U.S. Sponsoring Kurdish Guerilla Attacks Inside Iran

Originally posted by untilted

It’s a freaking bandana that he tied around his arm in gang fashion…
It’s in no way connected to the freaking jeep unless they punched a hole in the windshield. What is a matter with you?


[edit on 3/28/2007 by defcon5]

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Who ever posted the children's picture they signed the SHELLS not bombs

really, and what is the difference between bombs and shells?

they both kill people...

you need brain specialist (I recommend Dr. Gumby) if you think Souljah spread propaganda...





[edit on 28-3-2007 by untilted]

Originally posted by bodrul
this better discribes it

on a side note isnt this topic about

U.S. Sponsoring Kurdish Guerilla Attacks Inside Iran

I know, but when I see an ignorant that place cartoons I cannot help myself to strike back...




sorry again...

AH, Souljah, you pointswhore, God love you…
Well I guess I stirred up a hornets nest, and while I'd love to sit here and defend myself all day, I have to go to bed. So the rest of you have fun…

Originally posted by LogansRun

Its funny, we support a group of people to unleash violence and unrest against the population of another country and it is labeled as "ok, because we want regime change, and so do some of the people there". If another country does the same to us (for the same reasons, mind you) it is labeled as terrorism. I dont condone either sides actions as they are both despicable, but isn't that just a tid bit of a double standard???

Its not a double standard. Some of us see it as liberation and some of us see it as an invasion. Some of them see it as liberation some of them see it as an invasion. If some group invaded the U.S. with the intent of establishing a government based on Sharia law I would see it as an invasion and fight them until my death. If we were currently living under Sharia law and some outside force offered freedom Id embrace it.

Im all for the liberation perspective because I believe that once free those who choose to live their life one way or the other can do so freely like here in the U.S.. If some group wants to live the Sharia way here they can. Sure they cant stone their raped women to death but their beliefs will not be challenged by the government.

If the opposite were true I would not be free to live my life any way I chose because the Sharia government wouldnt allow it.

The goal is to offor freedom and prosperity for those who want it and the option to live like the Amish for those who want that. Both are protected and both groups can live their lives in peace.

Whats wrong with that?

Pictures mean nothing if you don't know the story behind it.......

But no one cares about that, so long as they get their political message across..

According to you people and your logic, there is only innocence on one side. Truly disgusting imo.

Originally posted by untilted

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Who ever posted the children's picture they signed the SHELLS not bombs

really, and what is the difference between bombs and shells?

they both kill people...


[edit on 28-3-2007 by untilted]

I believe a shell is simply a casing for a projectile. It isnt terrible heavy so I guess maybe if it is ejected while still hot directly at your face I doubt it will kill anybody.

I also believe the rest of that post mentioned these were children of those who had been casualties from previous attacks. Thats a revenge issue, not a "drive my kid to a coffee house and blow him up" issue.

All this Israel/Palestine back and forth crap is really quite idiotic. They both friggin hate each other. Whats your point? Whos more evil? Thats just a pointless excuse to argue. Enjoy your pointless argument.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
. If we were currently living under Sharia law and some outside force offered freedom Id embrace it.

How do you know that?

If you've spent 10, 20, 50 years living under something and it has done you no harm - would you really want an external force trying to change it? Would you really think bombs killing your family, your wife for example whose life you wanted to make better as them offering her freedom?

Would you have supported Armed Groups killing USA Civilians during the Civil Rights Movement? Or Womens Liberation? Would it have been O.K. for Africans to have came over and bombed the U.S?

Furthermore would it have helped? The problems with Iran are not as bad as people try to make out. In fact the curent President had a higher percentage of the eligable voters vote for him than Tony Blair did in the U.K. and I do believe on a basis of percentages of eligable voters to those who voted he was above Bush, although it has been a few years since I looked at the statistics.

Iran is a democracy, like it or not. Granted it doesn't offer the same Freedoms as some other Nations but nor does the U.S.A. Switzerland is more democratic than the U.S.A. so should they fund militant organizations to change your way of life? Or should we sit back and allow the people to do it? It worked in England, America, etcetera. Maybe we should just open up our history books and look.

