Fanatical Islam

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
User avatar
Oldemandalton
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2226
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by Oldemandalton »

Fairminded
I'll admit, I don't like the thought of nukes in Iran's hands. I'm afraid of nuclear devices in the hands of any of our enemies. Heck, I'm afraid of nuclear devices in the hands of our friends. For that matter, even our own nuclear devices scare me.

I've seen plenty of horror movies of nuclear holocaust, the grisly destruction, the sickness and suffering and death. I've watched documentaries of the aftermath at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The very notion of nuclear weapons is horrifying, and you'd have to be insane not to be afraid of them.

But isn't it equally insane to let that fear lead you to going to war? Like a woman castrating her husband because she's afraid he's molesting the kids, or a man shooting a minority because he's afraid of being mugged. Committing atrocities because you're afraid of something bad happening is an old and familiar evil, and one I don't subscribe to.

Even the scriptures say that letting your fears rule you isn't part of God's plan. 2 Timothy 1:7 reads “For God has not given us a spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.”

The American people have let fear rule them for decades now. We've let fear bring us into unconstitutional wars halfway across the world, we've let fear keep us from protesting as the people in power take away our liberties and blatantly grab power and wealth. We've even let evil men use fear to manipulate us into hating who they want us to hate.

I don't believe God wants us living our lives in fear, or willingly or by inaction allowing atrocities to happen motivated by fears.

I think at this point, OMD, you and I are going to have to agree to disagree. I think you're an honorable man who has a strong love of this country and feels a fierce desire to defend it. I have no desire to get into a personal quarrel with you based on our opinions, and I apologize for any personal attacks I've made in the past. I'll try to keep my eyes open and look at the views you represent fairly in a search for any truth to be found. Let's leave it at that, shall we?
No apologies needed Fairminded. Actually we agree more than disagree. I disagree with the USA’s past meddling in the ME and wish we were oil independent so we could let someone else take care of the mess there. I do not want to start a war with Iran. I do not know what I would do if I was President of the USA. I would use as many black ops, sanctions, and ‘carrots’ as I could to keep the Iranians from getting nuclear weapons. We have been doing this for years and they still persist in build ‘the bomb’. Neither Bush nor Obama have wanted to attack Iran. I don’t blame them. Israel is even worse off. They have been fighting their enemies who want to destroy them for over 60 years and now their most vocal enemy, Iran, and the one who has been the greatest supporter of the terrorists against Israel, is about to get nuclear weapons.

I believe that Israel is being set up with a no win situation to start WW III. Don’t attack Iranian Nuke sites and have Israeli cities targeted with nuclear strikes or do a pre-emptive attack and save their cities but start a regional war which could easily go global. No easy decision. IMO this is the plan of the LDGs.

From what I know right now, if I was President, I would back Israel if they decided to attack the nuke sites OR if they decided to NOT to attack the sites. They have more skin in the game and would lose more of a percentage of their populace than we would if a nuke went off here. If we had a reliable anti-missile shield up over Israel it would make a no-go decision easier. They have Iron Dome which was designed against slower missiles but they aren’t sure it would take out a big ballistic missile. If the Israelis had a defense against Iranian missile then that would be one scenario off the table.

Free and fair elections in Iran would be the best possible solution. The people of Iran are just like you and me and just want to live in peace to raise their families. Unfortunately they have extremists running the show.

User avatar
InfoWarrior82
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10861
Location: "There are 15 on the earth today, you can trust them completely." -President Nelson (Jan 2022)

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by InfoWarrior82 »

Oldemandalton wrote:Kurt Nimmo, who frequently appears on Russian and Iranian news outlets, and mis’InfoWars’ are the ones lying, infowarrior82;

http://www.debka.com/article/21455/

http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/northko ... 00315.HTML

http://www.debka.com/article/21481/

http://www.aijac.org.au/news/article/ia ... -on-a-bomb

http://www.haaretz.com/news/iaea-report ... b-1.263564

Iran is refining fuel at 20% now, only 5% in needed for nuclear power. Only the naïve like Ron Paul or Propagandists like Kurt Nimmo say that Iran has no intentions of making nuclear weapons.

How about you prove that Iran has intentions of making nuclear weapons. Even if they do... you would rather strike them first in a pre-emptive war???

User avatar
Oldemandalton
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2226
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by Oldemandalton »

InfoWarrior
How about you prove that Iran has intentions of making nuclear weapons.
Read the articles InfoWarrior. Move the mouse until the curser is over the link, it will change color to let you know, then left click and read the contents of the article, then move on to the next until you have read them all. =))

Sorry InfoWarrior, I can be a smart aleck at times, ask my wife and kids. ;) Just having a little fun so we don’t get too heated. What we say here on this forum will not affect the election, send war planes to bomb Iran or set off nukes in Tel Aviv. We are just exchanging our world views, my friend. So take a breath and relax OK? :)

User avatar
InfoWarrior82
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10861
Location: "There are 15 on the earth today, you can trust them completely." -President Nelson (Jan 2022)

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by InfoWarrior82 »

Oldemandalton wrote:
InfoWarrior
How about you prove that Iran has intentions of making nuclear weapons.
Read the articles InfoWarrior. Move the mouse until the curser is over the link, it will change color to let you know, then left click and read the contents of the article, then move on to the next until you have read them all. =))

Sorry InfoWarrior, I can be a smart aleck at times, ask my wife and kids. ;) Just having a little fun so we don’t get too heated. What we say here on this forum will not affect the election, send war planes to bomb Iran or set off nukes in Tel Aviv. We are just exchanging our world views, my friend. So take a breath and relax OK? :)

Looks like you got taken to school in the "Why I Can't Vote for Ron Paul" thread on this issue. Go check it out.

(I have read them all, and I read nothing but propaganda.)

User avatar
Oldemandalton
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2226
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by Oldemandalton »

InfoWarrior
Looks like you got taken to school in the "Why I Can't Vote for Ron Paul" thread on this issue. =)) =)) =))
Go check it out.(I have read them all, and I read nothing but propaganda.)
Thanks for making me laugh Infowarrior I needed it. :)

Propaganda? Infowarrior you use InfoWars, Russian and Iranian news site and paid Iranian lobbyists to make your points. Need I say more? :D

User avatar
InfoWarrior82
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10861
Location: "There are 15 on the earth today, you can trust them completely." -President Nelson (Jan 2022)

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by InfoWarrior82 »

Oldemandalton wrote:
InfoWarrior
Looks like you got taken to school in the "Why I Can't Vote for Ron Paul" thread on this issue. =)) =)) =))
Go check it out.(I have read them all, and I read nothing but propaganda.)
Thanks for making me laugh Infowarrior I needed it. :)

Propaganda? Infowarrior you use InfoWars, Russian and Iranian news site and paid Iranian lobbyists to make your points. Need I say more? :D

I want specifics. We've given you specifics which you have yet to refute. Instead, you just say, well that can't be true because it comes from Infowars etc...

User avatar
Oldemandalton
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2226
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by Oldemandalton »

This is a re-post where I answered the Iranian lobyist's propaganda, Infowarrior.
Moonwhim:
Nuclear Standoff
by American Foreign Policy Project =))

Iranian Lobyists! See RISE OF THE IRAN LOBBY
http://bonfiresblog.wordpress.com/tag/a ... y-project/
.


Claim: Iran is messianic, undeterrable and will bring about a nuclear holocaust if it ever gets nuclear weapons.
Response:
No one outside Iran wants to see Iran armed with a nuclear weapon, but this apocalyptic scenario is based on no behavioral evidence whatsoever. The recent history of Iran makes crystal clear that national self-preservation and regional influence - not some quest for martyrdom in the service of Islam - is Iran's main foreign policy goal. For example:

In the 1990s, Iran chose a closer relationship with Russia over support for rebellious Chechen Muslims.
In order to bypass the West’s sanctions on Nuclear Technology so they could build the ‘bomd’.
Iran actively supported and helped to finance the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.

That’s because the Taliban and their harsh treatment of Afghanistan's Shi'a minority and then in 1998 they seized the Iranian consulate in Mazari Sharif and executed Iranian diplomats.

Iran is training insurgents across the border and are supplying them with small arms, heavy weapons and IEDs which are then used to kill American soldiers.


Iran has ceased its efforts to export the Islamic revolution to other Persian Gulf states, in favor of developing good relations with the governments of those states. =)) =))

The Qods Force alone provides substantial material support to the Taliban, Shiite militants in Iraq, Lebanese Hizbullah, Hamas in Gaza, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

Iran has made it government policy with the backing of the military and paramilitary groups to export the Revolution to “Apostate” Arab States. Iran accused the Sunni Gulf states of being “illegal regimes” that were established through the intervention of “arrogant Western imperialism.”


See:IRAN'S “SECOND” ISLAMIC REVOLUTION
http://www.jcpa.org/text/iran_page_44-61.pdf


During the Iran-Iraq War, Iran took the pragmatic step of developing secret ties and trading arms with Israel, even as Iran and Israel denounced each other in public.

Israel also has an industrial military complex. :(
Israel: Manbar Reveals More Weapons Deals with Iran

The Risk Report

Volume 2 Number 4 (July-August 1996)

In an interview with the Israeli newspaper "Ha'aretz," prominent Israeli businessman Nahum Manbar disclosed recently that from 1988-1992 he sold large quantities of weapons and military equipment to Iran, via his Polish-owned companies. According to Manbar, the weapons, including modern Russian tanks and fire-control systems, were sold with the knowledge of the Israeli Ministry of Defense.

Manbar's confession comes on the heels of an article published in the Risk Report (Vol. 1, Issue 5, June 1995) which detailed Manbar's sale of anti-biological and anti-chemical warfare protective suits to Iran and the resulting imposition of sanctions by the U.S. State Department. U.S. government sources also told the Risk Report that Manbar provided material support to Iran's chemical and biological weapon program.
http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countri ... -iran.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Claim: Iran has declared its intention to develop nuclear weapons.1
Response: In fact, Iran has consistently denied that it seeks nuclear weapons and its leaders have even declared such weapons to be "against Islam" (an unnecessary and curious thing for mullahs to say about a weapon they plan someday to unveil). Iran may or may not be seeking nuclear weapons in fact, but it is patently false to claim that they have declared an intention to do so.
Footnotes
1. This argument is heard almost exclusively from neo-con ideologues such as Liz Cheney who have shown little regard to the facts over the years: "I think that the only responsible position as a nation that we can take is, they actually want what they say they want, which is they want a nuclear weapon." CSIS, "Assessing U.S. Policy Towards Iran," Remarks by Elizabeth Cheney, June 26, 2008. [back]

As illustrated in my above post no serious expert, unless in he is on the Iranian payroll like American Foreign Policy Project, Press TV, RT, or naïve like Ron Paul, belives that Iran is not working on nuclear weapons. Why go to the expense of refining nuclear fuel over the required 5%? BECAUSE they want nuclear weapons!

Claim:
Iran is developing a ballistic missile capability, which makes no sense unless Iran plans to mount nuclear warheads on them.
Response:
Even though they are currently inaccurate, ballistic missiles are valued in Iran both as war-fighting tools and deterrents to attack even when armed with purely conventional warheads. The U.S. intelligence community judges that Iran is currently focusing on further developing ballistic missiles which can target other countries in the region, rather than outside of it. Such missiles make strategic sense for conventional warheads as well as non-conventional ones. As experts at the U.S. Air Force-funded Rand Corporation recently observed: "Based on their experience in the Iran-Iraq War—during which exchanges of ballistic missiles caused modest destruction yet had great impact on civilian morale—Iranian leaders appear convinced that ballistic missiles are the most reliable means for attacking deep targets, and that they would have psychological effects disproportionate to their destructive power."1
Iran Commander: We Have Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles

Reza Khalili

Iran has the technological ability to target any point on the planet with an intercontinental ballistic missile should it choose to, according to Brig. Gen. Seyyed Mehdi Farahi of the Revolutionary Guards Corps, who is the director of the Iranian air and space industries.

A recent editorial in the Iranian Keyhan newspaper, the mouthpiece of Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, reports on Iran's ballistic missile technology with a headline "Iran Now Exports Ballistic Missiles."

In the report the general brags about Iran's military might and its ability to simultaneously launch 14 or more rockets with extreme precision. He says that the export of ballistic missiles and the progress in Iran's space program are signs that Iran has achieved the highest levels of military and technological excellence.

Despite international sanctions, the general boasts:

"Today, I proudly announce that an Islamic Iran is not only capable of exporting industrial and defense products but also technology and defense technology as well."

