. - fuse13, on 07/04/2008, -0/+0Why bring up Saudi Arabia? Its like you are defending Gonnoreah by saying "but AIDS is so much worse". I am not going to argue about Saudi Arabia or compare to any other country. You are blowing lots of smoke. Israel has human rights issues. Fullstop. MANY COUNTRIES DO. If someone here was defending Saudi Arabias human rights record I would disagree also. If someone defended Iran's human rights record I would tell them the story of my late freind who was tortured in an Iranian jail for handing out leaflets. My freind who was lashed for being caught in a car with an unrelated male. My other freind who was arrested for wearing too much makeup.
The human rights records of other countries do not change the fact that Isreal has human rights issues. - wpi97, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1@fuse13
I think you have just answered your own question. Almost all countries have human rights issues. Except some issues are more severe than others. Israel has groups, organizations, and government agencies actively working to improve the human rights situation, while fighting for its very survival. Bashing Israel, while saying nothing about countries like Iran, which permits things that you have just described is beyond hypocritical. These things are unthinkable in Israel.
A few months ago there was a gay parade in Jerusalem, and thousands of police officers were dispatched to _protect_ the participants. Certain Arab members of parliament engage in clearly anti-Israeli activities, like meeting with the Syrian president and urging him to attack Israel: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/1 ...
Israeli press attacks any Israeli government more viciously than any Jew-hater on digg. Do you not see the qualitative difference between Israel and Iran, or Saudi Arabia? Do you not see that saying that Israel should not be a part of the UN, which includes Iran, Saudi Arabia, and China is preposterous?
I am not blowing any smoke. All I ask is that you and everyone else judge Israel by the same standards as other countries. And when you do, you will see that Israel's human rights record is on the par with the US, Britain, and many other developed nations, while it is centuries ahead of countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, or China.
- mediaspree, on 06/30/2008, -10/+29Whose more crazy them, or the country(ies) with their crosshairs aimed desperate for any chance to strike?
- rrife, on 06/30/2008, -18/+10Them.
- Jackson0909, on 06/30/2008, -5/+3I knew there had to be some dumbass who was going to compare the US and Israel to Iran. Are you serious? Do people like you like ANYTHING about this country?
- fuse13, on 07/01/2008, -0/+5HI Jackson0909. Sounds a lot like Nationalism. An open minded person makes their own judgements based on the facts. You may agree or disagree with someones opinions, but calling out someone for not being nationalists enough sounds JUST like the countries you are condemning. Countries like mine and yours are free, and your comments are typical of the idiots on both sides of politics who constrain this freedom. Theres what conservatives like to call PC on one side and your blind nationalism on the other. For the record, Bush threatened the regime in Iran (axis of evil speech) long before Iran copied this about Isreal. Note that he said he would wipe Israels regime off the map, not Israel. He never ever said he would nuke them.
- mediaspree, on 07/01/2008, -1/+6Oh Please...Jackson0909 , what am i supposed to dislike about Iran? Why should I even care what a country 6000 miles away, with no navy, no airforce, is doing. What threat are they to me? Why should we have nukes and them not have nukes? Imagine you were born Iranian. What whould you be thinking?
And if you try to invoke some "9/11 they attacked us first" logic, then you don;t understand their motives for attacking us. WE WERE OCCUPYING THEIR LAND! Imagine if china was occupying California. What woudl the U.S. response be.
Stop with with U.S. delusions of grandiuer. We are all in this together and the more you ***** with someone, the more they will ***** with you.
:) - Jackson0909, on 07/01/2008, -4/+1@fuse13
I wasn't aware that having pride for ones country and agreeing with their stance on an issue is now nationalism. You're cut from the same cloth as those I am speaking of. People such as yourself love to jump at the chance to criticize and demean the US, but yet, you are proud of nothing. The furthest you are willing to go is to say, "I support the troop." Want to know the truth? You don't. You say it because you HAVE to say it. Or as you would say, "It's not PC." You are willing to overlook any poison that comes from the mouth of Iran's President.
I know this is over used and has almost become cliche, but...................... If you don't like it, move somewhere else. - Jackson0909, on 07/01/2008, -3/+1On another note, fuse, you seem like some what of an anti-semite based on your post history. You might want to think about revising your outlook on a race of people before you even begin to criticize my views on a particular government.
- bono4u, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1@Jackson0909
fuse13 did you a favor calling you in the category of nationalism, i would put you in chauvinism.
>>I knew there had to be some dumbass who was going to compare the US and Israel to Iran.>Do people like you like ANYTHING about this country? - bono4u, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1
Thinking means comparing[Walther Rathenau]
I do like most of the American people without even knowing them, why shouldn't i?! I like the contributions the Americans did to enlarge scientific knowledge, except the atomic bomb, but there were my countrymen involved, too.
I definitely don't like the Bush Administration and what they did to you country. And if you can't see all that, then there are no names i could call you which would even scratch the truth. - fuse13, on 07/04/2008, -0/+0@Jackson0909. Did you just call me an anti-semite? That is so lazy and pathetic that I had to respond. I am anti-bull****. The spin on this issue is astounding. Im ashamed to admit I swallowed the bull on the Iraq war and supported it. I was proven wrong. I am not going to be so gullible as I was several years ago.
I have a number of Israeli freinds, both arab and jew. Ive spent quite a bit of time in Iran on more than one occasion. I dont want to pick a side here, I am against the warmongering spin artists on both sides. Just because I point out that Irans president didnt actually say he was going to destroy Israel doesnt mean I am pro Iran. I knew a man who spent many years in an Iranian prison for political reasons. They tortured his wife in front of him. He committed suicide a couple of years back. I have no love for the Iranian regime, which needs to be removed ASAP.
