Top Iranian commanders assassinated

reply to post by dooper


As I said, I won't argue the point.
2nd line.

Originally posted by dooper
And we "legitimized" Al-Queda? By funding any and all Afghanis who were fighting the Soviets?

Yeah, that is a stretch. Although those fighters did evolve into AQ, their mission statement was much different when we were backing them.

To me it's pretty obvious this had western fingerprints on it, at least in planning or instigating. Again, the internal opposition is mostly made up of progressive, non-fanatical iranians, the religious whackos that blow themselves up are on the government's side. They haven't really had the desire to by martyred, or they would have fought the crackdown much more violently. I personally don't disapprove of this action, the iranian government has done the same crap for decades. Their chickens are coming home to roost, the same way ours do from time to time. I have no sympathy for the mullahs or their extremist guards, taking out the bad guys while sparing innocents is by far not the worst thing i could think of. Better than an open war, IMO.

[edit on 19-10-2009 by 27jd]

Originally posted by nenothtu
But it's not colossally stupid to deny the possibility that it was an internal issue, right? Just want to make sure I understand you clearly.

You understand perfectly - you are colossally stupid. I never denied the possibility - but you jump to the conclusion that least likely - then stand on that with an aura of smugness in your own stupidity.

You appear to have a bit of trouble differentiating "terrorists" from "guerrillas". No matter, I've found that folks on that side of the fence will apply any labels they think are damaging. However, labels don't change the contents, whichever side of the fence you're on.

I'll need some sources on the idea that the US finances and creates "most" of the terrorism in the world. Try to make them credible sources, please, not just emotional hearsay.

You have trouble differentiating chicken sh-t from chicken salad. Why don't you call the suicide bomber a freedom fighter - even better. What a transparent effort to spin the story -you should go work at Fox.

Why would anyone need to quote sources to to substantiate an allegation that the US creates most of the terrorists in the world? It is the US in fact that goes around labeling EVERYONE a terrorist - its own citizens in fact are labeled domestic terrorists.

You created an entire country of 'terrorists' by invading Iraq - now Afghanistan is full of 'terrorists' - and Pakistan too? I think that wherever the US military forces go - they find terrorists.

Now Iran is a terrorist NATION isn't it? I don't know what its population is - but thats a lot of terrorists. SO ya - I think the US has created more terrorists than any other force in history.

Vile? Initially, Iran claimed that military officers were the target of the attack. Military personnel are the ONLY valid targets of a military operation. Later, when they thought they could get more mileage out of it, they shifted to civilians being the targets instead.

It's not all in who you BLAME, it's also in what you blame them FOR. Propaganda can be a thing of beauty, but it needs to be consistent and focused to be effective.

Blowing up 100 people or more with explosives is not vile? What you blame them for? Nowhere in your rambling incoherent diatribe did you ever wander into a realm that would even border on making a point.

Uh oh, we have yet ANOTHER "enemy" to throw into the mix.

Another enemy?? If you would at least make some effort to pretend to educate yourself on ATS - there are two enemies - ignorance, and the NWO.

You are an example of the former.

Please, if you would allow me to decide for myself who is my enemy and who is my ally, I'd be ever so grateful. It's about the only freedom I have left.

It is more freedom then you deserve, you lick the boots that are planted on your neck.

Why do you think you can ask anything from me? You have my contempt - be grateful.

[edit on 19-10-2009 by Amagnon]

reply to post by Amagnon

I think you are a bit confused. Actually, a LOT confused.

We in the US don't have a terrorist-manufacturing facility. We don't create terrorists.

You know why?

Because every single one of these turds are Muslim fundamentalists. They don't just read the Qur'an. They also read the LIFE of Muhammed, as told by his contemporaries, and they follow his example.

Now you'll note that this suicide bombing thing is only popular and in fact a cultural pasttime in the land of . . . . that's right!

Muslims!

So while your proctologist likely finds you his favorite patient, I find your ability to reach around and pull things out of urass with great ease to be a bit disgusting.

And of course, entirely inaccurate.

Find a fireplug.

And have a seat.

Originally posted by dooper
They couldn't even whip their much smaller neighbor, Iraq, over a period of years. The same Iraqi force that a small American and British force went through like crap through a goose.

The US got its ass kicked in Vietnam - and they had all the hardware in the world. They just suck at a real fight.

In Afghanistan they use drones to blow up children - but anytime there is a fight, they run away - or just get killed.