Military experts and analysts who cover Iranian military and defense issues have acknowledged that Iran does in fact have the strongest ballistic missile program in the Middle East and that the low costs of the missiles has in fact taken the ballistic missile market out of the West's hands, the editorial says.

The newspaper cites recent testimony before the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee by the director of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, Lt. Gen. Ronald L. Burgess. "Iran's progress in building ballistic missiles is noticeable, and with the launch of satellites to space it became clear that Iran has succeeded in building intercontinental ballistic missiles," the general testified, according to the paper. The successful launch of the Rasad satellite to space drew the attention of observers and foreign counterparts, the general reportedly testified.

The Safir missile is capable of transporting a satellite into space and indeed a ballistic missile that can reach beyond the earth's gravity into orbit. The missile has twice been vertically shot over the earth's atmosphere, the editorial says, "but if one day Iran decides that this missile should be shot parallel to the earth's orbit, the missile will actually be transformed into an intercontinental ballistic missile (that) has the capability to destroy targets in other continents."

"In other words," the editorial concludes, "the fact that Iran currently possesses technology that can put satellites into orbit means that Iran has also obtained intercontinental ballistic missiles with solid fuel capabilities and that at any moment, this technology can be put to military use."

Iranian officials recently announced that they have successfully developed the necessary technology to build and launch satellites designed to travel in an orbit 21,750 miles above the earth's equator -- and that, in the next few months, they will launch another rocket into space, this time carrying a monkey with a payload of 330 kilograms..

According to Dr. Peter Vincent Pry, a nuclear weapons expert who has served in the CIA, "Historically, if a nation could put a large payload (hundreds of kilograms) into orbit, that has been treated as a milestone signifying that they have a military ICBM capability. We appear to have changed this rule for Iran's space program. If Western analysts today applied the same standards to Iran that we have applied to the USSR and China in the past, we would conclude that Iran already has an ICBM capability.

"It seems that the Obama administration is unwilling to acknowledge this, perhaps not seeing it in its best interest, alluding that it still has time to negotiate," says Pry, who has also served with the EMP Commission and is now president of EMPact America.

The radicals ruling Iran have now passed a major threshold in both their nuclear and missile programs. Barring any military action, which seems unlikely, there is no stopping them.

We only have ourselves to blame as it is now certain that the Jihadists in Tehran will have nuclear bombs with the delivery system to target any country on the planet. Though the West relies on the policy of Mutual Assured Destruction, it will find how wrong this policy is with Iran.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 ... siles.html
See also:Iran’s Ballistic Missile Capabilities(2004)
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... 1bMvVDT_2A

Footnotes
1. Rand Corp., Dangerous But Not Omnipotent: Exploring the Reach and Limitations of Iranian Power in the Middle East (Rand Corporation, 2009), p. 80 [back]


Claim: Iran is insisting on enriching uranium, with no economic justification. That proves Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons.
Response: No, it doesn’t. Iran is building nuclear reactors, which cost a fortune to build but are worthless without fuel. And there is no ironclad way to guarantee a fuel supply if the fuel in question is not located in Iran. Iran recalls that after the Revolution the chief enrichment consortium, Eurodif of France, refused to deliver one gram of fuel to Iran, even though Iran owned 10 percent of the company.1
More to the point, perhaps, all kinds of governments pursue programs for political purposes that lack clear, ex-ante, cost-benefit rationale. Conservatives have complained about this tendency in our own government for decades. In Iran, enrichment has become for Iranians a matter of national entitlement and a source of pride in technological advancement not unlike our own moon landing—supported by reformers and hardliners alike. Five years of Bush Administration ultimatums and Western pressure have made enrichment an ongoing emblem of Iran’s independence and refusal to be cowed. Commercial unprofitability is beside the point.
Many of the people who “just know” that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon are the same people who “just knew” that Saddam Hussein had a nuclear weapons program in 2003. They were wrong. The U.S. intelligence community, which has looked at this issue closely, finds Iran’s intentions on nuclear weapons to be unclear, and possibly not yet determined.
Footnotes
1. Slavin, Bitter Friends, Bosom Enemies (2007), p. 36. [back]
Iranian Lobbyists Propaganda. IAEA says they have tested the devise to implode nuclear material and that they have refined it up to 20% so far which is 400% higher than needed for nuclear power. Only a fool would believe otherwise.
What’s New in the U.N. Nuclear Report?

November 8, 2011 | 9:04pm.

Michael Adler

•What is new in the latest report by the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency about Iran’s controversial nuclear program?

The report takes the U.N. nuclear watchdog's accounting of Iran's nuclear program to a whole new level. It is the first time the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has provided so many details as well as a coherent narrative of how Iran has allegedly done work on learning how to make an atomic bomb.

Among key findings are:

•Iran has continued weaponization work since 2003, despite the U.S. intelligence estimate that Tehran stopped such research at that time
•Iran had a secret project to make enriched uranium
•Iran has designs for how to make the type of uranium metal needed for a bomb. It had also done dry runs, not including nuclear material, on how to make this metal
•Iran may have more advanced plans on how to put a bomb together than previously believed
•Iran had foreign help in working on the detonators needed for an implosion-type nuclear device
•Iran did computer simulations to see if it could make an implosion bomb work. It based this on high-explosive tests using tungsten, a non-nuclear material
•Iran has changed the names and places of organizations doing weapons work in order to avoid detection. But many of the staff members remain the same, including the director of Iran's nuclear weaponization effort, Mohsen Fakhrizadah.
http://iranprimer.usip.org/blog/2011/no ... ear-report
Claim:
Iran pursued covert R&D project on uranium conversion and enrichment that went on for years and was exposed only by an Iranian dissident group in August 2002. Iran then concealed and lied about its nuclear work to the IAEA.

Response:

It is certainly true that Iran initially concealed its program and later lied about it, suggesting that Iran was at least considering pursuing nuclear weapons at one point. It appears to be keeping that option open still. However, since the program was revealed in 2002, Iran is operating in a different environment of very close international scrutiny, making the risks of making a definitive move towards nuclear weapons far more difficult and risky for Iran.

Still, there are significant measures that could be put in place to make international scrutiny tighter and deterrence greater. The task now is to get in place a system of safeguards and surveillance that is so searching and comprehensive that Iran itself detemines that it will not be able to complete a weapons program without being detected early and stopped, thereby persuading Iran that it should satisfy itself with a peaceful nuclear program.

It bears mention that Iran has offered to accept very searching safeguards and surveillance in the context of a comprehensive agreement that respects its basic right to enrich for peaceful use. In fact, it suspended enrichment, accepted enhanced safeguards, and cooperated with the IAEA much more fully during the time (Oct. 2003-May 2005) that it thought there might be the prospect of such an agreement coming to fruition.

The IAEA Director General explains that the Annex is not a secret but rather a working draft not yet sufficiently vetted for publication. Its conclusions are drawn mainly from documents the agency has had in its possession since 2005 , but they serve as a reminder that knowledge of how to make at least a crude nuclear device is widely available . . .

Claim: IAEA has repeatedly declared that it cannot conclude that "there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran."
Response: Making this finding requires proving a negative and the IAEA has set a very high bar for doing so. The Lawyer’s Committee on Nuclear Policy reported in 2006 that the IAEA applies the same “unable to conclude” status to every country that had not accepted the Additional Protocol at that time, and to 40 nations that have accepted it.

This does not mean that Iran's conduct is no more worrisome than the conduct of other countries. It clearly is much more worrisome. The point is simply that lack of proof of innocence is not the same thing as proof of guilt, and a lack of an IAEA declaration of "no undeclared nuclear materials or activities" is not terribly probative in an of itself. The IAEA has declared, repeatedly, that it has found no evidence of Iranian diversion of nuclear material for illicit purposes.

Iran has never stopped it’s nuclear weapons research program and has played the UN like the Keystone Cops they are:

Iran Whitewashing Nuclear Test Site
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/149961

Iran's Nuclear Program
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/inte ... index.html

Claim: Iran has forfeited its right to enrich uranium for any purpose.
Response: This is a popular misconception.1 Like other countries, Iran is entitled under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, and that right has long been understood to encompass enrichment under safeguards.1 Nothing in the NPT or Iran's Safeguards Agreement supports the notion that a country is barred from enriching uranium if it has ever pursued a weapons program, even one halted years ago.

If Iran is willing to honor its legal responsibilities under its Safeguards Agreement and the NPT, there is no principled basis for denying Iran right’s to enrich or demanding that Iran permanently cede that right.
Footnotes
1. See, e.g., Remarks by Sec. of State Hilary Clinton on Meet the Press, July 26, 2009 ("You [Iran] have a right to pursue the peaceful use of civil nuclear power. You do not have a right to obtain a nuclear weapon. You do not have the right to have the full enrichment and reprocessing cycle under your control.") [back]

Why enrich it above the 5% necessary to 20%+?

Claim: Allowing Iran to enrich uranium will set off a nuclear enrichment and arms race in the Middle East.
Response: Iran’s nuclear program predates the Iranian Revolution. Over decades of history, enrichment has become a national industry in Iran and a symbol of independence. None of these circumstances apply to other nations in the region, and there is no commercial incentive to pursue enrichment. In fact, other states in the region have proposed enrichment via multinational consortium. This would both defuse the Iran crisis and set a new standard for a multilateral fuel cycle that would benefit the global nonproliferation regime. If the concern is that Iran’s enriching will cause other nations in the region to want a weapon, we fail to see how allowing Iran to enrich uranium under full safeguards will somehow spark a nuclear arms race when Israel’s bomb has not done so. Israel is far more hated and feared throughout the region than Iran.

No one was worried about a peaceful Iran who was allied with the West getting nuclear power plants. It’s the Fanatical Islamic Twelvers of Iran who want to reshape the Middle East into their mold that worries the West AND the Sunni Arabs in the region.

Claim: If Iran is allowed to accumulate a stockpile of enriched uranium at Natanz, they can seize it at any time and turn it into a bomb. Allowing Iran to enrich at Natanz will let Iran proliferate right under our nose.

Response: Not true. All the material produced at Natanz is low-enriched uranium that is unsuitable for weapons use. It is under IAEA seal and surveillance. And it is all fully accounted for. Any effort to seize or divert this material would be quickly detected and would provoke an international outcry with a very high likelihood of a forceful response, from Israel if not others.

Moreover, converting this low-enriched uranium to weapons-grade form would takes weeks if not months of further enriching, so there would be plenty of time to organize that response. Under these circumstances, a completely clandestine route would seem far more attractive to Iran than any breakout involving safeguarded facilities. Stopping enrichment at Natanz will do nothing to address the clandestine risk, and may well increase it by driving enrichment underground. Iran itself seems to realize the risk of using Natanz for a weaons program. That is likely why it constructed the Qom facility.

More propaganda! Again I repeat that only 5% of enriched uranium is needed to fuel a power plant. 20% CAN be used in a crude weapon but Iran is refining above that.

Iran Produces More 20% Pure Uranium

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/150420

Claim: Diplomacy has been tried. Iran won't negotiate in good faith on its nuclear program, unless we either impose or credibly threaten it with really tough econonomic sanctions.
Response:
Actually, diplomacy with the United States has not been tried. It is sanctions that have been tried and failed. For five years until nearly the end of its term, the Bush Administration refused to talk to Iran at all about nuclear issues -- because Iran would not comply with U.S. demands that it first suspend all enrichment. This strategy merely squandered time: while the U.S. sat silent, Iran continued to enrich.

It is true that the Europeans talked to Iran, and they didn’t make much progress. But this is hardly surprising. Without the United States – the world’s sole superpower and Iran’s chief nemesis – at the table, why should Iran give its best offer to Britain, France and Germany? They would just pocket Iran’s concession, which would become the starting point for later talks with the United States. more
Real diplomacy on this issue has not been tried, not by the United States, until Fall 2009. What has been tried is sanctions, and everyone agrees they have failed to achieve our objectives. They may well have set us back by galvanizing Iranian resistance. More of the same is not going to produce different results, and escalating the confrontation with a campaign for "crippling sanctions" will not only fail but backfire.
Footnotes
1. Following is the relevant text of the P5+1 offer to Iran as conveyed on June 16, 2008, largely reiterating a 2006 offer: “. . . the elements below [including support for light-water reactors, fuel supply guarantees and other incentives] are proposed as topics for negotiations between [the P5+1 countries and Iran], as long as Iran verifiably suspends its enrichment related and reprocessing activities . . .” (emphasis supplied). On any fair reading, this is not a specific offer so much as an outline for a negotiated settlement, discussion of which could not start until Iran had first met the Bush Administration’s precondition for talks: Iran must first suspend all enrichment immediately. This for Iran was a poison pill, whether intended as such or not.