As for the Israeli Government - most people know they are as bad as teh terrorist groups. If I strap a bomb to myself or I fire it from a tank, I still kill innocent people. Furthermore it is sick to get children to sign such things as shells - all you do is create another generation of people who hate one another. This won't solve the problem and will only make it grow worse.

As for the idea the U.S.A. wouldn't do this, would not fund such groups take a look at a period of your history between 1960 and now. You've done this a lot and probably will keep on doing it and everytime it comes back to haunt you. People don't like to be puppets and when they realise they are being used they tend to fight back.

Originally posted by Odium
If I strap a bomb to myself or I fire it from a tank, I still kill innocent people.

yes, but try to damage a tank or apache with home made strap-on bomb...


let's get back to Kurds...

I think there will be a big problem with Kurds and Turkey... Turkey is probably waiting something like attack on Iran to attack Kurds in Iraq...

[edit on 28-3-2007 by untilted]

Originally posted by Odium

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
. If we were currently living under Sharia law and some outside force offered freedom Id embrace it.

How do you know that?

If you've spent 10, 20, 50 years living under something and it has done you no harm - would you really want an external force trying to change it? Would you really think bombs killing your family, your wife for example whose life you wanted to make better as them offering her freedom?

Would you have supported Armed Groups killing USA Civilians during the Civil Rights Movement? Or Womens Liberation? Would it have been O.K. for Africans to have came over and bombed the U.S?

A lot of people got killed for Civil Rights. Then theres the whole "Civil War" thing. If you buy the "fee the slaves" angle an awful lot of people died for Civil Rights. I doubt the Africans would have done much bombing since quite a few of them were selling us the slaves to begin with. I cant say that many died for Womens Lib.

I know I would embrace the outside assistance for liberation because right now, in America, I dont feel free enough and Id love some assistance. Or at least some consistency here with organizations but theres an awful lot of infighting and juvenillle power stuggle bull going on.
If the "liberators" turned out to be just as oppressive Id pick up my rifle once again and keep picking it up until we got it right.

Originally posted by Odium

The problems with Iran are not as bad as people try to make out. In fact the curent President had a higher percentage of the eligable voters vote for him than Tony Blair did in the U.K. and I do believe on a basis of percentages of eligable voters to those who voted he was above Bush, although it has been a few years since I looked at the statistics.

I dont know how bad it is. I dont live there. Neither do you. There are some things we just have to read and research and go with our gut on.
The whole voting thing is funny. People here dont vote. They like having others do the thinking for them. Its the new American slogan I believe. People in Iran get to choose between two people who have already been picked by the Imams. Thats shady and Id be willing to bet the only difference between the two is facial hair and tie color. Didnt Saddam get like 96% of the vote or something like that?

Originally posted by Odium
As for the Israeli Government - most people know they are as bad as teh terrorist groups. If I strap a bomb to myself or I fire it from a tank, I still kill innocent people. Furthermore it is sick to get children to sign such things as shells - all you do is create another generation of people who hate one another. This won't solve the problem and will only make it grow worse.

Totally but how do you stop it? Its my understanding that the Isreali textbooks have actually begun uincluding peacenick messages and more PC content while the Palestinians continue to teach their kids the Jews will kill them and make matza with their blood. I wouldnt be putting my rifle away any time soon If my next door neighbors kept shouting "pig" and "blood sucking vampire" while spitting on my sidewalk. I suppose you'd just walk on over and offer them a pie? Well, youre a better man than I .

Originally posted by Odium
As for the idea the U.S.A. wouldn't do this, would not fund such groups take a look at a period of your history between 1960 and now. You've done this a lot and probably will keep on doing it and everytime it comes back to haunt you. People don't like to be puppets and when they realise they are being used they tend to fight back.

Yeah I know. I guess this one wasnt directed at me. But some people love being puppets.

Sorry, I could not sleep as this ignorance bothered me too much, I have one more thing to add here before going to bed…

Originally posted by untilted

Considering that according to you he is in immanent danger of dying, being used as a protection device for the driver side window…

Why does he not look panicked? Why does he not look scared? Why is his right arm not flailing around?