You are so caught up with some partisan polarisation of the issue, you cant see anyones opinion through the stereotypes. "Support the troops"??? What are you even talking about?
- SpacePoet, on 06/30/2008, -2/+60It has to be a strange way of saying, go ahead, we dare you.
- jessehadden, on 06/30/2008, -14/+15Who thinks, "Hey, let's draw up some mass slaughter plans, just in case?" The Pentagon is seriously crazy.
- HoratioHellpop, on 06/30/2008, -20/+6Mass slaughter ... of who again? US arms killed how many civilians in the last four years, vs. islamic terrorist bombings?
- iticu, on 06/30/2008, -3/+13Oh wow, Horatio.
- jmdisme, on 06/30/2008, -2/+12In response to your question Horatio, there are 90,000+ DOCUMENTED slaughtered innocent iraqis as of the current date.
The actual # is indeed FAR larger than that.
That's a pretty high number of dead people. Sounds like a slaughter to me. - Laughsatyou, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1nevermind the tribal suicide bombers. I bet you people think that our soldiers get up in the morning go to town and just start unloading on innocent civilians.
- Liability, on 06/30/2008, -14/+7
They'd better be careful or they're going to be filling those graves up with their own people. - Guroom, on 06/30/2008, -5/+25And the US takes 3000+ body bags to Iraq, just in case?
- dogson, on 06/30/2008, -5/+21And look what happend, they ran out of bags.
- RoflCoptah, on 07/01/2008, -1/+4hmm it seems to me that the iranians are digging their own graves if they decide to start a war
- Papajohn56, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1you're kidding. right?
- nycmac247, on 06/30/2008, -4/+18Iran / Iraq war experience?
eight years and over a million dead, if I remember right- Pillage, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1a million? I haven't heard that ridiculous number thrown around for a while.
- fuse13, on 07/01/2008, -0/+0Hi Pillage! if you have alternate sources Id love to read them.
- Laughsatyou, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1In March 1984, an East European journalist claimed that he "saw tens of thousands of children, roped together in groups of about twenty to prevent the faint-hearted from deserting, make such an attack." The Iranians made little, if any, progress despite these sacrifices
waves of unarmed children, now thats a weapon of mass destruction.
- griz, on 06/30/2008, -1/+17Why be attacked when you can just make it look like you are going to be attacked. Politically, it's just the same without all the bloodshed.
- diggdat, on 06/30/2008, -0/+13
One - They benefit by raising the attention of a possible strike in the world media in advance because discussing dead bodies does not help public opinion of the action. Hearing about a strike in the news, the day after it happened does not help them.
Two - If you really expect a strike and you are preparing for it, what do you tell your own people? The possibility of thousands of dead bodies is a real health threat to the existing population (no matter which uniform they wear) but you are not going to say it is for your own people...
- diggdat, on 06/30/2008, -0/+13
- DarkReign16, on 06/30/2008, -5/+14Only as crazy as the people who would attack them in the first place.
- JoeVet, on 06/30/2008, -8/+3Its almost as crazy as a leader of a superpower using the same rhetoric against a bunch of uneducated third world leaders.
- TCSavant, on 06/30/2008, -1/+1We're not talking about China here.
- siszam, on 06/30/2008, -4/+7Iranians are well educated. In many cases they are better educated than Americans.
- crazycraka, on 06/30/2008, -4/+2This is why hitler was such a great leader, he didnt have time for all that *****.. Just dig a big hole, throw the bodies in put some bleaching powder and lime on them and cover that ***** up, then move on..
- franklyzappa, on 06/30/2008, -7/+0They're for all the Jews.
- norm7, on 07/01/2008, -3/+0Yea, that's crazy! The U.S. would never make battle plans, or weapons that instantly vaporize hundreds of thousands of people at once! That would be nutso!
- jake8689, on 06/30/2008, -7/+25always be prepared
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 06/30/2008, -42/+21Iran to USA, BRING IT ON!
- Brownds, on 06/30/2008, -8/+24Oh please the US would "bring it on" and wipe the floor with the Iranian military’s ass. The only worry is when we help Iran rebuild after a solid ass kicking is the locals kidnapping and beheading contract workers and blowing themselves up. ***** them pull all our resources out of the Middle East and tell them to shove their oil up their ass.
- scarecrow2k6, on 06/30/2008, -10/+9"US would "bring it on" and wipe the floor with the Iranian military’s ass."
Very true...we can totally see that in Iraq and Afghanistan...right? - Brownds, on 06/30/2008, -4/+13Ah we did. We rolled the Taliban and the Iraqi Army flawlessly. Our leadership failed in post war planning. We thought that like Germany & Japan the people of the region would WANT to stabilize and rebuild. But Bushies were wrong and are still wrong. That is why Bush has failed as a president is his inability to see what is in front of him and deal with it accordingly.
- raisputin3, on 06/30/2008, -3/+3Israel wants us to attack Iran, plain and simple. And, seein as ow te USA is te bitch of Israel, AIPAC and all the Jewish Reps and Senators, we will likely attack them IMO.
Now, were I Iran on the other hand, the second that the USA strikes, I would launch every available missle at Israel just to piss off the USA - Brownds, on 06/30/2008, -1/+4@raisputin3
You sir are a ***** dolt. Get an education before you slather us with anymore verbal feces. I can't believe how ignorant you are at 37 years old!
- scarecrow2k6, on 06/30/2008, -10/+9"US would "bring it on" and wipe the floor with the Iranian military’s ass."