This would all end if Iran cooperates fully with the IAEA and discontinue its refinement process beyond 5%.

http://americanforeignpolicy.org/iran-k" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... %A0%C2%A0

American Foreign Policy Project are paid lobyists of the Iranian Government!
See RISE OF THE IRAN LOBBY
http://bonfiresblog.wordpress.com/tag/a ... y-project/

User avatar
InfoWarrior82
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10861
Location: "There are 15 on the earth today, you can trust them completely." -President Nelson (Jan 2022)

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by InfoWarrior82 »

OMD, you have said previously that you believe the LDGs want to go to war with Iran. Why, then, are you buying into all of the mainstream propaganda which tells us why we should go to war with Iran? You already said we shouldn't go to war pre-emptively. Why do you support candidates who would go to war pre-emptively? It seems like you are actually ideologically closer to Ron Paul than anyone else, but just want Ron Paul to talk tough on Iran. You want more rhetoric. You have not addressed this yet:

So, what makes Ron Paul stand out among all other Republican candidates with regards to Iran?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but everyone else supports the idea of pre-emptively striking Iran. So, if you personally DO NOT want to pre-emptively strike Iran, why would you vote for anyone who does?

If any of the front runners DO NOT support a pre-emptive strike on Iran, then doesn't it really all come down to just "talkin' tough" on Iran? Do you just want someone who "talks tough"?


So.. China has nuclear weapons... North Korea has nuclear weapons... are we the police of the world with them? Why haven't we gone in to take them out? I know this may sound wacky... but... what in the world gives us the right to tell another sovereign nation that they can't have nuclear weapons? Does might make right?

You may think I'm drinking the kool aid from certain groups, but I'd rather side with people giving me reasons not to go to war than listen to people telling me that we should go to war.

Here are some wonderful comments made already in a different thread:
5tev3 wrote:
Obiwan wrote:
5tev3 wrote:Offensive war is never justified and is forbidden by Jesus Christ.

Mormon 3:14 "And when they had sworn by all that had been forbidden them by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, that they would go up unto their enemies to battle, and avenge themselves of the blood of their brethren..."

I wrote a whole article on the topic here.
Problem with your judgment is you quote mine the scripture to fit your own ideology, instead of considering the full context, and you also compare apples and oranges as if the circumstances are exactly the same when they aren't. Not only that, but you add to scripture trying to claim a one size fits all ideology, instead of considering the context itself.

Take for example the verse above. You entirely rip it out of it's context, the context being that the Nephites were actually "wicked" at the time, and Mormon didn't want to lead such a people another time because they hadn't repented.

See, the problem with people like you, is if your liberal ideology is consistent, we wouldn't have went to war against Germany or Japan.
After all, no need to go to them, let them come to us. People like you, we wouldn't have helped South Korea, and today the South would likely be just like the North is now. Oh.... Aren't you so RIGHTEOUS!

Sorry, but your liberalism is of the devil, not God.... Your views are perversion. Only the devil would want the wicked of the world to be left alone, becoming stronger and stronger, destroying the lives of the innocent. You sir, are not of God.... Repent.
I think you will find if you analyze the scriptures in context you will discover that it is quite consistent with my point. Mormon doesn't cease leading the Nephites because they were wicked, he forbids to lead the Nephites specifically because they decide to wage a war of aggression against the Lamanites. “And it came to pass that I utterly refused to go up against mine enemies; and I did even as the Lord had commanded me; and I did stand as an idle witness to manifest unto the world the things which I saw and heard,” (Mormon 3:16)

If it was because they were wicked then why did he go back to leading them again later when they were still wicked? Answer: because they had ceased going up unto their enemies and had reverted back to only defending themselves. In chapter 5 Mormon even repeatedly notes that it was always the Lamanites that came against them:

…the Lamanites did come against us as we had fled… (Mormon 5:3)
…they came against us again… (Mormon 5:4)
…the Lamanites did come again against us to battle… (Mormon 5:6)

I don't believe that you even read my entire article.

I don't know what you mean by "liberal" either. I don't consider myself a "liberal" or a "conservative" or any other divisive, meaningless, label since their meanings are polluted and both existing flavors of "liberal" and "conservative" factions are war-like and bloodthirsty people fueled by a corrupt red and blue headed party that masquerades as two distinct entities. Name-calling evidences that you do not understand an issue well enough to present your ideas properly.

I invite you to try reading the article again with an open mind and view the scriptures in their context. I'm quite confident that you will find that not only does the Lord never command his people to go out unto their enemies, the Book of Mormon provides many wonderful alternatives to dealing with enemies rather than destroying them.

Note that I believe, along with the scriptures, that we are fully justified in DEFENDING ourselves unto bloodshed but only as our enemies come against us. I'm not trying to promote myself as being "holier-than-thou" as you seem to imply, I am just trying to point out that your position is the opposite of what Book of Mormon and the founding fathers teach. It IS a one-size-fits-all ideology. You never go up against your enemies.

“they had sworn by all that had been forbidden them by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, that they would go up unto their enemies to battle, and avenge themselves of the blood of their brethren…”

Let’s refer back to President Kimball’s assessment of us: "We are a warlike people, easily distracted from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord. When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel—ships, planes, missiles, fortifications—and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become antienemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan’s counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior’s teaching: “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; “That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven.” (Matt. 5:44–45.)

Consider the words Ammon: "For they said unto us: Do ye suppose that ye can bring the Lamanites to the knowledge of the truth? Do ye suppose that ye can convince the Lamanites of the incorrectness of the traditions of their fathers, as stiffnecked a people as they are; whose hearts delight in the shedding of blood; whose days have been spent in the grossest iniquity; whose ways have been the ways of a transgressor from the beginning? Now my brethren, ye remember that this was their language. And moreover they did say: Let us take up arms against them, that we destroy them and their iniquity out of the land, lest they overrun us and destroy us. But behold, my beloved brethren, we came into the wilderness not with the intent to destroy our brethren, but with the intent that perhaps we might save some few of their souls." – Alma 26:24-26
Last edited by InfoWarrior82 on January 2nd, 2012, 4:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Fairminded
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1956

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by Fairminded »

InfoWarrior82 wrote:OMD, you have said previously that you believe the LDGs want to go to war with Iran. Why, then, are you buying into all of the mainstream propaganda which tells us why we should go to war with Iran? You already said we shouldn't go to war pre-emptively. Why do you support candidates who would go to war pre-emptively? It seems like you are actually ideologically closer to Ron Paul than anyone else, but just want Ron Paul to talk tough on Iran. You want more rhetoric. You have not addressed this yet:

So, what makes Ron Paul stand out among all other Republican candidates with regards to Iran?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but everyone else supports the idea of pre-emptively striking Iran. So, if you personally DO NOT want to pre-emptively strike Iran, why would you vote for anyone who does?

If any of the front runners DO NOT support a pre-emptive strike on Iran, then doesn't it really all come down to just "talkin' tough" on Iran? Do you just want someone who "talks tough"?


So.. China has nuclear weapons... North Korea has nuclear weapons... are we the police of the world with them? Why haven't we gone in to take them out? I know this may sound wacky... but... what in the world gives us the right to tell another sovereign nation that they can't have nuclear weapons? Does might make right?

You may think I'm drinking the kool aid from certain groups, but I'd rather side with people giving me reasons not to go to war than listen to people telling me that we should go to war.
It's interesting to see just how deeply propaganda sets in on a subconscious level. I've talked to plenty of people who seem to instinctively dislike Ron Paul without being able to explain why. I go through Ron Paul's positions on major issues with them and they often agree with him on every point, and then stubbornly insist that they don't like his policies or they think he's a joke.

The media's casual dismissal of him, where they're not openly mocking him or attacking him, while they concurrently lavish praise on the other candidates, seems to get into people's heads. Even those who try to dig deeper and not take things at face value.

I guess if the MDGs weren't so good at manipulation they wouldn't be in a position of such expansive power, so it stands to reason they know how to lead people's opinions.

User avatar
moonwhim
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4251

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by moonwhim »

Fairminded wrote:
InfoWarrior82 wrote:OMD, you have said previously that you believe the LDGs want to go to war with Iran. Why, then, are you buying into all of the mainstream propaganda which tells us why we should go to war with Iran? You already said we shouldn't go to war pre-emptively. Why do you support candidates who would go to war pre-emptively? It seems like you are actually ideologically closer to Ron Paul than anyone else, but just want Ron Paul to talk tough on Iran. You want more rhetoric. You have not addressed this yet:

So, what makes Ron Paul stand out among all other Republican candidates with regards to Iran?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but everyone else supports the idea of pre-emptively striking Iran. So, if you personally DO NOT want to pre-emptively strike Iran, why would you vote for anyone who does?

If any of the front runners DO NOT support a pre-emptive strike on Iran, then doesn't it really all come down to just "talkin' tough" on Iran? Do you just want someone who "talks tough"?


So.. China has nuclear weapons... North Korea has nuclear weapons... are we the police of the world with them? Why haven't we gone in to take them out? I know this may sound wacky... but... what in the world gives us the right to tell another sovereign nation that they can't have nuclear weapons? Does might make right?

You may think I'm drinking the kool aid from certain groups, but I'd rather side with people giving me reasons not to go to war than listen to people telling me that we should go to war.
It's interesting to see just how deeply propaganda sets in on a subconscious level. I've talked to plenty of people who seem to instinctively dislike Ron Paul without being able to explain why. I go through Ron Paul's positions on major issues with them and they often agree with him on every point, and then stubbornly insist that they don't like his policies or they think he's a joke.

The media's casual dismissal of him, where they're not openly mocking him or attacking him, while they concurrently lavish praise on the other candidates, seems to get into people's heads. Even those who try to dig deeper and not take things at face value.

I guess if the MDGs weren't so good at manipulation they wouldn't be in a position of such expansive power, so it stands to reason they know how to lead people's opinions.
As I think I have stated here before, every "conservative" talk show host on the major media is against Ron Paul and supporting the Mid-East Wars. Most people listen to these talk show hosts and hear the same thing as they go from one talk show host to the next so they think that must be true.....and thus that is how they think.

User avatar
moonwhim
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4251

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by moonwhim »

US Officials Created al Qaeda: originally posted on this forum at http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopi ... 72#p248572" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Radio Liberty Newsletter
April 2002
Dr Stanley Monteith

Most Americans believe we live in a free and open society. If that's true, why do government officials conceal information about past events? Why are many of the files that deal with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor still classified? Why is most of the information that the Warren Commission compiled still secret? Why haven't we been told the truth about the origin of the Afghan war and al Qaeda?

Everyone knows about the terrorist attack last September, but very few people know that during the 1980s and 1990s the U.S. Agency for International Development (AID) indoctrinated several hundred thousand Muslim children in Islamic fundamentalism, violence, and hatred of infidels. [6] When those children grew up, some of them became Taliban soldiers, and some of them joined al Qaeda. Very few people know that American Special Forces soldiers, British mercenaries, and Israeli soldiers were required to swear "draconian secrecy oaths" before they were sent to the Middle East to train the mujahideen during the Afghan war. [7]

James Cooley writes for the Christian Science Monitor. His book, Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism, reveals several of the best-kept secrets of modern times. The KMS, a British mercenary organization, provided the British contingent sent to Afghanistan:

"KMS was formed in 1974; . . . Members boasted that it had trained and equipped 'full-sized regiments' of mercenaries; though draconian secrecy oaths like those imposed on American Special Forces trainers prevented, under extremely severe penalties, its members from discussing its role in the Afghan jihad." (Italics added-ed) [8]
"What is certain is that of all the members of the anti-Soviet coalition, the Israelis have been the most successful in concealing the details and even the broad traces of a training role; much more than the Americans and British, despite the draconian secrecy oaths imposed on them by the Pentagon, Langley and Whitehall." (Italics added-ed) [9]

Why were our soldiers forced to swear draconian secrecy oaths? To prevent the American people from learning about our involvement in the Afghan war.