As usual, wrong again. The US did not start two wars based on similar incidents. Name the American militia leaders that were killed by an opposing religious group.

I knew you were dumb - but, sure - your can't make the connection to a provoked attack? Nope - he meant it literally - it has to be a religious suicide bomber. Give me a break.

Vietnam was based on a false flag attack, a few people killed and whoah - lets invade. It wasn't even a real attack - sure, the US is very reserved and hard to provoke - it doesn't need an enemy to provoke it - it can just invent reasons - like, oh, Iraq for instance.

Keep in mind, this entire suicide bombing thing is strictly a retarded Muslim thing. Just another in a long procession of Muslims killing other Muslims. Big deal.

Maybe if they started passing out suicide vests in the Middle East to Middle schoolers, the rest of the world could have some peace.

The rest of the world just see's retarded Americans killing children with their high tech weapons in every country Dooper. Big deal, right?

Maybe if they started handing out brains in the US - we wouldn't have to listen to your one sided diatribe.

Amagnon, we didn't create terrorists and then war on them. Again, it's a Muslim thing. We got a Jew to buy Russian weapons from the Arabs, which we passed to the Afghanis, who used them against the Russians.

They were already fighting. So how in hell did we create something that was already in existence, and active? Your logic is counterintuitive, flawed, it's biased beyond reason, and you simply don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Actually - I know exactly what I'm talking about. You start meddling in Afghanistan (none of your business anyway) - training and arming people - who were freedom fighters - then when they are no longer useful, you label them as terrorists and start blaming them for everything under the sun and killing them.

You station troops in Saudi, back and arm Israel in its illegal occupation of Palestine - force economic controls on all middle eastern countries - why do they hate you Dooper? Its because of America's freedoms! Yeah - thats why.

It very well CAN be an internal group of Iranians that wanted to kill these guys so bad they could taste it. All it takes is intelligence, opportunity, and means.

Intelligence could come from in-country foes, foreign intelligence contacts, counter-revolutionaries, or maybe these guys pulled it all off on their own.

Yep - they want to kill their top brass, at the same time they are surrounded by enemies who want to bomb and invade them - sure I can see how your brain might see that as logical.

To assume that a pistachio-eating rug weaver couldn't figure out how to kill his foes in-country is to assume that all Iranians are retards.

Are you suggesting that only Westerners are smart enough to pop these guys?

Now that you put it in that context - it does throw some doubt on whether a fat medicated burger munching retarded American could have come up with the plan.

But despite the unlikelihood of them being able to bring such a plan together - I'm going to have to go on the raw evidence of motive, opportunity, and prior disclosure of affiliation.

Oh yeah. I LOVE to see this stuff. It's like a bully finally getting an ass-whipping.

Yeah! Just like Vietnam! I can't wait for the sequel.

This isn't over, and if you think this is bad, just wait and see what else Iran has coming. In fact, resources are increasingly coming online in Iran, and the in-country opponents of the current government will be, shall we say, "enabled."

Pick that up on your secret squirrel radio from ToyzRUs did you Dooper?

Recall a large number of pissed off Iranians in the streets? They didn't all just go away. They hold positions in government, and have access to some really good information.

Ya - I know, you've got them on the secure data line in the basement - its all toppity toppity secret isn't it? It must be fun playing a secret agent, like your 10yrs old for your entire life.

Don't worry. It's all good. You want to be a source of trouble, you get trouble. That's the way it works.

The more fanatics that kill other fanatics, the better I like it. Yes, I was grinning when I heard the news.

Doesn't everyone like getting good news?

You are the person who is a real contender for "Fanatic of the Year Award" Dooper.

Nothing about people getting killed for no good reason makes me grin - but in your case - I would make an exception.

[edit on 19-10-2009 by Amagnon]

Wonder if this is history repeating itself?

The first thing that came to mind when I read this was September 9, 2001, 2 days before 9/11, when Northern Alliance leader Ahmad Shah Massoud was assassinated supposedly by Al-Queada.

He was offed to render the Northern Alliance leaderless and lessen their effectiveness.

Possibly these Iranian commanders were assassinated for the same reason.
I expect hell to break lose soon, if history is anything to go by.

reply to post by Flighty


If anything "novel" happens, I would expect it to occur this weekend.
Reasons touched on in this thread and in others.