- zeusthemoose, on 06/30/2008, -3/+14Even though a war in Iran would be the most insane thing to ever happen in the history of the United States, thinking that Iran has any chance of maintaining control of their military after just two hours of bombing by US warplanes is equally insane. Iran doesn't stand a chance in any potential engagement. Human wave attacks won't work here either. The US has plenty of napalm and cluster bombs that would decimate any potential rush, throw area denial weapons into the mix and the bloodbath would be epic. You would just end up with millions of dead Iranians and a handful of dead US soldiers and pilots. This is why we must do everything in our power to prevent this, the political fallout from such a war would be devastating and would lead to the fall of the United States.
- ender7074, on 06/30/2008, -13/+7The fall of the United States? Not likely. If these idiots provoke a war, its their ass. If they continue down the path they've chosen, the only end for their country is a bloodbath whether its the US doing it or Israel. But, honestly, I dont think anythings going to happen until they detonate their first nuke. Then people may pay attention but then its too late. Sadly, their first detonation will probably be in the middle of a city like Jerusalem or Tel Aviv.
- zeusthemoose, on 06/30/2008, -2/+9I can only hope that you are right ender. A war in self defense would be completely justified and would get no criticism. But if the US attacks Iran preemptively it is very likely that we will lose our status in the world. The Chinese and Russians have hundreds of billions of dollars in economic interests in Iran. They would not take kindly to the US going in there and destroying the place. We would decimate them militarily, but again the political fallout would be so severe that we would not recover for many generations to come.
- fuse13, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2@ender7074... why do people continue to think that Iran is aiming to Nuke Israel? This all seems based on a single quote, which has been repeatedly shown to have been mistranslated. The talk was of Regime Change and was almost certainly a kind of blustery version of Bush's Axis of Evil speech.
If Iran actually nuked Israel we wouldnt need a war. Iran would be destroyed very quickly. Ascribing illogical, suicidal behaviour to a country that has a strong Nationalistic spirit and has fought desperately for its survival in living memory IS STUPID. People who continue to assert that Iran will nuke Israel are blowing smoke to cover their own raging war-ons.
- Trickybunny, on 06/30/2008, -0/+4Dude, Iran against the US would be like chuch norris vs. jessica simpson.
- lastmaster, on 06/30/2008, -0/+0so... are we the beard or the breasts?
- catcher6250, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2We have no need to attack Iran, ffs, the economic repercussions would be felt immediately.
- Brownds, on 06/30/2008, -8/+24Oh please the US would "bring it on" and wipe the floor with the Iranian military’s ass. The only worry is when we help Iran rebuild after a solid ass kicking is the locals kidnapping and beheading contract workers and blowing themselves up. ***** them pull all our resources out of the Middle East and tell them to shove their oil up their ass.
- Rotzooi, on 06/30/2008, -53/+36Americans, this is where your children will end up in if we don't remove Bush from power!
- jsd8cc, on 06/30/2008, -13/+51You do know Bush is done in 4 months, right?
- ProfessorSYM, on 06/30/2008, -26/+18A vote for McCain is a vote for Bush. So what he should have said is "This is where your children will end up if don't remove the Republicans from power".
And before anyone screams "Obama hates Iran!", keep in mind that if elected he will truly leave war with Iran as the last option on the table. - 5urr3al5am, on 06/30/2008, -6/+17-- And before anyone screams "Obama hates Iran!", keep in mind that if elected he will truly leave war with Iran as the last option on the table.
You mean like the US, including President Bush, did in the past, right? - Idiggapony, on 06/30/2008, -9/+29No, a vote for McCain is a vote for McCain. McCain and Bush are different people, with extremely different political positions, and indeed a history of bitter political rivalry with one another. People who were alive and old enough to follow politics in 2000 may remember that.
Is someone screaming "Obama hates Iran!"? Is there another political leader under discussion here who has listed war with Iran as something other than the last option on the table? - Polarize, on 06/30/2008, -7/+17If you truly are a professor, you're not the brightest one to walk the campus halls at your community college. I see we were both unfortunately cursed with residing in Oklahoma City (I was born and raised there) and so I will cut you some slack.
First, as a rule, politicians never keep to their word, and are thus unpredictable. You do not know what Obama will or will not do. He has already developed a reputation (very well documented) as a flip flopper, and has clearly been purchased.
Second, the man is a socialist, endowing him with mental problems of his own. Any truly sane person does not believe that everything belongs to everybody, that I should have to pay for your health care and you mine, etc.
He's just another pandering politician.
With that being said, McCain is a joke himself.
That leaves you where you will, and I will leave it to you what, if anything, to deduct from it. - PabloMac, on 06/30/2008, -1/+11Six months, but who's counting?
- JoeVet, on 06/30/2008, -5/+3You do know that the whole point of the article is that it looks like Bush will initiate war before he leaves office, right?
- Idiggapony, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1There's nothing in the article about how it looks like Bush will initiate war before he leaves office. That's only the "whole point of the article" if you're a reader with an extremely keen ability to read between the lines. The sort of person who could accidentally spill some coffee beans on the floor, observe the pattern that they fell into, and realize that it's scathing proof of just how evil President Bush is.
- ProfessorSYM, on 06/30/2008, -26/+18A vote for McCain is a vote for Bush. So what he should have said is "This is where your children will end up if don't remove the Republicans from power".
- aphexcoil, on 06/30/2008, -5/+32Hate to be the bearer of bad news but this is where we'll all end up regardless of who is in power.
- rex84, on 06/30/2008, -5/+8Yep, thanks Israel.
- Polarize, on 07/01/2008, -2/+3...You mean, ''thank Iran''?
I'm nearly entirely sure that if there is war, Israel isn't going to be killing westerners and throwing them in ready-made graves.