How did the Afghan war come about? Zbigniew Brzezinski represents the interests of the Anglo-American Establishment and the Rockefeller family. [10] He was President Carter's National Security Advisor when the Afghan war began. Zbigniew Brzezinski precipitated the conflict, and lied about what happened. James Cooley writes:

"Zbigniew Brzezinski stage-manag[ed] U.S. covert aid to the moujahidin. . . . Until January 1998, Brzezinski had insisted to all questioners and researchers, including this author, that the official U.S. histories of the Afghanistan war were correct: CIA aid to the Islamic fighters had begun only when President Carter, in December 1979, issued a presidential finding on covert action to supply them with "lethal" weapons through the Pakistani authorities, in order to harass Soviet occupation troops in Afghanistan." [11]

The Afghan war ended in 1989. Nine years later, during an interview with a French magazine, Brzezinski revealed what happened:

"During the summer of 1979 . . . National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, got Carter to sign a secret directive for covert aid to the . . . moujahidin." [12]
". . . the first covert CIA aid to the Afghan resistance fighters was actually authorized fully six months before the Soviet invasion - in July 1979, as the Communist govern- ment in Kabul was beginning to lose control of the country. Brzezinski added, 'I wrote a note to the President in which I explained to him that in my opinion, this aid would result in military intervention by the Soviets.'" [13]

Zbigniew Brzezinski stage-managed our foreign policy from 1977 to 1981. He knew that American aid to the mujahideen would lead to Soviet intervention and draw us into a bloody conflict. After reading Brzezinski's book, The Grand Chessboard, I'm convinced he planned a series of battles in the Middle East. America is going to war with Iraq, and may go to war with other countries in that region. If we defeat the Arab nations, the Rockefellers and their friends will control the oil reserves of Central Asia, and dominate the world. [14]

Last month I discussed the orchestrated effort to convince the American people there will be other terrorist attacks. They will occur, but not for the reasons we're being led to believe. I also noted that Richard Labeviere, the author of Dollars for Terror, claims that the CIA, the Saudis, Pakistani Intelligence, and some U.S. agencies created the Islamic terrorist movement. The March letter concluded with quotations from two foreign publications that claim Mohammed Atta, who led the September 11 attack, received $100 thousand at the behest of Lt. Gen. Mahmud Ahmad, the Director of Pakistani Intelligence. The publications claim General Ahmad was in Washington, D.C. on September 11 conferring with high-ranking U.S. officials.

How did we create the Islamic terrorist movement? Joe Stephens and David B. Ottaway write for The Washington Post. They researched the textbooks that the Agency for International Development (AID) provided Afghan schoolchildren between 1984 and 1994. The textbooks promoted radical Islamic belief, militancy, violence, hatred of foreigners, and jihad. They are still being used in Afghan and Pakistani schools today. The authors write:


"In the twilight of the Cold War, the United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings. . . . The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system's core curriculum.
. . . the United States is . . . now . . . wrestling with the unintended consequences of its successful strategy of stirring Islamic fervor to fight communism. What seemed like a good idea in the context of the Cold War is being criticized by humanitarian workers as a crude tool that steeped a generation in violence." [15]

The textbooks taught mathematics using weapons to represent numbers; children were taught to hate "foreign invaders":

"Children were taught to count with illustrations showing tanks, missiles and land mines . . . it also suited U.S. interests to stoke hatred of foreign invaders. . . . The pictures [in] the texts are horrendous to school students, but the texts are even much worse. . . . One page from the texts of that period shows a resistance fighter with a bandolier and a Kalashnikov slung from his shoulder. The soldier's head is missing. Above the soldier is a verse from the Koran. Below is a Pashtu tribute to the mujaheddin, who are described as obedient to Allah. Such men will sacrifice their wealth and life itself to impose Islamic law on the government. . . ." [16]
The Afghan war ended in 1989, but AID officials continued to provide the textbooks until 1994.

". . . the textbooks were developed in the early 1980s under an AID grant to the University of Nebraska-Omaha and its Center for Afghanistan Studies. The agency spent $51 million on the university's education programs in Afghanistan from 1984 to 1994. . . . AID dropped funding of Afghan programs in 1994. But the textbooks continued to circulate in various versions, even after the Taliban seized power in 1996." [17]
The textbooks we are sending to Afghanistan and Pakistan today contain the same militant Islamic message, although American law prohibits AID officials from using our tax money to promote religious belief.

"AID officials say in interviews that they left the Islamic materials intact because they feared Afghan educators would reject books lacking a strong dose of Muslim thought. The agency removed its logo and any mention of the U.S. government from the religious texts. . . .
The AID spokeswoman stated: 'It's not AID's policy to support religious instruction,' . . . . But we went ahead with this project because the primary purpose . . . is to educate children, which is predominantly a secular activity.

Even in January (of 2002 - ed), the books were absolutely the same . . . pictures of bullets and Kalashnikovs and you name it." [18]

The CIA printed copies of the Koran in Virginia during the 1980s, and financed both Iraq and Iran during the Iraq-Iran war. John Cooley writes:

"Iran was encouraging a Muslim religious revival in Soviet Central Asia. The Khomeiny regime assisted wide and illegal dissemination of the Koran - whether using the CIA's Korans printed in Virginia, or Iranian ones, is not known - in the Central Asian republics. Yes, the Iranians said, we are training volunteers and arming them for the jihad. When Ollie North asked if the supply of American TOW anti-tank missiles would make a difference in the fighting, the Iranians replied that they were willing to set aside 200 TOWs for the Afghans out of every 1,000 the U.S. sent in order to buy freedom for the American hostages." [19]
James Cooley described the funding of the Islamic movement during the Afghan war:

"The funding . . . included a bizarre, often improvized mixture of "black" and therefore unaccountable budgets: 'charitable' donations in the United States and Europe: the frantic profligacy of Saudi Arabians and other Arabs in the oil states. . . . The reliance of the CIA and its allies on the crooked machinations of the biggest international criminal bank ever known: the fabulous profits of drug lords, and the usually unexceptionable generosity of U.S. Congressmen with the funds of the American taxpayer." [20]
Who created the Islamic terrorist movement? I will summarize what is known, but most of the information is classified and unavailable.

1979: Zbigniew Brzezinski toppled the Shah of Iran, brought the Ayatollah Khomeini to power, and financed the mujahideen which precipitated the Afghan war. Saddam Hussein became President of Iraq and began receiving American aid.

The early 1980s: The Reagan Administration sent Special Forces units to Afghanistan to train the mujahideen, and authorized $51 million for textbooks that were designed to indoctrinate Muslim children in Wahhabism. Later in the decade Pakistan established 20-30,000 Islamic schools and seminaries where Muslims were indoctrinated in radical Islamic belief.

During the 1980s: Osama bin Laden worked for the CIA and helped the United States force the Soviets to withdraw their troops from Afghanistan. The Afghan war ended in 1989. The United States supplied both Iran and Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war.

1990: The American Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, assured Saddam Hussein that the United States wouldn't intervene if he invaded Kuwait. That led to the Gulf War. The United States defeated the Iraqi army in a few days, and left Saddam Hussein in power. [21]

1994: When the United States withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989, chaos followed. Warlords fought one another, banditry became commonplace, one-third to one-half the people fled the country, and most major cities became rubble. To counter the havoc we helped create:

". . . two Islamic powers, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, allied with the 'world's only remaining superpower,'" the United States, had by 1994 hatched a monster of Islamist extremism, the Taliban movement. The first Taliban were mainly students of religious seminaries, armed by Pakistan and some of the Afghan guerrilla groups. For a time, they brought some order and stability to regions ravaged by warlords and bandits. The price paid by the remains of Afghan society, however, was horrendous." [22]
The United States helped Saudi Arabia and Pakistan create the Taliban; we financed the Taliban, and we destroyed the Taliban.

U.S. officials convinced Saudi leaders they must allow the United States to station troops in their country to protect them from Saddam Hussein. The presence of infidels living close to Mecca and Medina horrified Osama bin Laden and turned him, and members of al Qaeda, against the Saudi government and the United States. Fifteen of the nineteen terrorists who attacked America were Saudi citizens. They were recruited overseas, probably financed by Pakistani Intelligence, trained to fly airliners in the United States, and monitored by someone in our intelligence community. The FBI knew the identity of every terrorist, and a great deal about many of them, within 48 hours of the attack. Some of the information must have been collected before the attack. [23]

Several foreign publications claim that the terrorists were financed by Pakistani Intelligence (ISI) which is a surrogate of the CIA. That charge must be investigated. If it is true, we can expose the people who are responsible for the attack. [24]

Last month I commented on the orchestrated effort to frighten the American people. When Benjamin Netanyahu visited the United States in April 2002, he warned:

"The terror Israel faces on a daily basis will come to the United States if it isn't extinguished. Suicide bombers . . . will come to America's coffee shops and tourist attractions, if they aren't stopped on the West Bank. 'The longer we wait, the more explosive the Middle East becomes.'" [25]
If there are thousands of terrorists and suicide bombers in the United States, why haven't there been more terrorist attacks? You must watch the movie, Wag The Dog. Dustin Hoffman plays the part of a media consultant who is hired to convince the public that the United States is at war. There's a great deal of similarity between that story and what's happening today.

Our reality is being stage-managed. Congress created The United States Commission on National Security/21st Century in 1997. Ten of the fourteen commissioners are members of the Council on Foreign Relations, so their conclusions mirror the CFR's position. Their Phase I Report was released September 15, 1999, two years before the terrorist attack on America. It states:

"Notable among these new threats is the prospect of an attack on U.S. cities by independent or state-supported terrorists using weapons of mass destruction . . . we may not easily recognize many of the threats in our future. . . . They may consist . . . of unannounced attacks by subnational groups using genetically engineered pathogens against American cities." [26]
How can terrorists obtain "genetically engineered pathogens"? They can't. The only source of those pathogens is one of our military laboratories or the CIA. The Establishment is using the threat of Islamic terrorism to justify enactment of draconian laws. The most ominous legislation is the Model Emergency Health Powers Act (MEHPA) which has been introduced in 36 states, and is currently being considered in 7 other states. MEHPA gives state governors the authority to force people to be vaccinated if they believe there is a "public health emergency." Those who refuse vaccination can be charged with a misdemeanor, imprisoned, fined, isolated, and quarantined. Under the emergency statutes, the state can collect blood and DNA samples from citizens without their consent. [27]

Media pundits claim terrorists may disseminate smallpox or anthrax, but smallpox is handled by vaccinating those who have been in contact with infected people, and anthrax isn't spread from person to person. What's the real agenda behind the coordinated effort to enact MEHPA? It has nothing to do with the events of September 11, 2001, because the CDC's consultants at Georgetown and Johns Hopkins University began writing the Bill in 1999, two years before the terrorist attack. [28]

The World Health Organization used tetanus immunization to sterilize women in the Philippines and Africa; the Army gave some of our soldiers experimental vaccines before sending them to Saudi Arabia in 1990. Many of them were forced to take experimental medicines during the Gulf War. [29] Between two and three hundred thousand Gulf War veterans are currently ill, and thousands of them have died. [30] A cohort of homosexuals in San Francisco took Hepatitis B vaccine shots in the late 1970s. Seventy-seven percent of them developed AIDS, and most of them are dead. [31] Most of the African countries that took our vaccines are currently devastated by AIDS. Could that happen here? [32] Remember Jacques Cousteau's lament:

"It's terrible to have to say this. World population must be stabilized and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. This is so horrible to contemplate that we shouldn't even say it. But the general situation in which we are involved is lamentable." [33]
Many world leaders agree with Jacques Cousteau. I don't know why they want MEHPA enacted, but I won't take their mandatory vaccines, and neither should you. I will address MEHPA and mandatory vaccination next month.

Stanley Monteith, M.D.