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by RoofMonkey

 

Nice that you know that the history of Bahrain as it pertains to US military involvement.
Doesn't further anything to the point that US troops were called up to go to Bahrain just weeks prior to 9-11.
Units that were NOT on revolving duty in the region.
Out of the blue troop deployments to an island just off the coast of Afghanistan just prior to 9-11.

Could it have had anything to do with the fact that we KNOW the US had planned to invade Afghanistan prior to 9-11?
Probably.

Nice long-winded post providing nothing of actual value to the point. To an outside observer, that would look like a perfect counter to something that was mentioned that was totally off-topic. The troops deployed to the region out of cycle were ARMY troops.

But that is all I will say on the matter.

Nice, long winded post based on a flawed premise.

1) Afghanistan HAS NO coast. It's entirely landlocked.

2) Bahrain is not at all well situated for staging into Afghanistan, even if it had capacity to do so.

3) I'd like a link to the material proving that we had intentions of invading Afghanistan prior to 9-11. I need to study up on that, as it's not currently part of my knowledge base, and I'm always for expanding knowledge.

One other thing - in your addition to your immediate previous post in this thread, you made the claim, once again, that the CIA "created" Al-Qaeda, against all proof to the contrary.

That, sir, is incorrect. Again. Repeating a falsehood often enough, still doesn't make it so.

reply to post by nenothtu


You're right. Afghanistan doesn't have a coast.
But it is near one. I misspoke. I should have said Bahrain is situated off the coast just west of Afghanistan.
My bad.

Also, I never said that the CIA created Al Qaeda. It appears you misspoke as well.

Shall we leave it at that?
It is easy to do sometimes.

[edit on 19-10-2009 by JayinAR]

[edit on 19-10-2009 by JayinAR]

Iran demands UN council condemn bomb attack

UNITED NATIONS, Oct 19 (Reuters) - Iran on Monday demanded that the U.N. Security Council strongly condemn a bomb attack last weekend that killed dozens of people, six of them commanders in the Islamic Republic's Revolutionary Guards.

Source

and

Diplomats: 1st day of Iran nuke talks inconclusive

VIENNA — A first day of talks to get Iran to send most of its enriched uranium abroad — and thus delay its potential to make a nuclear weapon — ended inconclusively Monday, with Tehran remaining uncommitted, diplomats told The Associated Press.

IMO I think that Iran will scrap the plans to send it's uranium to another country to be enriched.

The gears of war seem to be winding up.

reply to post by Amagnon

Amagnon, Hojat, or whatever, your grasp of history is mighty loose, kinda like you still have lube on your hand or something.

The US won all its battles in Vietnam, and 'Nam didn't fall until three years after all combat forces were returned home. So much for the value of your Mongolian "Special Ed" education. Bet you're good at finger-painting though. And horse-hair weaving.

I think if you'll review the battles, it wasn't the Americans doing the running. It was those Muslim Holy Warrior cowards who hide behind women and children. Brave, Islamic warriors. I just know they make their momma's proud.

Anothe mistake of yours on Vietnam. The only invasions occurred in 1972 and in 1975, both by the North Vietnamese. With only 1,500 ground troops during the 1972 invasion, Americans killed 100,000 North Vietnamese. Not bad.

And the only time we took the fight to North Vietnam was at Christmas of 1972, and when we did, they cried, "Uncle."

You brought up Iraq. Iraq in violation of the UN edicts, kept firing at patrolling US planes. I know these are your heros, with all the murder, rape, and pillaging, but UN violation facts are facts.

Your charge of killing kids in "every country" with high tech weapons is a bit of a stretch, even for a pathological liar. You must keep in mind that these high tech weapons cost high dollars, and we're not going to waste them on kids.

Certain parents - to be sure, but only when these guerillas gather at a home, and then it's "bye, bye!" It gets back to hiding behind women and kids. You and your buddies run into a house, and the house and everyone in it is going to become part of the world's weather system. Guerillas, wives, children, dogs, goats, whatever.

They have this term that's used to describe unintentional deaths due to the conduct of war. It's only been around a few decades, so it will be a new word for you. It's the term, "collateral damage."

Yep, a real word with a real meaning.

It pretty much addresses those chikenschitts who would hide behind women and children. Those heros of yours.

We did arm Afghanis who were fighting the Soviets. Sort of a little game between the US and Soviet Union. They arm North Vietnames, and we return the favor by arming Afghanis. Too bad. So sad.