Stop blaming everything on Israel; that, along with everybody blowing Obama, gets old fast.
- Jauladeoro, on 08/27/2008, -17/+10@ Rotzooi - I have no idea why you're being dugg down for speaking the truth.
I have two young sons and I'm voting Obama. I will not have them shipped off to some pointless war while Bush sits on his porch at his ranch in Texas. We have to put an end to the madness.
@ jsd8cc - You do know that he intends to start a war with Iran before he leaves office, right?- BECoole, on 06/30/2008, -3/+12Obama wants 92,000 more troops - check his web page. He promises to leave Iraq. Every wonder what the 92,000 extras are for?
- Jauladeoro, on 08/27/2008, -6/+6I have no problem with extra troops. We need to rebuild our military after so many of our men have been killed off in this illegal war. What's wrong with having a strong military as long as we use it properly?
- thcobbs, on 06/30/2008, -3/+12"I have no problem with extra troops."
As long as they aren't your sons huh? - JointVenture, on 06/30/2008, -13/+6
Then tell them not to ENLIST.
*****.
Guess you're hoping Obama will pay for their education as well. - Jauladeoro, on 08/27/2008, -5/+8@thcobbs - If my sons CHOOSE to join the military, I have no problem with that, as long as we aren't fighting wars unnecessarily. If they choose to protect and defend our nation with honor, I will be proud of them. That is entirely different from being drafted into an endless war without reason.
@JointVenture - Judging from your massive amounts of comments using such vulgar and disgusting language, and not to mention your obvious lack of intelligence, you don't deserve to even be acknowledged. Consider yourself reported for being abusive and offensive. - PopcornDave, on 06/30/2008, -1/+7Did somebody reinstitute the draft while was asleep last night? Why would your sons even be involved unless they enlisted on their onw?
- Jauladeoro, on 08/27/2008, -1/+2My sons still haven't hit middle school. Being that Bush wants to start a war with Iran (which could lead to WWIII, who knows?) and McCain said he had no problem with reinstating the draft, I'm looking forward to the future. It's a habit one tends to form when they become a parent.
- Julik, on 06/30/2008, -5/+11They were probably more for Israel than the US... Iran is telling everyone they will wipe Israel off the map...
- Trickybunny, on 06/30/2008, -1/+5This isnt about patriotism, its just simple math - if American and Iran go at it...its Iran who's going to be hurting. After five years of war, we've only lost 4000 and most of those were cheap shots (IED) taken during our occupation and not during our invasion...
- xGuerrillaRadio, on 06/30/2008, -1/+5Sure, Iran will be hurting in a conventional military sense. But the US will suffer just as much when its economy crumbles. We may "win" the war, but are we really winners?
- Jauladeoro, on 08/27/2008, -0/+3Most of the parents and spouses of the soldiers we lost in Iraq definitely don't feel like "winners".
- DarkReign16, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2As opposed to the honor in dropping two ton bombs? Since we all know that isn't a cheap shot and all.
- pjsheldon, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3Have you ever looked at a map and noticed how much larger Iran is than Iraq? We have 150,000+ soldiers in Iraq, how many would be on the front lines in Iran? And the Iraqi military basically collapsed when we invaded, I doubt the same thing would happen to the Iranians.
- jsd8cc, on 06/30/2008, -13/+51You do know Bush is done in 4 months, right?
- pandaslist, on 06/30/2008, -35/+11Worst government of all times...thank you to USA ready to have one of the best ones
- HiCaP, on 06/30/2008, -39/+27Hey Iran, ya just don't have a clue, do ya.
We own the Sky, We own the Night, We are already there on Land.- cyberdork, on 06/30/2008, -27/+10hahahahahhahahahhahaha
Yeah, look at the awesome job you guys did in Iran. I think if there is one thing the war in Iraq has shown it's how incompetent the US military is.
Last time I checked all you guys 'own' over there is the tiny green zone. Way to go America.
Just wait for the Strait of Hormuz being continuously fired upon from the Iran mountains.
$10 a gallon here we come... Good I live just 4km from work ;-)- noahhoward, on 06/30/2008, -6/+31Iraq is what the military looks like when restrained by politics.
- Pittance, on 06/30/2008, -6/+62The US military is incredibly effective. The US military is NOT an occupation force or a force to help set up governments. They are used to defend, attack, safeguard and conquer. That is all they are trained for. We won the "war" in Iraq in a week. But now the military is being used for something it was not meant for, which is why it is failing in that duty. If we attack Iran, we will crush them very quickly and effectively as we did with Iraq. But something worse may spring up in its place.
- PoopStick, on 06/30/2008, -8/+8lol you thinks so... We can turn any country in the world into a ***** hole.... you think we want to live there when we are done...
- nj10ii, on 06/30/2008, -11/+7The attack will come from the sky! The Iran mountains can be cluster bombed. The graves will be used for Iranians. 10$ Gas is the price to be paid for Iran to not possess Nukes. Sign me up, who do I make the check out to? Oh yeah, ExxonMobil, (I own shares).
- Wartyboskfapped, on 06/30/2008, -11/+12"We can turn any country in the world into a ***** hole"
Well, the Republicans are certainly doing that to America. - cyberdork, on 06/30/2008, -11/+7I thought it was hilarious when at a troop strength of 280.000 in Iraq they started to cry: boohoo we are overstretched....
The US has a military force of 1.4 MILLION. And they even had to mobilize the national guard for support. So that's what you guys call efficient?