REFERENCES

1. John Cooley, Unholy Wars, Pluto Press, Virginia, 1999, p. 19.
2. Joe Stephens and David Ottaway, "Teaching ABC's and Jihad," The Washington Post National Weekly Edition, April 1-7, 2002, p. 14.
3. Mark Green, "Making Israel's Case to America," The Daily Oklahoman, April 12, 2002.
4. New World Coming: American Security/21st Century, Phase I Report on the Emerging Global Security Environment, Sept 15, 1999, pp. 1-2.
5. Bahgat Elnadi and Adel Rifaat, Interview with Jacques Cousteau, The UNESCO Courier, November, 1991, p. 8.
6. Stephens and Ottaway, op cit.
7. Cooley, op. cit., pp. 95 and 101.
8. Ibid., pp. 95-6.
9. Ibid., p. 101.
10. Barry Goldwater, With No Apologies, William Morrow and Company, Inc., New York, 1979, p. 280.
11. Cooley, op. cit., p. 19.
12. Ibid., p. 13.
13. Ibid., p. 19.
14. Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, Basic Books, 1997.
15. Stephens and Ottaway, op. cit.
16. Ibid.
17. Ibid.
18. Ibid.
19. Cooley, op. cit., p. 106.
20. Ibid.
21. Pierre Salinger, Eric Laurent, Secret Dossier, Penguin Books, 1991, p. 59.
22. Cooley, op. cit., p. 3.
23. David Firestone and Dana Canedy, "After the Attacks: The Suspects; F.B.I. Documents Detail the Movements of 19 Men Believed to Be Hijackers," The New York Times, September 15, 2001, p. 1.
24. Manoj Joshi, "India helped FBI Trace ISI-terrorist Links," The Times of India Online, October 9, 2001.
25. Mark Green, op cit.
26. New World Coming, op. cit.
27. Twila Brase, RN, "CDC's Model State Emergency Health Powers Act Goes Too Far," Medical Sentinel, Spring 2002, Volume 7, Number 1, p. 25.
28. Radio Liberty interview with Camille Giglio, April 15, 2002.
29. For information on the WHO program to sterilize women, contact the Population Research Institute, P.O. Box 1559, Front Royal, VA, 22630: See also: My interview with Dr. Karanja, St. Joseph Radio, May 6: For information on Gulf War Illness, see: Is Military Research Hazardous to Veterans' Health? Lessons Spanning Half A Century, Staff Report Prepared for the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, United States Senate, December 8, 1994, pp. 10-15. Available from Radio Liberty.
30. www. gulfwarvets.com.
31. Personal communication with Dr. Donald Francis.
32. Leonard Horowitz, Emerging Viruses, Tetrahedron Publishing Group, 1996. See Also: Lecture by Dr. Karanja, PRI Conference, Santa Clara, April, 6, 2001.
33. Jacques Cousteau interview, op cit.

User avatar
moonwhim
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4251

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by moonwhim »

More on US Officials Created al Qaeda

May - June 2004 Radio Liberty Newsletter
Dr Stanley Monteith

Most people think they know what happened on September 11 because they watched the unfolding drama on television and saw the Twin Towers collapse over and over and over again. The controlled media claims the hijackers entered the United States because our immigration system is inefficient, the intelligence community wasn't watching the hijackers, the FBI didn't know the terrorists were learning to fly, the Clinton administration erected a wall that kept FBI agents from talking to one another, and the intelligence community didn't have sufficient funds to monitor domestic terrorism. None of the statements are true, but most people believe them because the media repeats the lies over and over again.

To understand what happened that Tuesday morning, you must understand "jihad," the sixth tenet of the Muslim faith. The term denotes "a holy war." Muhammad used terrorism, violence, murder, rape and pillage to spread his religion; his followers continued those practices for over a thousand years. [4] Why did Muhammad advocate violence? He believed he was demon possessed, and received messages from Satan. [5] The Ayatollah Khomeini told his followers to kill Salman Rushdie because he wrote "The Satanic Verses." Craig Winn discusses the Muslim faith in his well-researched book, Prophet of Doom. It is available from Radio Liberty. [6]

The violent nature of Islam moderated during the last half of the nineteenth century, and most of the twentieth century, because most Muslims want to live in peace, raise their families, improve their living standards, and prosper. The only groups that advocated the resumption of jihad were the Wahhabi clerics in Saudi Arabia, members of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the Ayatollahs in Iran and Iraq, and several small terrorist organizations. The Middle East was fairly stable until February 1979 when U.S. officials deposed the Shah of Iran and brought the Ayatollah Khomeini to power. I still remember my amazement when I realized the U.S. had destroyed a friendly regime and replaced it with an Islamic regime that was dedicated to the destruction of Western Civilization. [7]

Sheikh Abd al-Qadir as-Sufi ad-Darqawi, who lived in the United Kingdom at that time, announced:


"We are at war. And our battle has only just begun. Our first victory will be one tract of land somewhere in the world that is under the complete rule of Islam. . . . Islam is moving across the earth. . . . Nothing can stop it from spreading in Europe and America." [8]
President Carter's administration provided the "tract of land" Islam needed to promote the resurgence of jihad. Why did the U.S. destabilize the Middle East and install a regime that was hostile to our way of life? Many years later I realized Zbigniew Brzezinski, who controlled U.S. foreign policy at that time, and the "dark force" he represents, wanted an enemy they could control . . . and eventually defeat because they understood the wisdom of Plato's dictum:


"When the tyrant has disposed of foreign enemies by conquest or treaty, and there is nothing to fear from them, then he is always stirring up some war or other, in order that the people may require a leader." [9]
Shortly after the U.S. turned Iran over to the Ayatollah Khomeini's regime, Ayatollah Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr explained their dilemma:


"The world as it is today is how others have shaped it. . . . We have two choices: either to accept it with submission, which means letting Islam die, or to destroy it, so that we can construct the world as Islam requires." [10]
The Ayatollah Khomeini discussed their plan:


"We must strive to export our revolution throughout the world, and must abandon all idea of not doing so, for not only does Islam refuse to recognize any difference between Muslim countries, it is the champion of all oppressed people. Moreover, all the powers are intent on destroying us, and if we remain surrounded in a closed circle, we shall certainly be defeated. We must make plain our stance toward the powers and the superpowers and demonstrate to them that, despite the arduous problems that burden us, our attitude to the world is dictated by our beliefs." [11]
Yossef Bodansky, who wrote Target America and Target the West, explained the Islamic movement:


"The Shi'ites of Iran and Lebanon saw themselves as the vanguard of this struggle, launching an all-out Jihad to destroy the existing world order and political culture through international terrorism. From the very beginning, international terrorism was considered a legitimate instrument in Islam's war against the West." [12]
Khomeini organized "HizbAllah" (Army of God), gathered intelligence, promoted revolution, and coordinated terrorist activities throughout the world. Iran joined forces with the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), Syria, and Libya. In June 1982 they sent delegates to "The International Conference of the World Center for Resistance of Imperialism, Zionism, Racism, Reaction, and Fascism." Yossef Bodansky described the meeting:


"Representatives from 240 organizations in 80 countries took part in this gathering. An executive committee was established by Libya, Iran, Syria, Cuba and Benin (which was soon replaced by North Korea -ed) . . . Qaddafi praised all those revolutionaries 'who are going to follow the Vietnamese and Nicaraguan precedents and destroy the bases of U.S. Fascism.'" [13]
Iran built camps where thousands of recruits were trained to attack the infrastructure of the West: graduates were sent to the U.S., Canada, and western Europe where many of them live today. Several camps taught recruits how to hijack commercial airliners and crash them into buildings. Yossef Bodansky described a camp that was established in the mid-1980s:


"The entire Western-built airport was given over to the terrorist training program. The latest Western airport equipment was purchased and transferred to the training facility. Iran Air maintained a Boeing 707 and a Boeing 727 jet in the airport, and could send a Boeing 747 for special classes. . . . One of the exercises included having an Islamic Jihad detachment seize (or hijack) a transport aircraft. Then, trained air crews from among the terrorists would crash the airliner with its passengers into a selected objective. Other exercises included the storming of terminals and parked aircraft for the capture of hostages and the inflicting of massive casualties." [14]
U.S. officials knew about the Iranian plan to hijack our airliners and crash them into buildings, but didn't intervene. Why? They knew Iran, the PLO, Syria, Lybia, Cuba, East Germany, Bulgaria, North Korea, and the Soviets were training terrorists to attack the West, but concealed the information from the American people. Why? [15]

In 1982, when the Israeli army invaded Lebanon and was about to destroy the PLO force that attacked northern Israel, the U.S. intervened, demanded a cease fire, and helped evacuate the terrorist army to Tunisia where they were refitted and rearmed. Why did U.S. officials protect PLO terrorists? [16]

A task force of Syrian, Iranian, PLO, and Soviet intelligence officers planned the bombing of the American Embassy in Beirut on April 18, 1983. [17] Sixty-three people were killed, seventeen were Americans. When the U.S. didn't retaliate, the group orchestrated the attack on the Marine barracks that killed 245 Americans and 58 French soldiers, and wounded 146 Marines and 15 French soldiers. [18] Robert Baer's book, See No Evil, reveals CIA officials knew about the terrorists' plan to bomb our embassy several months before it happened, but didn't intervene. Robert Baer wrote:


"The Islamic Republic of Iran had declared a secret war against the United States, and the United States had chosen to ignore it." [19]
Why?

Dozens of attacks followed. Since most of them took place in Europe and the Middle East, very few were reported in the U.S. press. Why? [20]

On June 1, 1985, three Islamic radicals hijacked TWA Flight 847, and murdered an American serviceman. They wanted to crash the airliner into the Israeli Knesset, but the flight crew thwarted their plan. The U.S. sent a Delta Force team that negotiated the release of the hostages; they let the hijackers blow up the plane and escape. U.S. officials offered a $5 million reward for the hijackers. One of them was arrested in January 1987, the other two remain free. Why? [21]

Christian Zimmerman, the flight engineer on TWA Flight 847, told the FBI and the CIA about the terrorists' plan to crash the airliner into the Israeli Knesset. MSNBC reported:


"Zimmerman says he gave all this information to the FBI and the CIA in lengthy debriefings." [22]
In October 1985 four members of a terrorist group led by Abu Abbas hijacked the Achille Lauro cruise ship, killed a disabled American tourist, and threw his body overboard. A Special Forces team captured Abu Abbas and the hijackers, and turned them over to the Italian government. The four hijackers were tried and convicted; Abu Abbas was released and allowed to return to Iraq. The U.S. didn't request his extradition. Why? [23]

HizbAllah kidnapped 18 Americans in Lebanon between 1982 and 1992. Lt. Colonel William F. Buckley, the CIA Station Chief in Beirut, was kidnapped on March 16, 1984, and sent to Iran where he was tortured to death. Buckley's badly decomposed body was smuggled back into Lebanon and left beside a road near the Beirut airport in 1991. [24] David Dodge was president of the American University in Beirut; he was kidnapped and tortured to death in 1991. [25] How did the U.S. respond? They used the hostage crisis to justify selling restricted military equipment to Iran, obtain financing for the Contras, and negotiate the release of the remaining hostages. [26] Why didn't U.S. officials try to punish the Iranians who killed William Buckley? Why didn't they try to capture or kill the terrorists who murdered David Dodge?

Three water-shed events took place in 1979:


(1) The CIA brought the Ayatollah Khomeini to power in Iran.
(2) Saddam Hussein seized power in Iraq.
(3) The Soviets invaded Afghanistan, and precipitated the Afghan war.
(1) I covered the origin of the Ayatollah Khomeini's regime in this letter.

(2) I discussed Saddam Hussein's CIA connections in previous letters. To verify my information, read Adel Darwish's book, Unholy Babylon, and Richard Sale's April 10, 2003, UPI article, Exclusive: Saddam Key in early CIA Plot. See Also: Michael Dobbs, "When an Ally Becomes the Enemy," The Washington Post Weekend Edition, January 6-12, 2003. [27]

Robert Baer was the senior CIA agent in Iraq in 1995. His book, See No Evil, described a meeting with an Iraqi general who feared the U.S. didn't want to depose Saddam Hussein:


"The general was alluding to a vintage conspiracy theory that dogged everything we tried to do in Iraq - the myth that the U.S. secretly kept Saddam in power. I'd heard it from just about every Iraqi I'd met. Some even believed Saddam was a paid CIA agent." [28]
The U.S. gave Saddam $5 billion in agricultural credits, and a small U.S. bank lent him $5 billion during the Iran-Iraq war. U.S. companies sold Iraq 500 helicopters, and a great deal of other equipment that was converted to military use. U.S. officials supplied information on Iranian troop movements, and let Saddam purchase the materials needed to produce biological and chemical weapons. Why? [29]

(3) I covered the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in a previous letter. Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter's National Security Advisor, convinced Jimmy Carter the U.S. should provide weapons to the mujahideen who opposed the communist regime in Kabul. Ten years later Brzezinski admitted he knew the Soviets would invade Afghanistan if the U.S. supplied their adversaries. [30] I believe Zbigniew Brzezinski, and the dark forces he represents, precipitated the Afghan War in order to promote the resurgence of jihad.