If that was me and I had my left arm tied to a vehicle that was about to drive into harms way, I would be using my untied right arm to untie myself. If that arm is tied too, then I would be chewing through my arm to get off of that jeep. I certainly would not be sitting there looking quite relaxed with my feet crossed and my arms grasping each other…
Again this is PR BS, and ignorance 101…

Is there ANY logical member of this website that buys into this nonsense?



sorry got my arms confused I need to go to sleep now...


[edit on 3/28/2007 by defcon5]

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
People in Iran get to choose between two people who have already been picked by the Imams. Thats shady and Id be willing to bet the only difference between the two is facial hair and tie color.

Wrong.

There was a vote on: 17 of June 2005, in which 7 people were voted on. This then leads to a run-off. Some of them were actually fairly liberal candidates, so clearly what you have been reading on Iran is flawed.

Maybe you should not comment till you do bother to do the research instead of it becoming a waste of time?

Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf is an example of a more liberal Iranian, but they did not want him and they are the public.

Originally posted by untilted

only a monster would teach kids to 'send love' (yes it says that, but it seems you cannot read) with bombs...

Considering that this is what the word “Love” looks like in Hebrew:

אהב אהב

And this:

عشق

Is Arabic for "love"…

Darn convenient that they wrote on the shells in English, eh?
Can you say, “Another bleeding heart, photo op PR stunt for the Western Press"?
I knew you could.

[edit on 3/28/2007 by defcon5]

Originally posted by Odium

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
People in Iran get to choose between two people who have already been picked by the Imams. Thats shady and Id be willing to bet the only difference between the two is facial hair and tie color.

Wrong.

There was a vote on: 17 of June 2005, in which 7 people were voted on. This then leads to a run-off. Some of them were actually fairly liberal candidates, so clearly what you have been reading on Iran is flawed.

Maybe you should not comment till you do bother to do the research instead of it becoming a waste of time?

Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf is an example of a more liberal Iranian, but they did not want him and they are the public.

I got what I know of their election process from :
hrw.org...

Sorry if Im wrong. I dont expect to be 100% correct with information regarding my own countries elections. But my views are based on my knowledge of the subject, limited as it may or may not be. Or maybe its wrong just because its not based on your research.

I read this page and still had to scroll to the top to figure out what the topic was. Can we stick to it please. US sponsored Kurdish attacks in Iran, remember?

Sorry, I was just trying to prove the point that they are renowned for being less then truthful and pulling PR stunts when they feel that it will turn world opinion in their favor. So the source is far less then credible. I swear I will say no more unless attacked...
Night...

[edit on 3/28/2007 by defcon5]

thisguyrighthere, a lot of the reason are due to what they see as moral. The U.S.A. has limits on age, Iran does. The U.S.A. you need to gain enough funding to run, the Iranian Government self-funds candidates and thus they must meet several requirments. These have changed over the last 20 years.

I mean take: Mehdi Karroubi, who came third and only missed the run off by 1 million votes he was a reformist. The problem was, thanks to the U.S.A and the West going on about this and that, publishing media, things over the airwaves, we forced more hard line Iranians to vote.

People dislike being told what to do. The U.S.A. tends to like telling people what to do, when over 60% of the eligable population vote that's heavily democratic. More so than the U.S.A. or the U.K. where not even 50% voted.

The fact is, if those idiots who wanted change had not boycotted the election you'd have seen a possible different outcome. The U.S.A. did not help by claiming the reformists couldn't win and doing it over Arabic T.V. stations and media, this does not help people. Imagine if every single newspaper and T.V. station constantly parroted out how you couldn't win an election. It would not help you and Mehdi Karroubi was very critical of the U.S.A. and its involvement of keeping a hardline Government in Iran. Furthermore, its current policy towards Iran (on Nuclear Power) is only helping the Hard Line groups and stopping the change.

Originally posted by Odium
thisguyrighthere, a lot of the reason are due to what they see as moral. The U.S.A. has limits on age, Iran does. The U.S.A. you need to gain enough funding to run, the Iranian Government self-funds candidates and thus they must meet several requirments. These have changed over the last 20 years.