To a foreigner the US military looks like a bunch of bureaucrats and poor kids using over-engineered high tech toys. - Wartz, on 06/30/2008, -1/+7And how many of those 1.4 million are trained and equipped frontline troops? Many of those 1.4 million "soldiers" are support, technicians, truckdrivers, aircraft groundcrew, sailors, older officers, reserves and recruits.
- cyberdork, on 06/30/2008, -5/+8Exactly Wartz. Now think of Iran, they have an active duty force of ca. 6-700.000. And just imagine how many total 'frontline troops' they will have incase of an invasion of their homeland. And how many of those 700.000 you think will be technicians, truckdrivers and how many will just be simple guys with an AK47?
This is not Iraq with an broken economy. It's also not an dictatorship, they have internationally recognized election. That idiot Ahmedinejad was elected!
So the Iranians actually will have a feeling that they have something to fight for, unlike the Iraqis who were happy to get rid of Saddam.
All I'm trying to point out is how stupidly arrogant Americans are when it comes to their military. - noahhoward, on 06/30/2008, -4/+6Cyberdork do you know the difference between a war and what is going on now in Iraq? Do you know the different chalenges involved between attacking a country and building/policing a country?
- DanMcGuinness, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2Cyberdork, this isn't the year 1400... the sizes of armies don't matter anymore. It's called technology. The US has military technology far more advanced than most other countries and we use it. We don't need millions of soldiers to kick the asses of other armies.
- digitronix, on 07/01/2008, -3/+4I hope not many Americans think this way. Because it is your attitude that really pisses foreigners off. It is attitudes like yours that dig those graves.
- HiCaP, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Hate to break this to ya, most Americans don't give a ***** how foreigners feel.
Tell me this, why do all you foreigners bitch about America, yet this is where
you all move to.
Remember, we're all cowboys, we all carry guns,,,,,Yippie Kai Yay Mo-Fo
- HiCaP, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Hate to break this to ya, most Americans don't give a ***** how foreigners feel.
- cyberdork, on 06/30/2008, -27/+10hahahahahhahahahhahaha
- chicofaraby, on 06/30/2008, -71/+277How many nations has Iran attacked in the last two decades? How about the USA?
- seraph582, on 06/30/2008, -85/+72Oranges and apples - but I'm disappointed that it had to be said. I mean honestly. How can you even compare the two.
If you want to equate the two countries without regard for the difference between a thirdworld ***** and a superpower, how many countries does Iran send foreign aid to? The U.S.?- BOFH2, on 06/30/2008, -10/+30yeah we tore apart Africa, Indonesia and other small countries with drought, AIDS and a Tsunami.
- Tomchei, on 06/30/2008, -22/+7The Tsunami aid was privately funded. No US aid until well after the initial disaster.
- shaka999, on 06/30/2008, -7/+25Privately funded...by US citizens who happen to also fund the US government.
- sifuchar, on 06/30/2008, -15/+1Exactly! And criminals are better than cops because how many people have the criminals put in jail? Please.
- arjie, on 06/30/2008, -25/+38I'm curious, are you trying to imply that sending people foreign aid somehow absolves the US of the atrocities it committed in Vietnam and Iraq?
His point is that Iran does not start wars, and your point is that Iran doesn't go around giving out foreign aid. His point is relevant to the topic (Iran digging mass graves) because it means that if these graves will be used for foreign soldiers, it won't be because of a war Iran started. Your statement is some completely tangential statement. - nycmac247, on 06/30/2008, -20/+7@ BOFH2
Actually, there is a little bit of evidence that the US accidentally created HIV while attempting to grow polio vaccine faster using monkey livers
http://drmarysmonkey.com/content/section/4/26/ - ender7074, on 06/30/2008, -20/+25@arjie
So exporting weapons to terrorist groups isnt attacking another country? Funding terrorism that attacks civilians isnt war? Allowing terrorists, insurgents, and weapons to freely cross the border between Iran and Iraq isnt causing the murder of both Americans and Iraqis. You, sir, are a moron. Its really too bad we cant send people like you to places like Iran to see how wonderful and benevolent those countries are.... - altgeeky1, on 06/30/2008, -9/+26If you think aid from the USA is always pure generosity, I respectfully invite you to research the conditions applied to that aid... as well as the formulas used to arrive at that number.
If you offer aid, but set unreasonable (perhaps selfish) conditions on that aid, you might as well shut up. For example, most US aid REQUIRES that the aid credits be spent on particular products by particular companies.
The UK and Denmark offer lots of aid (comparable levels per capita), but allow the recipient government to spend as they wish (more or less). The US for example requires XXX of it to be spent on full-retail price goods like Microsoft Windows or GMC trucks (when maybe the country can do more good with a Toyota 4WD... especially since GM vehicles are an "unknown" outside North America, Saudi Arabia, and China). Or the aid calculates the full "US price" for AIDS medicine, when the retail price in those countries has a much lower retail.
This comment is NOT intended to disparage US aid. Far from it. The US provides lots of aid, even to Iran (when they'll accept it...) but *strings on the aid just leads to cynicism*. Advice and advisors are one thing, but a top-down mandate on aid priorities - from the same government that produced FEMA - sometimes complicates the aid itself.
(And the US relief response to the tsunamis in the South Pacific was outstanding. Way off point, but I have to add this in even though I'll probably get dugg down for NOT bashing the US, or not summing this up into a 10 word soundbite). - arjie, on 06/30/2008, -11/+13Ender, as you grow older you will learn that the world isn't in black and white or filled with clear dichotomies. Just because I clarified that another person said that Iran hasn't started wars yet doesn't mean that I think that Teheran's streets are paved with gold with the wonderstruck citizens staring into a sky that's raining milk and honey.
Since the context is comparing the US and Iran, let's see how the US fares on your questions.