Mahmood Mamdani is Professor of Government at Columbia University. His recent book, Good Muslim, Bad Muslim, reveals:


"With the war recast as an international jihad, the CIA looked for volunteers from Muslim populations all over the globe. . . . The numbers recruited and trained were impressive . . . the estimate of foreign radicals 'directly influenced by the Afghan jihad' is upwards of one hundred thousand." [31]
"The CIA looked for a Saudi prince to lead this crusade but was unable to find one. It settled for the next best, the son of an illustrious family closely connected to the Saudi royal house. . . . Osama bin Laden first traveled to Peshawar in 1980 and met mujahideen leaders there, and for the next two years he returned frequently with Saudi donations for the cause. . . . In 1986 bin Laden worked as the major contractor to build a large CIA-funded project: the Khost tunnel complex deep under the mountains close to the Pakistani border." [32]

"The real damage the CIA did was not the providing of arms and money but the privatization of information about how to produce and spread violence - the formation of private militias - capable of creating terror . . . CIA training in its U.S. camps ranged from infiltration techniques to ways of extracting prisoners or weapopns from behind enemy lines to more than sixty assorted 'deadly skills.' The skills passed on by trainers to fighters included "the use of sophisticated fuses, timers and explosives . . . remote-control devices for triggering mines and bombs (used later in the volunteers' home countries, and against the Israelis in occupied Arab territory such as southern Lebanon). . . . The key leaders of every major terrorist attack, from New York to France to Saudi Arabia, inevitably turned out to have been veterans of the Afghan War." [33]

"The best-known CIA-trained terrorist was . . . Osama bin Laden. . . . 'bin Laden has the distinction of being created by the CIA and wanted by the FBI.' Bin Laden was not the only distinguished CIA creation - the others, as discussed, included Abdullah Azzam, a founder of Hamas, and Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind Egyptian prayer leader. All CIA inventions, all were on the FBI list of those most wanted. The co-conspirators in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing included two other veterans of the Afghan jihad: Ramzi Ahmed Yousef and Mahmud Abouhalima. The World Trade Center bomb . . . was made of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil - a formula 'taught in CIA manuals.'" [34]

John Cooley covered the Middle East for the Christian Science Monitor. His book, Unholy Wars, reveals how the CIA helped Khomeini spread the Islamic revolution:


"The Khomeiny regime assisted wide and illegal dissemination of the Koran - whether using the CIA's Korans printed in Virginia, or Iranian ones, is not known - in the Central Asian republics. Yes, the Iranians said, we are training volunteers and arming them for the jihad. When Ollie North asked if the supply of American TOW anti-tank missiles would make a difference in the fighting, the Iranians replied that they were willing to set aside 200 TOWs for the Afghans out of every 1,000 the US sent in order to buy freedom for the American hostages.
The mainstream training of the holy warrior by Pakistan's ISI . . . during the war underwent a metamorphosis after the war and became terrorist training for the new international guerrilla brotherhood. . . . The funding problem (during the Afghan War - ed) found solutions even more complicated than the problem itself. These solutions included a bizarre, often improvized mixture of 'black' and therefore unaccountable budgets; 'charitable' donations in the United States and Europe; the frantic profligacy of Saudi Arabians and other Arabs in the oil states in their efforts to support Islam in South and Central Asia against Godless communism; the reliance of the CIA and its allies on the crooked machinations of the biggest international criminal bank. . . .; the fabulous profits of drug lords, and the usually unexceptionable generosity of US Congressmen with the funds of the American taxpayer." [35]

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) spent $51 million on school textbooks that promoted jihad and the Islamic revolution. The Washington Post reported:


"In the twilight of the Cold War, the United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings, part of covert attempts to spur resistance to the Soviet occupation.
The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system's core curriculum." [36]

Most people don't realize the U.S. helped Pakistan and Saudi Arabia create the Taliban. James Cooley wrote:


". . . Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, allied with the 'world's only remaining superpower,' the United States, had by 1994 hatched a monster of Islamist extremism, the Taliban movement." [37]
When President Bush addressed our nation on September 20, 2001, he mentioned the U.S. "was the largest source of humanitarian aid for Afghanistan." Why did U.S. officials fund the regime that harbored Osama bin Laden?

Media pundits claim Osama bin Laden organized al-Qaeda in 1989, returned to Saudi Arabia in 1990, and criticized the royal family because they allowed the U.S. to station troops there. We're told bin Laden moved to Sudan in 1992, and began planning his attack on the West. We're told he:


1992: Planned the attack on a hotel in Aden where U.S. troops lived,
1993: Financed the bombing of the World Trade Center in February, and planned the Black Hawk down attack on U.S. forces in Somalia in October,
1995: Planned, or supported, the terrorist attack on the American base in Riyadh; it was actually carried out by HizbAllah,
1996: Planned, or supported, the terrorist attack on the Khobar Towers; it was actually a HizbAllah attack. Bin Laden declared war on America,
1997: Planned the terrorist attack in Luxor,
1998: Financed the bombing of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Declared war on the United States again,
2000: Financed the bombing of the USS Cole,
2001: Was responsible for the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Have we been told the truth?

Richard Miniter's book, Losing Bin Laden, cites 11 instances when our intelligence agencies could have captured or killed Osama bin Laden, but refused to carry out that assignment. [38]

Richard Clarke's book, Against All Enemies, claims President Clinton ordered the CIA and the military to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, but they refused; they also refused to cut off al-Qaeda's funding. When U.S. forces attacked Afghanistan:


"We did not immediately send U.S. forces to capture al Qaeda and Taliban leadership. The Bush administration decided to continue appeals to the Taliban to turn over bin Laden and his followers, and then, when we attacked, we treated the war as a regime change rather than a search-and-destroy against terrorists." [39]
Paul Sperry's book, Crude Politics, reports the Special Forces teams sent to Afghanistan weren't allowed to try to capture or kill Osama bin Laden:


"Special Forces commandos who did tours in Afghanistan . . . questioned the strategy. They were unhappy with the decision to use Afghan proxy soldiers to ferret out bin Laden in southeastern Afghanistan instead of sending in U.S. ground troops.
'They were champing at the bit to go in . . . but were held back,' said a Special Operations technician who helped with battlefield reconnaissance in the mountains of southeastern Afghanistan." [40]

Rowan Scarborough's article in The Washington Times on October 9, 2001, revealed:


"The Pentagon is in no hurry to try to catch or kill Osama bin Laden as it orchestrates a step-by-step bombing campaign over Afghanistan.
Bush administration officials said an early demise of the elusive terrorist mastermind could result in international pressure to stop the 2-day-old strikes before allies achieve the prime objective: uprooting the terrorists' operations in Afghanistan. . . .

'I prefer to follow a "bin Laden last" policy said a senior administration official. 'If you nab bin Laden or kill him, a lot of the war would end up being over, and the network would survive.'" [41]

Congressman Dana Rohrabacher claims an Afghan friend told him where Osama bin Laden was hiding in the late 1980s, but when he tried to relay the information to U.S. officials, they weren't interested. Why? [42]

Joel Skousen claims a Pakistani citizen flew to Washington, D. C. shortly after the Taliban regime fell, and tried to tell U.S. officials where Osama bin Laden was hiding. No one was interested. Why? [43]

Richard Miniter claims he interviewed a Sudanese official who said his government tried to turn Osama bin Laden over to the U.S. in 1996, but a CIA official declined the offer. Sudan offered to turn its voluminous intelligence files on bin Laden and al-Qaeda over to the U.S., but CIA officials wouldn't accept them. Richard Miniter wrote:


"Sudan offered to arrest and turn over bin Laden at this meeting, according to Erwa. He brought up bin Laden directly. 'Where should we send him?' . . . The CIA officer was silent. . . . Finally, (he) spoke. 'We have nothing we can hold him on,' he carefully said.
Over the next few months and years, Sudan would repeatedly try to provide its voluminous intelligence files on bin Laden to the CIA, the FBI, and senior Clinton Administration officials - and would be repeatedly rebuffed through both formal and informal channels."

When Sudan offered to arrest bin Laden and send him to Saudi Arabia, they wouldn't accept him. Why? [44]

Reuters New Service reports:


"U.S. and Taliban officials met secretly in Frankfurt almost a year before the September 11 attacks to discuss terms for the Afghans to hand over Osama bin Laden. . . . Kabir Mohabbat . . . quoted the Taliban foreign minister, Mullah Wakil Ahmed Mutawakil, as saying: 'You can have him whenever the Americans are ready. Name us a country and we will extradite him.'
A German member of the European Parliament . . . confirmed to Reuters that he had helped Mohabbat in 1999 to establish initial contact with the Americans.

I was told (by Mohabbat) that the Taliban had certain ideas about handing over bin Laden, not to the United States but to a third country or to the Court of Justice in The Hague.'" [45]

Richard Clarke claims the Taliban offered to convene an Islamic court, and try bin Laden, if the U.S. provided evidence against him:


"They had spoken of convening a court of Islamic scholars to try bin Laden, if we would like to provide the evidence and accusations. They had assured us that they were preventing bin Laden from engaging in any terrorism." [46]
Paul Sperry wrote:


"And up until one month before the attacks, Taliban officials held secret talks with State Department officials over bin Laden's fate. . . . Taliban offers to give up the al-Qaeda overlord were repeatedly rebuffed, however. One overture proposing bin Laden be turned over to a panel of three Islamic jurists - two picked by Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, and one by the U.S. - was dismissed out of hand. But the Talibs countered that they would settle for only one Islamic jurist on the panel, a source close to the Taliban leadership told the Washington Post. The paper also quoted a former CIA station chief, who oversaw U.S. covert operations in Afghanistan in the 1980s, as saying that he had 'no doubts they [the Taliban] wanted to get rid of' bin Laden. . . ." [47]
Why did the Bush administration decline the Taliban offer?

Shortly after the 9/11 attack The Wall Street Journal reported:


"Islamic clerics from across Afghanistan recommended that Osama bin Laden be asked to leave the country, an unexpected step that departs from deeply held local traditions on granting sanctuary to guests. But the U.S. quickly said the clerics' recommendation wasn't enough." [48]
Why didn't the U.S. try to capture or kill Osama bin Laden? Why did the CIA protect him? Who controls our intelligence agencies? What is their agenda?

On October 30, 2001, Le Figaro, a respected French newspaper, published an article that claimed Osama bin Laden conferred with the CIA Station Chief in Dubai in July 2001, two months before the September 11 attack. Bin Laden was a patient at the American Hospital in Dubai at that time. The Washington Times carried the story:


"CIA-bin Laden links stretched back years, and appeared to suggest bin Laden gave the agency information regarding future terrorist strikes.
'The Dubai meeting is therefore a logical follow to a "certain American policy,'" the newspaper said.

In particular, the newspaper noted that just two weeks after bin Laden checked out of the Dubai hospital, United Arab Emirates security agents arrested the alleged mastermind of a plot to blow up the American Embassy in Paris. The suspect, a French-Algerian named Djamel Beghal, earlier confessed to receiving his orders from bin Laden. . . .

An American diplomat in Paris refused to comment on the Figaro article, or on reported allegations of an emergency meeting in Paris in August, between high level French and American intelligence officials.

'We're just not comment(ing on) any of that stuff,' he said. 'We can't talk about meetings . . . that may or may not have happen(ed)." [49]

The Washington Times was the only U.S. newspaper that carried the story. Why? Because the CIA pays editors and journalists to suppress information. [50]

Robert Baer discussed his life in the CIA in his book, See No Evil:


"How do you call an end to a career that has taken you so far into the heart of darkness and shown you so many of the secrets that lie there? . . . I'd spent a quarter century building up a body of knowledge and a set of instincts about some of the worst people and most dangerous organizations on the planet. . . . Maybe, I thought, the search would lead me to what I considered the biggest secret of all, the one that had been gnawing at me for more than thirteen years: Who bombed the U.S. embassy in Beirut, and why had they never been brought to justice?
I'd . . . heard rumors that the Clinton administration was putting the brakes on the investigation into the Khobar barracks bombing. But I figured that had to be an exaggeration: Even the White House wouldn't dare cover up a terrorist attack in which 19 servicemen were killed."

Robert Baer was concerned about the motives of some high-ranking CIA officials:


"The other day a reporter friend told me that one of the highest-ranking CIA officials had said to him, off the record, that when the dust finally clears, Americans will see that September 11 was a triumph for the intelligence community, not a failure. If that's going to be the official line of thinking at the agency charged with manning the front lines in the war against the Osama bin Ladens of this world, then I am more than angry: I'm scared to death of what lies ahead." [51]
Next month I will document the fact that some U.S. officials knew about the September 11 attack beforehand, and didn't try to stop it.

Get out of debt, protect your assets, and remember Solomon's admonition. After he spent most of his life pursuing knowledge and personal gratification, Solomon concluded:


"The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies,
which are given from one shepherd.
And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end;
and much study is a weariness of the flesh.
Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments:
for this is the whole duty of man." [52]
I appreciate your faithful support and your prayers.