I mean take: Mehdi Karroubi, who came third and only missed the run off by 1 million votes he was a reformist. The problem was, thanks to the U.S.A and the West going on about this and that, publishing media, things over the airwaves, we forced more hard line Iranians to vote.

People dislike being told what to do. The U.S.A. tends to like telling people what to do, when over 60% of the eligable population vote that's heavily democratic. More so than the U.S.A. or the U.K. where not even 50% voted.

The fact is, if those idiots who wanted change had not boycotted the election you'd have seen a possible different outcome. The U.S.A. did not help by claiming the reformists couldn't win and doing it over Arabic T.V. stations and media, this does not help people. Imagine if every single newspaper and T.V. station constantly parroted out how you couldn't win an election. It would not help you and Mehdi Karroubi was very critical of the U.S.A. and its involvement of keeping a hardline Government in Iran. Furthermore, its current policy towards Iran (on Nuclear Power) is only helping the Hard Line groups and stopping the change.

Yeah, sure, okay. I never said what the U.S. does is perfect, necessary or even just. I simply stated what I believe the motivation for such action is and what I believe the intended outcome is. You seem to be taking it awfully personally and Im sorry if its my fault but seriously, I dont know why you keep beating me over the head about this. What the future brings with or without intervention is anyones guess and being that as it is hindsight for arguments and excuses is utterly worthless. I dont care what Iran does. I dont care what the U.S. does or what the Kurds do. I just took the topic post and said why I thought governments and civilians alike would see actions as these as appropriate, justified and sometimes wanted. I dont know what you want from me. Am I supposed to engage you in some debate? Well, thats not going to happen. Go find someone else to beat upon. I just gave my 2 cents for the topic. Thats all.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Whats wrong with supporting the Kurds and causing instability in Iran? We want regime change. Apparantly the leagions of protesters there want it too. This way we can force a change without putting our own troops on the ground.

WE want regime change?

Who is WE?

You mean, when YOU want regime change that does not count in the people who actually live in the country, where YOU want to change the regime? YOU mean like changing regime in Iraq (wonderful work there!) - or perhaps should I start about the good old Cold War stories about regime changes in South America. I guess what you wanted to say is, that you want a Pro-American. Pro-West, Pro-Business regime, where US corporations can do business with and where US can install puppet governments, through which they dictate the balance of power in the region? Man, we have seen this happen in at least dozen countries around the world, and it always ended up with a bloody conflict, where usually innocent people died, just because YOU wanted regime change.

Anyway, more "stuff" on how US is sponsoring TERRORIST actions in Iran:

US funds terror groups to sow chaos in Iran

In a move that reflects Washington's growing concern with the failure of diplomatic initiatives, CIA officials are understood to be helping opposition militias among the numerous ethnic minority groups clustered in Iran's border regions.

The operations are controversial because they involve dealing with movements that resort to terrorist methods in pursuit of their grievances against the Iranian regime.

Such incidents have been carried out by the Kurds in the west, the Azeris in the north-west, the Ahwazi Arabs in the south-west, and the Baluchis in the south-east. Non-Persians make up nearly 40 per cent of Iran's 69 million population, with around 16 million Azeris, seven million Kurds, five million Ahwazis and one million Baluchis. Most Baluchis live over the border in Pakistan.

Washington's Covert War inside Iran

It is probable that in the coming months the Bush Administration will expand support for anti-government forces in order to more effectively destabilize Iran and gather intelligence. Already U.S. Special Forces are operating in Iran collecting data, planting nuclear sensors, and electronically marking targets. Separatist forces have cooperated in those efforts. “This looks to be turning into a pretty large-scale covert operation,” comments a former CIA official. U.S. and Israeli officials are establishing front companies to help finance that covert war. To fully capitalize on ethnic discontent along Iran’s periphery, the U.S. Marine Corps has commissioned a study from defense contractor Hicks and Associates on Iran and Iraq’s ethnic groups and their grievances.

Funny how certain International laws and conventions come into play only for certain nations and countries - yet Others are almost always ABOVE the law in whatever they do...

What is that called - damn I forgot the word, but it starts with an H.

the CIA has been doing this kind of thing for years.. It doesn't suprise me one bit that it is being done in Iran, afterall, they did it here in America.