Contrary to your implication, we were INVITED to Saudi Arabia. That's right! Non-believers in the homeland of a would-be prophet of a pagan moon-god. Doesn't that just piss some folks off! We've actually been there for decades.

If it weren't for Americans finding their oil, drilling for their oil, installing the pipelines and infrastructure, they'd still be eating a mutton sandwich with their right hands, scratching their asses with their left hands, on the stoop of their tents, betting on goat races.

Just wait. Next time an emergency comes up, we're going to just let it fall, then go in and pick up the pieces, and make it our 51st State. Freedom of religion, a sandy DisneyWorld, and the largest strip club in the heart of Mecca. It's going to be great!

One more little history problem you have confused. Israel was partitioned by the UN, and immediately declared themselves a nation. They were immediately attacked by Lebanon, Syria, Transjordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt.

The Israelis could only get older arms from Czechoslovakia. Not the US.

As is customary, the tiny, fledgling Israelis kicked their collective asses and survived. Actually ended up with additional land.

Each subsequent attack by coalitions of their neighbors, they would each time kick their butts and gain even MORE land! And that's where we are today.

Next time you get a break from picking ticks off your camel's ass, go in and look it up. The history is right there for the reading.

Yep, I'm one of those burger-eating Americans, who each time I met my enemies in combat, it was those burgers that enabled me to take their scalps.

So don't knock American burgers - they give us things like nuclear weapons, F-22 Raptors, American flags on the moon, some of the most ingenius breast enhancement surgical techniques in the world, and of course, the ability to build weapons platforms the world has never seen.

Yet.

You aren't the only one who wanted to see me dead. The difference is they others were armed and trying. They just weren't up to it. Likely, you wouldn't either.

Wish in one hand, hold the other under your goat while you trim his ass, and see which on fills first.

Originally posted by dooper
Anothe mistake of yours on Vietnam. The only invasions occurred in 1972 and in 1975, both by the North Vietnamese. With only 1,500 ground troops during the 1972 invasion, Americans killed 100,000 North Vietnamese. Not bad.

yeah and 50% of them woman and children.........

[edit on 20-10-2009 by CanadianDream420]

reply to post by CanadianDream420


Your own special education classes didn't really help much.

That was 100,000 dead North Vietnamese soldiers.

Soldiers.

And if you'd go look at what happened at Hue in 1968, you wouldn't make such idiotic claims.

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by Albastion

 

I've heard about unusual military activity lately in the states, but nothing on a scale that would indicate preparations for an invasion.

Yeah everything is quiet in our neck of the woods. Unlike before when they were prepping for the other two invasions.

reply to post by dooper


What size battle do you refer to when you say that the US never lost a battle in Vietnam?

Khe Sahn was pretty much a loss, for one.
More than 100 cities were lost in the Tet Offensive.



[edit on 20-10-2009 by JayinAR]

Dooper,

Depending on how you define a battlefield "loss", I could provide a LIST of battles lost in Vietnam.
Speaking in generalities is nice, though.

The US was forced to remove troops from Vietnam because they invaded a country they could not hold.
Much like we are doing in Iraq today.

[edit on 20-10-2009 by JayinAR]

reply to post by Amagnon


Nice.

A whole lot of fluff, no substance. A lot of words to say you know nothing, can't back up what you say, and therefore you're so special you have no need to.

Bully for you.

Come on back when you can talk like an adult among us grownups.

Have a nice day.

And please, for heaven's sake, don't give the thread some pointless post about military tactics.
Remember, General Custer was "siouxed" by a bunch of guerilla fighters.

A win is a win no matter how it was gained.

Originally posted by JayinAR

Also, I never said that the CIA created Al Qaeda. It appears you misspoke as well.

This is where I got that from:

Originally posted by JayinAR
So yeah, we in essence, created the modern Al Qaeda movement by getting them a foothold in the region.

Sorry if I misread it.

Originally posted by CanadianDream420

Originally posted by dooper
Anothe mistake of yours on Vietnam. The only invasions occurred in 1972 and in 1975, both by the North Vietnamese. With only 1,500 ground troops during the 1972 invasion, Americans killed 100,000 North Vietnamese. Not bad.

yeah and 50% of them woman and children.........

[edit on 20-10-2009 by CanadianDream420]

50% of 100,000 would be 50,000. Can you explain why 50,000 North Vietnamese women and children were crossing the DMZ with a North Vietnamese military invasion force?