Yours in Christ,

Stanley Monteith



REFERENCES

1. Target America and the West: Yossef Bodansky, Shapolsky Publishers, New York, 1993, marketed outside the U.S. as Target the West, paperback edition, p.1.
2. Ibid., p. 1.
3. Robert Baer, See No Evil, Crown Publishers, New York, 2002, preface, xix.
4. Craig Winn, Prophet of Doom, Cricketsong Books, Virginia Publishers, 2004, preface, iv-vii.
5. Ibid., pp 673-676.
6. http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/rushdie.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
7. Fereydoun Hoveyda, The Fall of the Shah, Wyndham Books, New York, 1979, pp. 162-200.
8. Bodansky, op. cit., p.1.
9. John Bartlett, Familiar Quotations, Little Brown and Company, Boston, 1980, p. 85.
10. Bodansky, op. cit., p. 1.
11. Ibid., pp. 2-3.
12. Ibid., p. 3.
13. Ibid., p. 9 and 21.
14. Ibid., pp. 14-16.
15. Ibid.
16. http://www.lonelyplanet.com/destination" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... istory.htm
17. Bodansky, op. cit., pp. 23-26.
18. Ibid., p. 31.
19. Baer, op. cit., p. 164.
20. Bodansky, op. cit., pp 45-90.
21. http://www.worldhistory.com/newsletter8_terror.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
22. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4722568/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
23. http://www.specialoperations.com/Images" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... hille.html
24. http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Stan" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... ckley.html
25. http://library.thinkquest.org/CR0212088/tertime.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
26. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... /cron.html
27. Adel Darwish, Unholy Babylon, St.Martin's Press, New York, 1991, pp. 195-210. : See Also:Richard Sale, "Exclusive: Saddam key in early CIA plot, UPI, April 10, 2003, See Also: Michael Dobbs, "When an Ally Becomes the Enemy," The Washington Post Weekend Edition, January 6-12, 2003, p. 10.
28. Baer, op. cit., p. 178.
29. Michael Dobbs, op. cit.
30. John Cooley, Unholy Wars, Pluto Press, Sterling, Virginia, 1999, p. 19.
31. Mahmood Mamdani, Good Muslim, Bad Muslim, Pantheon Books, New York, 2001, p. 131.
32. Ibid., pp. 132.
33. Ibid., pp. 138-9.
34. Ibid., 234, 235.
35. Cooley, op. cit., p. 106.
36. Joe Stephens et al, "Teaching ABCs and Jihad," The Washington Post National Weekly Edition, April 1-7, 2002, p. 14.
37. Cooley, op. cit., p. 3.
38. Richard Miniter, Losing Bin Laden, Regnery Publishing, Inc. , preface, pp. i-xii.
39. Richard Clarke, Against All Enemies, Free Press, New York, preface p.x, and pp.191-192, 204, 274-275.
40. Paul Sperry, Crude Politics, WND Books, 2003, p. 36.
41. Rowan Scarborough, "Pentagon will not rush manhunt," The Washington Times, Tuesday, Oct. 9, 2001.
42. Personal communication, Congressman Rohrabacher.
43. Personal communication, Joel Skousen.
44. Miniter, op. cit., pp. 101-103.
45. www. tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=6/5/2004&Cat=4&Num=015
46. Clarke, op. cit., p. 208.
47. Sperry, op. cit., p. 18.
48. Jesse Pesta, "U.S. Calls Clerics' bin Laden Plan Inadequate," The Wall Street Journal, September 21, 2001, p. A16.
49. Elizabeth Bryant, Report: "bin Laden Treated at US hospital," The Washington Times, October 31, 2001. Available at http://www.infowars.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, Prior knowledge section.
50. William Odom, Fixing Intelligence, Yale University Press, 2003, pp. 2 and 7.
51. Baer, op. cit., pp. 261-262, and preface, p. xix.
52. Holy Bible, King James Version, Ecclesiastes, Chapter 12, verses 11-13.

Thomas
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4622

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by Thomas »

I have read info on studies showing that about 95% of all people are afraid of having an opinion outside the majority. They are afraid of ridicule and need to know that they are part of the herd. That is why the MSM is so effective in the way they treat Ron Paul. It's just like people who have to root for a clear favorite in sporting events. Most people don't want to vote for the losing candidate so they look for clues from the media to decide who to vote for.

User avatar
moonwhim
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4251

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by moonwhim »

Thomas wrote:I have read info on studies showing that about 95% of all people are afraid of having an opinion outside the majority. They are afraid of ridicule and need to know that they are part of the herd. That is why the MSM is so effective in the way they treat Ron Paul. It's just like people who have to root for a clear favorite in sporting events. Most people don't want to vote for the losing candidate so they look for clues from the media to decide who to vote for.
+1

User avatar
Oldemandalton
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2226
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by Oldemandalton »

Moonwhim, Satan and his proxies here on Earth, Master Mahan and his secret combinations, want to create a world dictatorship. In order to do so they have created and help to grow several weapons to accomplish this. Internal weapons within our nation and other Western countries around the globe such as progressivism, Marxists, and Revolutionaries. External weapons such as al Qaeda and other Jihadi groups, Russia/China, etc.

We foolishly okayed the creation of a Jihadist army in Afghanistan to weaken our enemy Russia just like a unwise person would use fire to burn his hated neighbor’s field but get burnt himself in turn when it goes out of control. We thought that the Jihadists would be thankful for helping them with training and weapons. Instead they were emboldened in defeating one Super Power, the Soviet Union, and helping to bring down their Empire they immediately set their sights on the last remaining Super Power the USA. Bin Laden believed this very thing and created al Qaeda to do this.
11 AUGUST 1988 Al-Qaeda is formed at a meeting attended by Bin Laden, Zawahiri and Dr Fadl in Peshawar, Pakistan. The creation of the group brings together extraordinary Saudi wealth, the expertise of a lifetime Egyptian militant, and a philosophical foundation for jihad from a Cairo intellectual

7 AUGUST 1990 US forces arrive in Saudi Arabia in preparation for the first Gulf War, angering bin Laden, who had offered his mujahideen to defend the kingdom from Saddam Hussein 1991 Bin Laden leaves Saudi after making public attacks on the royal family and arrives in Sudan, where he begins preparing for operations http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/ju ... ry.alqaida" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Al-Qaida / Al-Qaeda (the Base)

General Overview

Al-Qaeda is an international terrorist network led by Usama bin Laden [the "Osama" spelling is deprecated, because there is no letter "O" in Arabic). Established around 1988 by bin Laden, al-Qaeda helped finance, recruit, transport and train thousands of fighters from dozens of countries to be part of an Afghan resistance to defeat the Soviet Union. To continue the holy war beyond Afghanistan, al-Qaeda's current goal is to establish a pan-Islamic Caliphate throughout the world by working with allied Islamic extremist groups to overthrow regimes it deems "non-Islamic" and expelling Westerners and non-Muslims from Muslim countries.

In February 1998, al-Qaeda issued a statement under banner of "The World Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders" saying it was the duty of all Muslims to kill US citizens-civilian or military-and their allies everywhere. Al-Qaeda would merge with Egyptian Islamic Jihad (Al-Jihad) of Ayman al-Zawahiri in June 2001.

After al-Qaeda's September 11, 2001, attacks on America, the United States launched a war in Afghanistan to destroy al-Qaeda's bases there and overthrow the Taliban, the country's Muslim fundamentalist rulers who harbored bin Laden and his followers. "Al-Qaeda" is Arabic for "the base."
In an al-Qaeda house in Afghanistan, New York Times reporters found a brief statement of the "Goals and Objectives of Jihad":

Establishing the rule of God on earth
Attaining martyrdom in the cause of God
Purification of the ranks of Islam from the elements of depravity


In 1998, several al-Qaeda leaders issued a declaration calling on Muslims to kill Americans-including civilians-as well as "those who are allied with them from among the helpers of Satan."

Activities

Tactics include assassination, bombing, hijacking, kidnapping, suicide attacks, et al. Numerous reports and public bin Laden proclamations indicate strong desire to obtain and utilize biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. Targets tend to be prominent symbols (public buildings, embassy and military personnel, etc.) of the United States, its allies, and moderate Muslim governments. According to the former CIA Director George J. Tenet, "Usama Bin Ladin's organization and other terrorist groups are placing increased emphasis on developing surrogates to carry out attacks in an effort to avoid detection. For example, the Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) is linked closely to Bin Ladin's organization and has operatives located around the world-including in Europe, Yemen, Pakistan, Lebanon, and Afghanistan. And, there is now an intricate web of alliances among Sunni extremists worldwide, including North Africans, radical Palestinians, Pakistanis, and Central Asians. Some of these terrorists are actively sponsored by national governments that harbor great antipathy toward the United States."

The group has targeted American and other Western interests as well as Jewish targets and Muslim governments it saw as corrupt or impious - above all, the Saudi monarchy. Al-Qaeda linked attacks include:

May 12, 2003 car bomb attacks on three residential compounds in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
November 2002 car bomb attack and a failed attempt to shoot down an Israeli jetliner with shoulder-fired missiles, both in Mombasa, Kenya
October 2002 attack on a French tanker off the coast of Yemen Several spring 2002 bombings in Pakistan
April 2002 explosion of a fuel tanker outside a synagogue in Tunisia
September 11, 2001, hijacking attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon
October 12, 2000 U.S.S. Cole bombing in Aden, Yemen killing 17 crew members and wounding 39.
August 7, 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
Al-Qaeda is suspected of carrying out or directing sympathetic groups to carry out the May 2003 suicide attacks on Western interests in Casablanca, Morocco; the October 12, 2002 nightclub bombing in Bali, Indonesia; the 1993 World Trade Center bombing; and a series of incidents in Saudi Arabia against U.S. targets from 1995 to 1996

Plots linked to al-Qaeda that were disrupted or prevented include: a 2001 attempt by Richard Reid to explode a shoe bomb on a transatlantic flight; a 1999 plot to set off a bomb at Los Angeles International Airport; a 1995 plan to blow up 12 transpacific flights of U.S. commercial airliners; a 1995 plan to kill President Bill Clinton on a visit to the Philippines; and a 1994 plot to kill Pope John Paul II during a visit to Manila.

Any information about Al-Qaeda's U.S. operations has come from investigations following the September 11 attacks and the December 1999 foiled Los Angeles airport attack. Interrogations of captured al-Qaeda terrorists are occurring at Guantanamo Bay and from additional undisclosed locations. The extent to which valuable intelligence or information about al-Qaeda's organization is being provided is not known.

In the federal indictment of Zacarias Moussaoui, who was apprehended in August 2001, prosecutors described how the hijackers lived in the United States for months before the attacks-renting apartments, taking flight classes, joining health clubs, and living off funds wired from overseas.
On 29 October 2004, four days before the U.S. presidential election, al-Qaida leader Usama bin Laden had threatened new attacks on the United States. He appeared in a video broadcast on the Arab TV network Al Jazeera claiming responsibility for the 2001 terrorist attacks in New York.

Speaking in a calm but strong voice, the terrorist leader referred to the following week's U.S. election, telling Americans their security did not depend on President Bush or Democratic candidate John Kerry or al-Qaida, but would depend on government policies. Bin Laden said al-Qaida decided, in his words, to destroy New Yorks' World Trade towers in 2001 and listed several factors that motivated the attack, including frustration over what he called America's pro-Israeli Middle East policies. He said Israel's bombing attacks on Beirut in 1982 gave him the idea of targeting New York's skyscrapers.

Al-Qaeda's Operations Manual

In the early 1990s, al-Qaeda produced the Encyclopedia of the Afghan Jihad, a detailed how-to guide for using handguns, explosives, and biological and chemical weapons, in print and on CD-ROM. Materials belonging to a captured al-Qaeda operative in England detailed techniques for forgery, surveillance, and espionage.

Location/Area of Operation

Al-Qaida has cells worldwide and is reinforced by its ties to Sunni extremist networks. Coalition attacks on Afghanistan since October 2001 have dismantled the Taliban-al-Qaida's protectors-and led to the capture, death, or dispersal of al-Qaida operatives. Some al-Qaeda members at large probably will attempt to carry out future attacks against US interests. Other known areas of operation: United States, Yemen, Germany, Pakistan.
Al-Qaida is a multi-national network possessing a global reach and has supported through financing, training and logistics, Islamic militants in Afghanistan, Algeria, Bosnia, Chechnya, Eritrea, Kosovo, the Philippines, Somalia, Tajikistan, and Yemen, and now Kosovo. Additionally, al-Qaida has been linked to conflicts and attacks in Africa, Asia, Europe, the former Soviet Republics, the Middle East, as well as North and South America.
The headquarters of al-Qaeda are not known anymore.