* Exporting weapons to terrorist groups: Check.
* Funding terrorism that attacks civilians: Check.
* Protecting terrorists: Check.
And no, according to the US: No, it isn't war. - elipabst, on 06/30/2008, -1/+13@Tomchei "The Tsunami aid was privately funded. No US aid until well after the initial disaster."
Slightly more than a week after the tsunami disaster, the US government had committed over 88 million dollars to relief projects, 15,000 US troops were in the region providing relief, and had delivered over 2.2 million pounds of supplies. - Induane, on 06/30/2008, -8/+2A good point and not entirely untrue at all. Iran is not our friend by any means and anyone who thinks they are a nice peaceful country isn't getting the full picture. On the other side though one can argue that the US has a hand in alot of terrorism as well. Our funding trained Bin Laden at one point, we are the number one weapons exporter in the world and our weapons are probably responsible for more deaths than weapons from anywhere else in the world. The US is a good country, its citizens generally mean well, but there are aspects of the country that are indeed evil. The military contractors need a demand for weapons to keep those jobs and keep that money flowing in so peace is not in their best interest. If you think that their lobby has no political power either then you are sadly mistaken. They wield considerable power in political circles and do what they need to do to stay profitable.
Iran is similar in that regard as well. Not all of it is evil but there is a bit more crazy from them in my opinion and there are elements of that country that perpetuate evil actions and terror. Its a matter of degree and all sides of this are so obfuscated and full of shades of gray that stating black and white things is naive. - quaxon, on 06/30/2008, -9/+10"If you want to equate the two countries without regard for the difference between a thirdworld ***** and a superpower..."
From someone who's been to Tehran and all over america, most rural places here look like more of a third world ***** that tehran does by a long shot. Hell landing at DFW almost looks like your about to land in Burkina Faso. - ad33lshahid, on 06/30/2008, -10/+8for all you people that keep saying Iran is sponsoring terrorist groups in other places lets see some proof.
I DO however, remember news about America sponsoring a terrorist group to operate inside Iran: http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/04/abc_ne ...
And I also remember all the claims about Irani weapons being used to kill Americans in Iraq being false:
http://digg.com/world_news/Weapons_Were_Not_Made_I ...
stop regurgitating your justifications for war against a peaceful nation. How many people will you justify killing before you realize that MAYBE we're the aggressors in these conflicts?? - chicofaraby, on 06/30/2008, -6/+5Comparing the number of illegal uses of force between the two nations is "apples and oranges?"
Do you understand what that phrase means? - homanh, on 06/30/2008, -7/+3Whilst there are many people that would agree with your sentiment of america being a *****, whats all this nonsense about Iran being a superpower?
- rupaw, on 06/30/2008, -5/+4Wow, you're a tool my friend. For most of the world Iran and the US have more than just this in common: both are ruled by nut-cases and both seem to be a risk for world-peace. We know that for sure about the US - Iran was all just words so far.
- kiegh, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1@ ad33lshahid
Are you seriously going to sit there and source blogs and "newsclearinghouse"? The reason why you fail to see any news on what Iran participates in is because they have a government that will crack down on free speech. By crack down, I mean kill you. Stop being such an ignorant Ivan. - bovox, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2Arjie, to be fair, Iran isn't the only country that has armed terrorists groups. The US has spent substantially more money than Iran ever has to give aid to terrorist groups in Central America, South America, ... even the Middle East. The last Middle Eastern terrorist group that I can recall the US gave aid to was Al-Qaeda in their fight against the Soviets. Perhaps you are also to young to know about the Iran/Contra Scandal, but in that scandal the US gave aid to another terrorist group--TWO in fact.
- catcher6250, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1@Sifuchar:
Um, cops are better than criminals you *****. - ender7074, on 07/01/2008, -1/+0@arjie
I'm pleanty old enough to realize that when a nation state starts giving rockets to militant insurgents, thats commiting an act of war. I'm pleanty old enough to realize that making incendeary comments like wiping countries off the planet and yelling Death to America is nothing more than provoking a country and people to war. I'm damn sure old enough to know that you have no idea what you are talking about and making asinine elitist and anti-american comments and telling someone, who is probably older than you, that I will get some sort of liberal ***** wisdom when I get older does nothing more than prove my point.
- cyberdork, on 06/30/2008, -29/+12You ever wondered why they might want nuclear weapons?
This explains it all:
http://tinyurl.com/5ecxhc- yosserhughes, on 06/30/2008, -2/+6Why are you being dugg down?
Lots of Trolls out today. - cyberdork, on 06/30/2008, -1/+2Yeah, that's what I thought. I guess tinyurl is no longer appreciated by the diggers.
- yosserhughes, on 06/30/2008, -2/+6Why are you being dugg down?
- SpacePoet, on 06/30/2008, -23/+21Hell, who were we supporting when Iraq and Iran were in war? Iran, and this is going to be hard to swallow, is actually taking the high road here.
- nayrproductions, on 06/30/2008, -5/+18We were supporting Iraq...just in case you didn't know.
- Guroom, on 06/30/2008, -4/+6The US supported Iraq - your comment kinda suggests otherwise - though I did get your point after re-reading it
- altgeeky1, on 06/30/2008, -5/+6As an American, I prefer to avoid the collective "we" in terms of retarded foreign policy. I'm not a Republican, therefore when I vote it is for economic policy... I accept that the GOP "owns" the foreign policy issue in perpetuity. ;-)
Anyways, Reagan was supporting BOTH Iraq and Iran (the latter, quite illegally... but Reagan had a fetish for talking tough but paying ransom to terrorists). - seraph582, on 06/30/2008, -7/+5WAIT a minute!!!
The Iraq/Iran war was during the CARTER presidency, and part of why Iranians hate Americans so much is that we originally supported (and armed) the Iranians, then we switched sides and supported Iraq instead - arming them. They proceeded to have a ridiculously bloody war that only kinda ended - both sides still resenting each other deeply. It's one of a few reasons why Carter was one of the worst presidents we've had up until GeeDub took over. - rex84, on 06/30/2008, -4/+8"Hell, who were we supporting when Iraq and Iran were in war?"
We were supporting both sides, as usual. - ancientshoes, on 06/30/2008, -5/+4so building a nuke and waving it around and threatening other countries is "taking the high road"?
- quaxon, on 06/30/2008, -5/+4We actually supported both sides. Once Reagan took power we secretly sold weapons to the Iranians (while still supporting iraq) and used the money to fund right wing terrorist groups in south america who went on to kill thousands. American foreign policy at its finest!
- RonBurgundy76, on 06/30/2008, -5/+5@ancientshoes:
So why is it OK for us/Russia/China/India/Pakistan/France/Israel/Britain to do it? - Rudegar, on 06/30/2008, -3/+7iran was a democracy but elected a pretty left wing goverment
and cia helped the shan to make a coup
and he was a dictator for a bit and then the student revolt happens and they got their priest ruling system as they have now
and they took american people as hostages and usa gave them weapons in return to release the american people
after that ussr supported iran and usa supported iraq - SpacePoet, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Interesting replies, thank you. Yes i was going after the Iran being hurt by our supporting their war. I forgot about the Iran/Contra dealings and thus made me realize the true meaning of it all.
- Wargalas, on 06/30/2008, -48/+43So, in your eyes, Afghanistan wasn't attacked justifiably? You're a ***** troll at best.
- GhostyBoy, on 06/30/2008, -22/+30It wasn't. The intelligence you had turned out to be no good. And the fact that you are still there is laughable.
- mshtml, on 06/30/2008, -12/+48If the Mafia attacks the NYC docks should we bomb, invade and occupy Italy for 6 years? Don't you remember the official 9/11 story? Almost all the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.
- alpha19, on 06/30/2008, -15/+1@mshtml: Italy smells like greasy hair... I wouldn't mind invading them.
- Thuktun, on 06/30/2008, -11/+6@GhostyBoy
I'm thinking you're thinking of Iraq, not Afghanistan. - Wargalas, on 06/30/2008, -11/+8GhostyBoy, please do keep up with world events. There isn't ANYONE who has half a brain that thinks that Afghanistan wasn't justifiably attacked. Since you obviously can't tell between Afghanistan and Iraq, perhaps it's best you sit this conversation out.
Remember, it's best to be silent and people think you are a fool, then to open your mouth and prove them right. - chicofaraby, on 06/30/2008, -13/+15Afghanistan never attacked the USA. The USA invaded that nation illegally.
It's not really an open question. - DreadPirate, on 06/30/2008, -7/+12Afghanistan acted as a safe haven for terrorists, and refused to hand over Osama Bin Laden and others when they *did* attack the USA.
Try again. - ad33lshahid, on 06/30/2008, -15/+3#16 No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11
Source:
The Muckraker Report, June 6, 2006, and Ithaca Journal, June 29, 2006
Title: “FBI says, ‘No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11’”
Author: Ed Haas
http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html
Student Researcher: Bianca May and Morgan Ulery
Faculty Evaluator: Ben Frymer, Ph.D.
Osama bin Laden’s role in the events of September 11, 2001 is not mentioned on the FBI’s “Ten Most Wanted” poster.
On June 5, 2006, author Ed Haas contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation headquarters to ask why, while claiming that bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 1998 bombings of US Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, the poster does not indicate that he is wanted in connection with the events of 9/11.
Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI responded, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” Asked to explain the process, Tomb responded, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice then decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.”
Haas pauses to ask the question, “If the US government does not have enough hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11, how is it possible that it had enough evidence to invade Afghanistan to ‘smoke him out of his cave?’” Through corporate media, the Bush administration told the American people that bin Laden was “Public Enemy Number One,” responsible for the deaths of nearly 3,000 people on September 11, 2001. The federal government claims to have invaded Afghanistan to “root out” bin Laden and the Taliban, yet nearly six years later, the FBI said that it had no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.
Though the world was to have been convinced by the December 2001 release of a bin Laden “confession video,” the Department of Defense issued a press release to accompany this video in which Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said, “There was no doubt of bin Laden’s responsibility for the 9/11 attacks even before the tape was discovered.”
In a CNN article regarding the bin Laden tape, then New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said that “the tape removes any doubt that the US military campaign targeting bin Laden and his associates is more than justified.” Senator Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said, “The tape’s release is central to informing people in the outside world who don’t believe bin Laden was involved in the September 11 attacks.” Shelby went on to say “I don’t know how they can be in denial after they see this tape.”
Haas attempted to secure a reference to US government authentication of the bin Laden “confession video,” to no avail. However, it is conclusive that the Bush Administration and US Congress, along with corporate media, presented the video as authentic. So why doesn’t the FBI view the “confession video” as hard evidence? After all, notes Haas, if the FBI is investigating a crime such as drug trafficking, and it discovers a video of members of a drug cartel openly talking about a successful distribution operation in the United States, that video would be presented to a federal grand jury. The participants identified in the video would be indicted. The video alone would serve as sufficient evidence to net a conviction in a federal court. So why, asks Haas, is the bin Laden “confession video” not carrying the same weight with the FBI?
Haas strongly suggests that we begin asking questions, “The fact that the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Osama bin Laden to 9/11 should be headline news around the world. The challenge to the reader is to find out why it is not. Why has the US media blindly read the government-provided 9/11 scripts, rather than investigate without passion, prejudice, or bias, the events of September 11, 2001? Why has the US media blacklisted any guest that might speak of a government-sponsored 9/11 cover-up, rather than seeking out those people who have something to say about 9/11 that is contrary to the government’s account?” Haas continues. “Who is controlling the media message, and how is it that the FBI has no ‘hard evidence’ connecting Osama bin Laden to the events of September 11, 2001, while the US media has played the bin Laden-9/11 connection story for [six] years now as if it has conclusive evidence that bin Laden is responsible for the collapse of the twin towers, the Pentagon attack, and the demise of United Flight 93?”
UPDATE BY ED HAAS
On June 6, 2006 the Muckraker Report ran a piece by Ed Haas titled “FBI says, ‘No hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.’” Haas is the editor and a writer for the Muckraker Report. At the center of this article remains the authenticity and truthfulness of the videotape released by the federal government on December 13, 2001 in which it is reported that Osama bin Laden “confesses” to the September 11, 2001 attacks. The corporate media—television, radio, and newspapers—across the United States and the world repeated, virtually non-stop for a week after the videotape’s release, the government account of OBL “confessing.”
However, not one document has been released that demonstrates the authenticity of the videotape or that it even went through an authentication process. The Muckraker Report has submitted Freedom of Information Act requests to the FBI, CIA, Department of Defense, and CENTCOM requesting documentation that would demonstrate the authenticity of the videotape and the dates/circumstances in which the videotape was discovered. CENTCOM has yet to reply to the FOIA request. After losing an appeal, the FBI responded that no documents could be found responsive to the request. The Department of Defense referred the Muckraker Report to CENTCOM while also indicating that it had no documents responsive to the FOIA request either.
The CIA however claims that it can neither confirm nor deny the existence or nonexistence of records responsive to the request. According to the CIA the fact of the existence or nonexistence of requested records is properly classified and is intelligence sources and methods information that is protected from disclosure by section 6 of the CIA Act of 1949, as amended. Therefore, the Agency has denied your request pursuant to FOIA exemptions (b)(1) and (b)(3).
Many people believe that if the videotape is authentic, it should be sufficient hard evidence for the FBI to connect bin Laden to 9/11. The Muckraker Report agrees. However, for the Department of Justice to indict bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks, something the government has yet to do, the videotape would have to be entered into evidence and subjected to additional scrutiny. This appears to be something the government wishes to avoid.
Some believe that the video is a fake. They refer to it as the “fat bin Laden”video. The Muckraker Report believes that while the videotape is indeed authentic, it was the result of an elaborate CIA sting operation. The Muckraker Report also believes that the reason why there is no documentation that demonstrates that the videotape went through an authenticity process is because the CIA knew it was authentic, they arranged the taping.
It is highly probable that the videotape was taped on September 26, 2001—before the US invaded Afghanistan - Wargalas, on 06/30/2008, -3/+10@chicofaraby
You're too dumb for words. - chicofaraby, on 06/30/2008, -9/+4Just because a criminal may have passed through a country does not justify attacking that nation and killing civilians by the hundreds of thousands.
That excuse is as weak as the one used for the illegal invasion of Grenada. - DreadPirate, on 06/30/2008, -1/+7"May have passed through a country" That is a pathetic misrepresentation of the situation and you know it. Afghanistan *acknowledged* that Bin Laden was in the country after he claimed responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, and refused to hand him over to the US.
- chicofaraby, on 06/30/2008, -7/+2"Afghanistan *acknowledged* that Bin Laden was in the country after he claimed responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, and refused to hand him over to the US."
Which still doesn't justify an illegal invasion and the murder of thousands and thousands of innocent civilians. An invasion wouldn't be justified even if Osama Bin Laden had been tried and convicted prior to his going to Afghanistan. How can you not see that? One criminal isn't that important. - DreadPirate, on 06/30/2008, -1/+5"One criminal isn't that important" Never mind the fact that Osama was getting material support from the Taliban at that time as well - they were actively helping him commit terrorist acts around the world, and we had know way of knowing whether they would help him with other attacks on the US. That makes it more than just one criminal.
And out of curiosity, just *how* do you propose to deal with situations like we ran into after 9/11, then? I see you attack what we did often enough - what I rarely see (if ever) is alternative proposals for what we could have done. - bjornski, on 06/30/2008, -7/+2Well gee, Pakistan has been hiding terrorists too. Pakistan is NOT our friend.
Oh yeah, they can defend themselves. - chicofaraby, on 06/30/2008, -7/+5"just *how* do you propose to deal with situations like we ran into after 9/11"
I'm old fashioned. I think crimes should be followed by police investigation, some arrests and then trials. Sure it's not as exciting as dropping bombs on innocent people and torturing victims in gulags, but then, I've never been a fan of 24. The real world is a bit more mundane. - DreadPirate, on 06/30/2008, -1/+4And you entirely manage to miss the point. I am asking specifically what we should do when the "criminal" is a terrorist hiding in and supported by another country - something your simplistic answer fails to address.
- chicofaraby, on 06/30/2008, -3/+3Why is this difficult? You use the normal diplomatic channels for extraditing criminals. This seems obvious to me. This stuff gets dealt with every day by nations that don't murder thousands and thousands foreign civilians. Refusing extradition isn't an act of war.
There is simply n
- seraph582, on 06/30/2008, -85/+72Oranges and apples - but I'm disappointed that it had to be said. I mean honestly. How can you even compare the two.