From 1991 to 1996, al-Qaeda worked out of Sudan.
From 1996 until the collapse of the Taliban in 2001, al-Qaeda operated out of Afghanistan and maintained its training camps there.
U.S. intelligence officials now think al-Qaeda's senior leadership is trying to regroup in lawless tribal regions just inside Pakistan, near the Afghan border, inside Pakistani cities or in Iran.
In May 2003, administration officials claimed that senior al-Qaeda figures were in Iran and urged Tehran to apprehend them. Sa'ad bin Laden, Usama bin Laden's son, in an October 2003 report, is said be among those in Iran.
Al-Qaeda has autonomous underground cells in some 100 countries, including the United States, officials say. Law enforcement has broken up al-Qaeda cells in the United Kingdom, the United States, Italy, France, Spain, Germany, Albania, Uganda, and elsewhere.

Strength

It is impossible to known precisely, due to the decentralized stucture of the organization. Al-Qaida may have several thousand members and associates. It trained over 5,000 militants in camps in Afghanistan since the late 1980s. It also serves as a focal point for a worldwide network that includes many Sunni Islamic extremist groups, some members of al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, and the Harakat ul-Mujahidin.

External Aid

Bin Laden, member of a billionaire family that owns the Bin Ladin Group construction empire, is said to have inherited tens of millions of dollars that he uses to help finance the group. Al-Qaida also maintains moneymaking front businesses, solicits donations from like-minded supporters, and illicitly siphons funds from donations to Muslim charitable organizations. US efforts to block al-Qaida funding has hampered al-Qaida's ability to obtain money.

Al-Qaida has cooperated with a number of known terrorist groups worldwide including:

Armed Islamic Group
Salafist Group for Call and Combat and the Armed Islamic Group
Egyptian Islamic Jihad (Egypt)
Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya
Jamaat Islamiyya
The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group
Bayt al-Imam (Jordan)
Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Muhammad (Kashmir)
Asbat al Ansar
Hezbollah (Lebanon)
Al-Badar
Harakat ul Ansar/Mujahadeen
Al-Hadith
Harakat ul Jihad
Jaish Mohammed - JEM
Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam
Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan
Laskar e-Toiba - LET
Moro Islamic Liberation Front (the Philippines)
Abu Sayyaf Group (Malaysia, Philippines)
Al-Ittihad Al Islamiya - AIAI (Somalia)
Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan
Islamic Army of Aden (Yemen)

These groups share al-Qaeda's Sunni Muslim fundamentalist views. Some terror experts theorize that Al-Qaeda, after the loss of it Afghanistan base, may be increasingly reliant on sympathetic affiliates to carry out it agenda. Intelligence officials and terrorism experts also say that al-Qaeda has stepped up its cooperation on logistics and training with Hezbollah, a radical, Iran-backed Lebanese militia drawn from the minority Shiite strain of Islam.

Al-Arabiyah television reported on 20 October 2004 that Jama'at Al-Tawhid wa Al-Jihad hadr released a statement claiming it has officially joined the Al-Qaeda terrorist network. Al-Jazeera broadcast a statement by the group identifying itself as Tanzim Qa'idat Al-Jihad in Bilad al-Rafidayn (Organization of Jihad's Base in the Country of the Two Rivers). Iraq is commonly known as the land of the two rivers, the Tigris and Euphrates. The statement has not been verified. Usama bin Laden'd 29 October 2004 video broadcast on the Arab TV network Al Jazeera made no mention of Zarqawi, suggesting that the report a few days earlier that Zarqawi and Bin Laden had joined forces were in error.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... -qaida.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
moonwhim
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4251

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by moonwhim »

Al Qaeda Doesn't Exist

Tribunal
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1496

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by Tribunal »

InfoWarrior
I posted on the Freedom Forum an attachment to the IAEA report on Iran's nuclear program. The report says that Iran has the facilities to produce a nuclear weapon, the materials to produce a nuclear weapon, and the means of producing a nuclear weapon. The report also says that Iran has not allowed inspection to prove one way or another if Iran actually has a weapon or not.

I believe the burden rests with the world to prove one way or another if Iran has a weapon and their intentions to use it/them.

Iran states they are researching technology for nuclear power but the IAEA report states Iran is going in the wrong direction if all they want is nuclear power. Is this enough evidence? I don't believe so!

True - Iran is developing a nuclear weapon.

False - Iran threatened to wipe Israel off the map. That was a mis-translation. Iran's president stated he wanted a regime change.

True - Iran did threaten US naval vessels if they entered international waters near Iran's coast.

True - Iran is a threat to the United States.

User avatar
Fairminded
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1956

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by Fairminded »

Tribunal wrote:InfoWarrior
I posted on the Freedom Forum an attachment to the IAEA report on Iran's nuclear program. The report says that Iran has the facilities to produce a nuclear weapon, the materials to produce a nuclear weapon, and the means of producing a nuclear weapon. The report also says that Iran has not allowed inspection to prove one way or another if Iran actually has a weapon or not.

I believe the burden rests with the world to prove one way or another if Iran has a weapon and their intentions to use it/them.

Iran states they are researching technology for nuclear power but the IAEA report states Iran is going in the wrong direction if all they want is nuclear power. Is this enough evidence? I don't believe so!

True - Iran is developing a nuclear weapon.

False - Iran threatened to wipe Israel off the map. That was a mis-translation. Iran's president stated he wanted a regime change.

True - Iran did threaten US naval vessels if they entered international waters near Iran's coast.

True - Iran is a threat to the United States.
I'm not sure how you can come to that last assertion based on the other ones. Let's look at them:

Iran developing a nuclear weapon. Yes, as have many other nations, including ones hostile to the U.S. We consider them only a moderate threat and we certainly haven't done any invading. These days not having a nuclear weapon leaves you open to be bullied by nations that do.

Iran threatened to wipe Israel off the map. As you said, false.

Iran did threaten U.S. naval vessels if they entered international waters near Iran's coast. The U.S. is and has been pushing embargoes and sanctions on Iran. These are acts of war. It only stands to reason Iran doesn't want enemy warships anywhere near their coast.

Iran is a threat to the U.S. I'm puzzled by how you found this statement to be true in light of the other ones. Perhaps you meant Iran is a threat in the sense that the U.S. is a threat to Iran and Iran isn't going to just sit down and take it. The U.S. has been actively threatening Iran, talking about war, imposing sanctions, limiting trade, etc.

Tribunal
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1496

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by Tribunal »

Iran is a threat to the U.S. I'm puzzled by how you found this statement to be true in light of the other ones. Perhaps you meant Iran is a threat in the sense that the U.S. is a threat to Iran and Iran isn't going to just sit down and take it. The U.S. has been actively threatening Iran, talking about war, imposing sanctions, limiting trade, etc.
The underlined portion of your statement is exactly what I mean. I am a strong believer that the United States has a long history of creating it's enemies. But regardless of the reasons, Iran is a serious threat to the United States and that means it is a threat to those of us who live here. It takes just one nuclear bomb and the people of the United States will be living in Little House on the Prairie.

User avatar
moonwhim
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4251

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by moonwhim »

Tribunal wrote:
Iran is a threat to the U.S. I'm puzzled by how you found this statement to be true in light of the other ones. Perhaps you meant Iran is a threat in the sense that the U.S. is a threat to Iran and Iran isn't going to just sit down and take it. The U.S. has been actively threatening Iran, talking about war, imposing sanctions, limiting trade, etc.
The underlined portion of your statement is exactly what I mean. I am a strong believer that the United States has a long history of creating it's enemies. But regardless of the reasons, Iran is a serious threat to the United States and that means it is a threat to those of us who live here. It takes just one nuclear bomb and the people of the United States will be living in Little House on the Prairie.
So I guess you are not voting for Ron Paul? Actually you have it pretty easy because all the rest of the Republicans running support the Neo-con push for war with Iran....so you can vote for any of them.

Tribunal
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1496

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by Tribunal »

moonwhim wrote:So I guess you are not voting for Ron Paul? Actually you have it pretty easy because all the rest of the Republicans running support the Neo-con push for war with Iran....so you can vote for any of them.
No! I like Rep. Paul a lot and believe he is the best candidate for President. I also agree with his foreign policy because it is most in-line with the Constitution.

My point is the United States has already caused damage to relations with Iran. The United States, and Israel, and even Europe, have threatened Iran's security with an on-going shadow war that's lasted for decades. There is a shadow war going on right now with Iran. The damage is done! I believe to attempt to fix the problem would mean our government admits all the corruption and wrong-doing that's existed and no politician is willing to do that, and no general is willing to let that happen.

I disagree with Rep. Paul when he says that Iran is not a threat to the United States. They openly threaten the United States. I also disagree with Rep. Paul when he says that there is no evidence that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon. The evidence is there if people are willing to look at it. Still, I believe Rep. Paul is the best hope for the future of the United States.

User avatar
moonwhim
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4251

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by moonwhim »

Tribunal wrote:
moonwhim wrote:So I guess you are not voting for Ron Paul? Actually you have it pretty easy because all the rest of the Republicans running support the Neo-con push for war with Iran....so you can vote for any of them.
No! I like Rep. Paul a lot and believe he is the best candidate for President. I also agree with his foreign policy because it is most in-line with the Constitution.

My point is the United States has already caused damage to relations with Iran. The United States, and Israel, and even Europe, have threatened Iran's security with an on-going shadow war that's lasted for decades. There is a shadow war going on right now with Iran. The damage is done! I believe to attempt to fix the problem would mean our government admits all the corruption and wrong-doing that's existed and no politician is willing to do that, and no general is willing to let that happen.

I disagree with Rep. Paul when he says that Iran is not a threat to the United States. They openly threaten the United States. I also disagree with Rep. Paul when he says that there is no evidence that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon. The evidence is there if people are willing to look at it. Still, I believe Rep. Paul is the best hope for the future of the United States.
Do you believe in a preemptive strike on Iran?

User avatar
InfoWarrior82
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10861
Location: "There are 15 on the earth today, you can trust them completely." -President Nelson (Jan 2022)

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by InfoWarrior82 »

So let them launch their missiles. It will be the last time they did. Christ will not support the aggressor army. Unfortunately, I have a sinking feeling that it's going to be the U.S. again this time around.


This whole business with the IAEA really should spark a remembrance back to circa 2003 with a country called.... oh gosh darn it, what was that country called again? .... OH YES! IRAQ! What about our clever "intelligence" with yellow cake uranium? Weapons of mass destruction? As Rick Perry would say, "Whoops".

User avatar
Fairminded
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1956

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by Fairminded »

InfoWarrior82 wrote:So let them launch their missiles. It will be the last time they did. Christ will not support the aggressor army. Unfortunately, I have a sinking feeling that it's going to be the U.S. again this time around.


This whole business with the IAEA really should spark a remembrance back to circa 2003 with a country called.... oh gosh darn it, what was that country called again? .... OH YES! IRAQ! What about our clever "intelligence" with yellow cake uranium? Weapons of mass destruction? As Rick Perry would say, "Whoops".
I have a notion that the public memory only goes back four to eight years. It explains why every election people buy into the idea of change and swing to the candidate from the other party, even though last time that party was in power they were so disillusioned they voted them out.

And since the public only seems to remember half a decade or so into the past, it's easy to do the exact same things over and over again with perfect success. Especially when the MDGs control the media and can brush inconvenient past events under the rug.

"We need to stop Iran because they're developing nukes! We need to go in now before they bomb us all!"
"Um, eight years ago we did just that in Iraq, only there weren't any nukes and that war was not only unconstitutional but immoral."
"Yeah, but this time it's different!"
"...why?"
"Because they wouldn't make the same mistake twice. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice--"
"It sounds like you're the one being fooled twice. And yes, this time it IS different. Instead of saying the enemy has WMDs as a pretext for war, they're saying they're only DEVELOPING them. It sounds like this time what we're doing is even more unconstitutional and immoral."
"...you're not a patriot."

ktg
captain of 100
Posts: 840

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by ktg »

Agreed Fairminded.

The warmongers say:
"We need to stop Iran because they're developing nukes! We need to go in now before they bomb us all!"
There were those among the Nephites who said the same thing:
Alma 26:25 And moreover they did say: Let us take up arms against them, that we destroy them and their iniquity out of the land, lest they overrun us and destroy us.

Maybe if the 'saints' studied the BofM daily as we have been instructed instead of watching MSM, those 95% of us wouldn't be deceived and in the dark.

"I tell you freedom of speech will go, freedom of the press will go, and freedom of religion will go. I have warned you against propaganda and hate. We are in the midst of the greatest exhibition of propaganda that the world has ever seen. Just do not believe all you read or hear. The elect are being deceived." J. Reuben Clark, Jr.

(edited for clarity)
Last edited by ktg on January 3rd, 2012, 9:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply