Mr. President, don’t do it. Don’t bomb Iran!

[Muslim Woman]

I seek refuge in Allah (The One God) from the Satan (devil) the cursed, the rejected

With the name of ALLAH (swt) -The Bestower Of Unlimited Mercy, The Continously Merciful


Assalamu Alaikum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuh (May the peace, mercy and blessings of Allah be upon you)

&&


Don't Do It, Mr. President



Contributed by Tom
Thursday, 15 February 2007


Hon. Ron Paul Of Texas



The moral of the story, Mr. Speaker, is this:

if you don’t have a nuke, we’ll threaten to attack you. If you do have a nuke, we’ll leave you alone.


In fact, we’ll probably subsidize you. What makes us think Iran does not understand this?



Hon. Ron Paul Of Texas
Before the U.S. House of Representatives 02/06/07



02/14/07 "ICH" -- --

It’s a bad idea.
There’s no need for it.


There’s great danger in doing it.
America is against it, and Congress should be.
The United Nations is against it.


The Russians, the Chinese, the Indians, and the Pakistanis are against it.
The whole world is against it.
Our allies are against it.


Our enemies are against it.
The Arabs are against it.


The Europeans are against it.
The Muslims are against it.


We don’t need to do this.
The threat is overblown.


The plan is an hysterical reaction to a problem that does not yet exist.


Hysteria is never a good basis for foreign policy.
Don’t we ever learn?

Have we already forgotten Iraq?


The plan defies common sense.
If it’s carried out, the Middle East, and possibly the world, will explode.



Oil will soar to over $100 a barrel, and gasoline will be over $5 a gallon.


Despite what some think, it won’t serve the interests of Israel.


Besides-- it’s illegal.
It’s unconstitutional.


And you have no moral authority to do it.
We don’t need it.
We don’t want it.


So, Mr. President, don’t do it.
Don’t bomb Iran!


Link to this page: http://www.ichblog.eu/content/view/562/2/

&&&

[khushnood]

nice post,jazakallah

[cihad]

i don't really get it..?

[IceQueen~]

flip! are they planning to bomb Iran now?! I knew they would do it some day (part of the signs of qiyama) but now...? when did this come up?

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Keltoi]

There would have to be a aggressive action on Iran's part for any bombing campaign to begin. That doesn't mean the U.S. won't disrupt Iranian operations inside Iraq.

[Siraaj]

:sl:

Iran would not leave any invasion go away without a response.

[*Hana*]

There would have to be a aggressive action on Iran's part for any bombing campaign to begin. That doesn't mean the U.S. won't disrupt Iranian operations inside Iraq.

Really? Since when? What was the aggressive action by Iraq against the USA? What was the aggressive action by Afghanistan against the USA? They don't need an aggressive action...just a lame excuse and the opportunity. And if they can't find one...they'll create one and change it as necessary.

[Keltoi]

Really? Since when? What was the aggressive action by Iraq against the USA? What was the aggressive action by Afghanistan against the USA? They don't need an aggressive action...just a lame excuse and the opportunity. And if they can't find one...they'll create one and change it as necessary.

First of all, Iraq and the U.S. were in a state of war for all intents and purposes. Saddam broke the cease-fire agreement many times by firing at U.N. aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone. Technically, the U.S. would have been justified in continuing military operations on that basis alone, but the U.N. route seemed to make sense at the time...

As for Afghanistan, you don't have to be a foreign affairs genius to figure that out. The U.S. was attacked by a terrorist organization given safe haven inside Afghanistan. By any reading of international law, the U.S. was well within its rights to defend itself and interests.

There is no reason to attack Iran unless the U.S. is provoked to the point of having no choice in the matter. Iran should be more worried about Israel...you know that country the Iranian president said should be "wiped off the map?"

[Woodrow]

I may be confused. But, where have I read or heard anything that the US was planning any military action towards Iran? Perhaps we are all being a bit presumptive about this.

[Keltoi]

I may be confused. But, where have I read or heard anything that the US was planning any military action towards Iran? Perhaps we are all being a bit presumptive about this.

This is all conjecture and Democratic fear tactics. The Dems are trying to convince the American people that Bush is planning on attacking Iran, which of course he has stated repeatedly is not the case. Even if some military action was on the table, it would consist of pinpoint airstrikes intended to take out the Iranian nuclear sites, which by most accounts would be next to impossible given the circumstances. So the possibility of an American attack on Iran is slim and none...unless intentionally provoked into war by Iran itself.

[*Hana*]

First of all, Iraq and the U.S. were in a state of war for all intents and purposes. Saddam broke the cease-fire agreement many times by firing at U.N. aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone. Technically, the U.S. would have been justified in continuing military operations on that basis alone, but the U.N. route seemed to make sense at the time...

As for Afghanistan, you don't have to be a foreign affairs genius to figure that out. The U.S. was attacked by a terrorist organization given safe haven inside Afghanistan. By any reading of international law, the U.S. was well within its rights to defend itself and interests.

There is no reason to attack Iran unless the U.S. is provoked to the point of having no choice in the matter. Iran should be more worried about Israel...you know that country the Iranian president said should be "wiped off the map?"

You sound like GWB...for all intents and purposes? His excuse was a lie and it was admitted to being a lie and proven to be a lie....deny it if you want, but that's a fact! The UN did NOT support an invasion of Iraq and neither did the rest of the world. So not so TECHNICALLY it was the USA that went AGAINST the UN and did what they wanted regardless...had another country did that, the USA would have opted to bomb them too if their resources were worth it.

The USA was attacked, and to this day they do not know who did it. They only have speculation and the person they accuse has denied it from day one!! And, you might want to read a little more about that little situation in Afghanistan to get your facts right. The Taliban had no problem holding Bin Laden and in fact DID hold him. They asked for proofs so he could be tried under the laws of Shariah according to Islamic belief. When the USA continued to threaten them, they said they were willing to hand him over to another country following the laws of Shariah, but again, the USA didn't want that. They pussy-footed around too long and the Taliban released him following the laws of Shariah. The USA did not, could not and still can't provide once piece of solid evidence to prove Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. Research for yourself.

The USA also created this "terrorist organization" within the borders of Afghanistan and provided the arms they needed when the interest served the USA.

So, don't try to say the USA won't find any lame excuse or reason to attack Iran. Quite frankly, as I said, if they don't have one...they'll create one.

I'm not going to get into an argument about this with you. The facts speak for themselves. Read and believe it or read it and deny it...the choice is yours.

And, btw, even as a president he has a right to give his opinion about Israel and I'm sure there are plenty Muslims and non-Muslims that agree with him. If words were a justifiable reason for bombing, the USA would have bombed 99% of the world by now for the opinions stated about them.

The end.

Hana

[Keltoi]

You sound like GWB...for all intents and purposes? His excuse was a lie and it was admitted to being a lie and proven to be a lie....deny it if you want, but that's a fact! The UN did NOT support an invasion of Iraq and neither did the rest of the world. So not so TECHNICALLY it was the USA that went AGAINST the UN and did what they wanted regardless...had another country did that, the USA would have opted to bomb them too if their resources were worth it.

The USA was attacked, and to this day they do not know who did it. They only have speculation and the person they accuse has denied it from day one!! And, you might want to read a little more about that little situation in Afghanistan to get your facts right. The Taliban had no problem holding Bin Laden and in fact DID hold him. They asked for proofs so he could be tried under the laws of Shariah according to Islamic belief. When the USA continued to threaten them, they said they were willing to hand him over to another country following the laws of Shariah, but again, the USA didn't want that. They pussy-footed around too long and the Taliban released him following the laws of Shariah. The USA did not, could not and still can't provide once piece of solid evidence to prove Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. Research for yourself.

The USA also created this "terrorist organization" within the borders of Afghanistan and provided the arms they needed when the interest served the USA.

So, don't try to say the USA won't find any lame excuse or reason to attack Iran. Quite frankly, as I said, if they don't have one...they'll create one.

I'm not going to get into an argument about this with you. The facts speak for themselves. Read and believe it or read it and deny it...the choice is yours.

The end.

Hana

Wow...is that really the end? Thank goodness, because that was such a load of rubbish I don't think I could read much more.

No proof that Bin Laden committed the act huh? Bin Laden has denied it? Do you even read a newspaper once in awhile? Bin Laden took responsibility for it and continues to take responsibility for it. As for any other evidence, the money trail leads directly to Afghanistan.

As for the Taliban, the U.S. doesn't care about "Shariah Law", especially not coming from that group of thugs. In any event, the goal was the destruction of the Al-Qaeda training grounds and infrastructure, not only the capture of one man.

Now Iraq. Yes, the evidence proposed to the U.N. turned out to be faulty. However, it was a U.N. resolution that promised "serious consequences" if Iraq didn't fully cooperate with weapons inspections, which they did not. The fact that the U.N. doesn't back up its own resolutions isn't the fault of the U.S.

[AvarAllahNoor]

There would have to be a aggressive action on Iran's part for any bombing campaign to begin. That doesn't mean the U.S. won't disrupt Iranian operations inside Iraq.

Iran wouldn't need to have operations there in the first place. Leave Iraq alone, you big fat bullies you....

[*Hana*]

Wow...is that really the end? Thank goodness, because that was such a load of rubbish I don't think I could read much more.

No proof that Bin Laden committed the act huh? Bin Laden has denied it? Do you even read a newspaper once in awhile? Bin Laden took responsibility for it and continues to take responsibility for it. As for any other evidence, the money trail leads directly to Afghanistan.

As for the Taliban, the U.S. doesn't care about "Shariah Law", especially not coming from that group of thugs. In any event, the goal was the destruction of the Al-Qaeda training grounds and infrastructure, not only the capture of one man.

Now Iraq. Yes, the evidence proposed to the U.N. turned out to be faulty. However, it was a U.N. resolution that promised "serious consequences" if Iraq didn't fully cooperate with weapons inspections, which they did not. The fact that the U.N. doesn't back up its own resolutions isn't the fault of the U.S.

First: Why don't you learn to speak to others in a respectful manner and keep your arrogance hidden. Contrary to what you may think, there are those of us that do take the time to research unbiased sites and information sources and not base our opinions on what the government wants us to know. The only pile of rubbish I see is your attempt to justify what the rest of the world knows is an illegal invasion and the very real possibility they could do it again!

Second: Do you ever watch anything besides CNN?? Why don't you use the little piece of equipment you're using now to look at unbiased reports...Non-Muslim and Non-American. Show ONE, just ONE authenticated admission of guilt by Ossama Bin Laden. Every single video tape was determined to be FAKE by universities in the USA and, I do believe it was Swiss Officials that have no reason to lie. The ONLY ones with a reason to lie is...oh let's see....yes, right, the government of the USA!! And they have been caught in a plethora of lies since the illegal invasion. Bin Laden openly DENIED his involvement. Funny thing is....THOSE tapes were determined to be authentic!! The money came from Afghanistan....and that is your proof it was Bin Laden?? And what kind of proof is that? They couldn't determine the existence of WMDs in a war torn country but they have the intelligence to determine where funding came from with 100% certainty? okie dokie LOOOL

Third: The USA doesn't care about the laws of ANYONE and that, my friend, is the point!! As a predominately Muslim country, they don't care about the man made laws of the USA, but because they are a 3rd world country without firepower, "they lose". The "training grounds" were founded and funded by the USA. The soldiers trained by the USA. They produced what they are now fighting! Young American soldiers and innocent civilians are the ONLY ones paying the price for that and you can try to justify it anyway you want. You will find very few that will agree with you.

Fourth: The fact is the USA wants EVERYONE to bow down to UN resolutions as long as it suits their purpose. The laws do not apply to them!! Why didn't the USA go blow up Israel when they wouldn't allow UN weapons inspectors in to do their job? When Israel said they were only building Nuclear plants for power, etc., and NOT developing weapons...why weren't there sanctions placed on them when it was determined they lied!? Why weren't they bombed? Why were there no consequences for that? Why? And, Iraq DID comply with UN inspectors and the inspectors reported finding NOTHING!!!! The USA didn't like the report and kept pushing. I had no use for Saddam, but it doesn't change the fact the USA lied and bullied their way in to bomb a country that was no threat to anyone, including its own neighbours according to the USA themselves just a few months PRIOR to the illegal attack.

And you think they need or want a valid reason to invade another country? LOOL

And you can have the last word because I am done. Research for yourself and look a little deeper than what the USA government wants you to see. Try to justify to those soldiers why they are dying in Iraq. Justify it to the parents who have lost their sons/daughters while "serving" their country. The only thing the American people need to be saved from is their own government!!

Hana

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace;


I did not read all these …..look like next war is not very far.


Next Stop: Tehran

The White House denies plans to attack Iran, but the signs all point in that direction.



By Philip Giraldi


http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle17093.htm




Israel alone will face Iran: cabinet minister:

Israel will have to confront the perceived nuclear threat from Iran on its own, the country's ultra-rightwing Strategic Affairs Minister Avigdor Lieberman said on Tuesday.




Charging Iran with "Genocide" Before Nuking It

By Gary Leupp

In a very interesting analysis last month, the former chief of staff of the Russian Army, Gen. Leonid Ivashov, predicted a U.S. nuclear strike on Iran by this April.



"Within weeks from now," he wrote, "we will see the informational warfare machine start working. The public opinion is already under pressure.


There will be a growing anti-Iranian militaristic hysteria, new information leaks, disinformation, etc." I'm afraid this has the ring of truth.



http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle17029.htm




http://snipurl.com/1a36p

U.S. General: No Evidence of Iran Giving Arms to Iraqis

By CHRIS BRUMMITT
Associated Press



A top U.S. general said today there was no evidence the Iranian government was supplying Iraqi insurgents with highly lethal roadside bombs, apparently contradicting claims by other U.S.


military and administration officials.


http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle17046.htm

===
Blame it on Iran!

5 Minute Video

Keith Obermann speaks with Prof. Juan Cole about U.S. attempts to blame Iran for the disaster in Iraq.


http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle17047.htm


Russian Admiral Says U.S. Navy Prepares Missile Strike on Iran:



U.S. Navy nuclear submarines maintaining vigil off the coast of Iran indicate that the Pentagon's military plans include not only control over navigation in the Persian Gulf but also strikes against Iranian targets, a former commander of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, Admiral Eduard Baltin has told the Interfax news agency.




http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle16186.htm

Top Cheney Aide: U.S. Attack 'A Real Possibility':

One ambassador in Washington said he was taken aback when John Hannah, Vice President Cheney's national security adviser, said during a recent meeting that the administration considers 2007 "the year of Iran" and indicated that a U.S. attack was a real possibility.


http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/12/hannah-iran


&&&

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace


Scenes from Tehran


http://www.lucasgray.com/video/peacetrain.html



Short selection of photos of daily life in and around Iran’s capital city, with background music, “Peace Train,” by Yusuf Islam (Cat Stevens)






US Now Ready to Attack Iran

Dan Plesch -- New Statesman (Britain)



http://www.newstatesman.com/200702190014

American military operations for a major conventional war with Iran could be implemented any day.


They extend far beyond targeting suspect WMD facilities and will enable President Bush to destroy Iran's military, political and economic infrastructure overnight using conventional weapons.



British military sources told the New Statesman, on condition of anonymity, that "the US military switched its whole focus to Iran" as soon as Saddam Hussein was kicked out of Baghdad.




It continued this strategy, even though it had American infantry bogged down in fighting the insurgency in Iraq. The US army, navy, air force and marines have all prepared battle plans and spent four years building bases and training for "Operation Iranian Freedom".



US Plans for Attack Against Iran Revealed
BBC News



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6376639. stm


US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country's military infrastructure, the BBC has learned. It is understood that any such attack - if ordered - would target Iranian air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centres. ...


BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says the trigger for such an attack reportedly includes any confirmation that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon - which it denies.


Alternatively, our correspondent adds, a high-casualty attack on US forces in neighbouring Iraq could also trigger a bombing campaign if it were traced directly back to Tehran.

[NobleMuslimUK]

I see that some people from America are still in denial, despite the contradicting evidence provided by the government time and time over. American mainstream media is like no other in the world, its the largest most efficient mind control tool and not to mention one of the most successful. Anything that isn't consistent with the mainstream view whether wrong or sometimes correct information, then its either not credible or a conspiracy. The mind frame is that FBI, CIA etc are the best at their jobs, they solve cases, some decades old and are fighting aliens off at the same time.
I would also like to see evidence of Osama being responsible for 9/11. I do not mean fake videos. 9/11 is an event that has made muslims more furious than you can imagine. You have lost nearly 3,000 people, we have lost nearly a million muslim brothers and sisters in Afghanistan and Iraq and Palestine, as a direct result of American politics. Since we know a true muslim will not go down the road of 9/11 which has only brought suffering for muslims, and worldly benefits for US and Israel. 9/11 has given America a license for terrorism (to bomb any country they want to). So your claims that muslims are responsible for terrorist attacks against non muslims are baseless.

[Siraaj]

:sl: Muslim Woman, are you from Iran?

[Keltoi]

I see that some people from America are still in denial, despite the contradicting evidence provided by the government time and time over. American mainstream media is like no other in the world, its the largest most efficient mind control tool and not to mention one of the most successful. Anything that isn't consistent with the mainstream view whether wrong or sometimes correct information, then its either not credible or a conspiracy. The mind frame is that FBI, CIA etc are the best at their jobs, they solve cases, some decades old and are fighting aliens off at the same time.
I would also like to see evidence of Osama being responsible for 9/11. I do not mean fake videos. 9/11 is an event that has made muslims more furious than you can imagine. You have lost nearly 3,000 people, we have lost nearly a million muslim brothers and sisters in Afghanistan and Iraq and Palestine, as a direct result of American politics. Since we know a true muslim will not go down the road of 9/11 which has only brought suffering for muslims, and worldly benefits for US and Israel. 9/11 has given America a license for terrorism (to bomb any country they want to). So your claims that muslims are responsible for terrorist attacks against non muslims are baseless.

lol....this is rich..no really. How exactly does someone go about "faking" every Al-Qaeda video released since 9-11? Not to mention the tape with Osama Bin Laden taking credit and praising the "martrys". Perhaps a "true" Muslim wouldn't go down the path of 9-11, I hope that is true. However, the truth is that self-proclaimed Muslims hijacked planes, slit the throats of stewardesses and pilots in front of passengers, and crashed into buildings, with the exception of Flight 93. I understand you don't want to believe a self-proclaimed Muslim would do this, but intentionally playing dumb isn't the answer.

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace

:sl: Muslim Woman, are you from Iran?

NO
:wasalambo

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace;



US Iran Intelligence 'Is Incorrect'

Julian Borger in Vienna

Much of the intelligence on Iran's nuclear facilities provided to UN inspectors by US spy agencies has turned out to be unfounded, diplomatic sources in Vienna said today.


http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle17149.htm


related links--- did not read all these ; look useful )


Nuclear Secrets - Vanunu And The Bomb

BBC Video

Mordechai Vanunu was the man who was determined to tell the world about Israel's nuclear capabilities and, by doing so, created a world scandal.


http://snipurl.com/1b0mz



Jewish Groups Fear Public Backlash Over Iran


Forward (New York)


http://www.forward.com/articles/groups-fear- public-backlash-over-iran


While Jewish communal leaders focus most of their current lobbying efforts on pressing the United States to take a tough line against Iran and its nuclear program, some are privately voicing fears that they will be accused of driving America into a war with the regime in Tehran ... Yet many advocacy efforts, even when not linked to Israel, carry indelibly Jewish fingerprints ...


In warning of possible scapegoating, insiders point to the experience of the Iraq War. Since the initial invasion in 2003, antiwar groups have charged, with growing vehemence, that the war was promoted by Jewish groups acting in Israel’s interest ...


Now, however, Jewish groups are indeed playing a lead role in pressing for a hard line on Iran.



Britain wants Security Council action to 'further isolate' Iran :

"We will now be consulting closely with our European, Chinese, Russian and US partners and other Security Council members on next steps. We remain determined to prevent Iran acquiring 'the means" to develop nuclear weapons."

http://snipurl.com/1b0no




For Neocons, Attack on Iran Has Been a Six-Year Project

Larisa Alexandrovna


http://www.al ternet.org/story/47921



The escalation of US military planning on Iran is only the latest chess move in a six-year push within the Bush Administration to attack that country. While Iran was named a part of President George W. Bush's "axis of evil" in 2002, efforts to ignite a confrontation with Iran date back long before the post- 9/11 war on terror ...


The motivations for an Iran strike were laid out as far back as 1992. In classified defense planning guidance -- written for then- Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney by then-Pentagon staffers I. Lewis "Scooter” Libby, World Bank Chief Paul Wolfowitz, and ambassador-nominee to the United Nations Zalmay Khalilzad --

Cheney's aides called for the United States to assume the position of lone superpower and act preemptively to prevent the emergence of even regional competitors.

[Abdul-Raouf]

The moral of the story, Mr. Speaker, is this: if you don’t have a nuke, we’ll threaten to attack you. If you do have a nuke, we’ll leave you alone.

So true..

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace


"Theater Iran Near Term" (TIRANNT)

By Michel Chossudovsky

Code named by US military planners as TIRANNT, "Theater Iran Near Term" has identified several thousand targets inside Iran as part of a

"Shock and Awe" Blitzkrieg, which is now in the final planning stages.


http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle17154.htm

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace;



The Jews made us do it." That's what the red-necks including a whole lot of today's brain-dead Christian Zionist fundamentalists will say as soon as everything goes wrong in the Middle East, Jesus doesn't come back and is nowhere in sight, and the three U.S. troops killed per day becomes six or ten for no good god****ed reason.



"They have the money, they control the media and the politicians. They made us attack Iran and now look what's happening." That's what the ignorant who can one day cry "Nuke 'em all!" referring to Muslims, and the next day swear "Fuc-ing Christ-killers" will say.


............ "Attack Iran! NOW! Or support GENOCIDE! and side with the new HITLER!

Destroy Iran's nuclear facilities! NOW! Or reveal your thinly-disguised ANTI-SEMITISM!"



That's the hyper-message calculated to stimulate an assault, to which the calm counterterrorism analyst Giraldi draws our attention. One could respond to the message with a polite, firm, principled refusal:



No thanks this time, AIPAC. You're just not credible. Can't do it for you.


My constituents aren't into more war, and they think this whole Iran thing's a lot of hype. I can't support nuking Iran, and frankly, I don't see how you can either.


I don't think you speak for all or even most American Jews, and you can't scare me this time by accusations of anti-Semitism. I can't have an attack on Iran my conscience, sorry.

I'd rather be defeated in the next election. Keep your money; I just can't do what you ask.



Will the Congress targeted by the Lobby be able to say that?


&&

AIPAC Demands "Action" on Iran: "

An American Strike on Iran is Essential for Our Existence"


http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp02242007.html

Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and Adjunct Professor of Comparative Religion


He can be reached at: gleupp@granite.tufts.edu

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace;



Bush's Future Iran War Speech


Contributed by Tom

Monday, 26 February 2007

By Michael T. Klare


Sometime this spring or summer, barring an unexpected turnaround by Tehran, President Bush is likely to go on national television and announce that he has ordered American ships and aircraft to strike at military targets inside Iran.

Write comment

Readers' Comments:



..
...New Department of Offense is about to be announced.


..... "Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges"



Passing strange this US concern with defending other countries' territorial integrity after first violating it.


But at least we now understand why the US Department of War is now called the Department of Defence.


Its new mission is the defence of other countries. I sure hope all those 'patriotic' volunteer soldiers and their supporters understand that.



http://www.ichblog.eu/content/view/7...jc_allComments

[Harrumph]

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.htm



No Pasaran!

[Philosopher]

I say bomb them.

Less people = less problems.

[Akil]

There is little to no chance of the US going to war with anyone at the moment without a very clear reason (it would take a pearl harbor or another 9/11).

Iran also has little chance of going to war with anyone. It is a country divided and would fall apart do to internal pressure before they went to war with anyone.

[Siraaj]

Iran 'ready for war'

http://www.islamicboard.com/world-af...tml#post669461

scroll down on that page to read the post

[north_malaysian]

I say bomb them.

Less people = less problems.

Why dont you just bomb mecca, medina and make a second holocaust... Crazy!!

[Akil]

Why dont you just bomb mecca, medina

I have actually heard people say that >.< I was like, not unless you want a serious world war three.

[Keltoi]

If there is a war against Iran it won't be the U.S. who provokes it.

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace;


Some US Generals 'Will Quit' If Bush Orders Iran Attack


The Times (Britain)


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/n ews/world/iraq/article1434540.ece


Some of America's most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly-placed defense and intelligence sources.



Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.



Israel Seeks All Clear for Iran Air Strike

The Telegraph (Britain)


http://www.teleg raph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml? xml=/news/2007/02/24/wiran124.xml



Israel is negotiating with the United States for permission to fly over Iraq as part of a plan to attack Iran's nuclear facilities,

The Daily Telegraph can reveal. To conduct surgical air strikes against Iran's nuclear programme, Israeli war planes would need to fly across Iraq.


But to do so the Israeli military authorities in Tel Aviv need permission from the Pentagon.

A senior Israeli defence official said negotiations were now underway between the two countries for the US-led coalition in Iraq to provide an "air corridor" in the event of the Israeli government deciding on unilateral military action to prevent Teheran developing nuclear weapons.

[Woodrow]

Israel is negotiating with the United States for permission to fly over Iraq as part of a plan to attack Iran's nuclear facilities,

The Daily Telegraph can reveal. To conduct surgical air strikes against Iran's nuclear programme, Israeli war planes would need to fly across Iraq.


But to do so the Israeli military authorities in Tel Aviv need permission from the Pentagon.

HUH?

What right does the US have to tell either Iran or Israel what they can or can not do?

I can see the US telling Israel that we will stand behind them if they do so or we we can tell them we will disavow them if they choose to do that. But, as far as telling them they can, that makes no sense.

[Keltoi]

HUH?

What right does the US have to tell either Iran or Israel what they can or can not do?

I can see the US telling Israel that we will stand behind them if they do so or we will disavow them if they choose to do that. But, as far as telling them they can, that makes no sense.

I assume as far as Israel goes it is about control of air space. The U.S. Air Force has control of Iraqi air space, and it would only be prudent for Israel to get permission to use that air space to reach Iran..theoretically.

As for Iran, it isn't only the U.S. who is challenging Iran on their nuclear ambitions.

[Woodrow]

I assume as far as Israel goes it is about control of air space. The U.S. Air Force has control of Iraqi air space, and it would only be prudent for Israel to get permission to use that air space to reach Iran..theoretically.

As for Iran, it isn't only the U.S. who is challenging Iran on their nuclear ambitions.

As for Iran, it isn't only the U.S. who is challenging Iran on their nuclear ambitions.

That is quite true. Although I support Irans right to do as they desire, I also support there right to accept the consequences of the actions. They do not need anybody's permission to do whatever they are going to do. But, it may be wise to see what the consequences are for doing anything.


You are correct it is not just the US and Israel that do not want Iran to have nuclear capability.

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace ,

Subject Iran Against the World?

Ask an Expert

Guest Name

Dr. Amr Hamzawy, Senior Associate for the Carnegie Endowment, Washington, DC.




Date Sunday,Mar 25 ,2007


Time Makkah From... 11:00...To... 13:00 GMT From... 08:00...To...10:00

http://www.islamonline.net/livedialo...ish/select.asp



Our Mad Mad Mad Mad Vice President Speaks:


The Cheney speech to AIPAC - reassuring militant rightwingers in Israel and the US that America is leaning forward on Iran, and that we are never leaving Iraq - was filled with honesty and conviction, and gives us a clear window into the administration's thinking.

Karen Kwiatkowski:

http://snipurl.com/1drh7

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace ,



Easter Surprise: Attack on Iran, New 9/11 or Worse

By Heather Wokusch

The devastating implications of a US strike on Iran are clear.

And that begs the question: how could the US public be convinced to enter another potentially ugly and protracted war?



http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle17440.htm

[SirZubair]

The world is doomed.

[wilberhum]

It looks to me like Iran wants war.
Why is that?

[Muslim Woman]

I seek refuge in Allah (The One God) from the Satan (devil) the cursed, the rejected

With the name of ALLAH (swt) -The Bestower Of Unlimited Mercy, The Continously Merciful


Assalamu Alaikum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuh (May the peace, mercy and blessings of Allah be upon you)



&&&


Iran - How To Start A War

By Gwynne Dyer

Any day now, a minor clash along Iraq's land or sea frontier with Iran could kill some American troops and give President Bush an excuse to attack Iran, if he wants one - and he certainly seems to.


http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle17449.htm


Resist The War Drive Against Iran

By George Galloway. MP

The commander of the ship HMS Cornwall unwittingly captured the mentality of imperial occupation when he said the sailors had been captured in "our waters".



He meant the waters belonging under international law and treaty to the Republic of Iraq.


In addition to the immediate argument that this incident is not worth yet more bloodshed and war, it is vital to challenge this imperialist delusion.


Part of that is simply asking the obvious question: imagine if Iran occupied France, had scores of warships in the Channel, was reported to have commandos operating in the home counties, and was pushing for sanctions against Britain – how would public opinion, the media and the British government react?


What makes anyone think Iran is any different?

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle17447.htm

[nevesirth]

i think all these is jst a show of power by the west, trying to oppress people

[wilberhum]

It looks to me like Iran wants war.
Why is that?

Sounds more and more like Iran wants war.
Why is that?

[Keltoi]

i think all these is jst a show of power by the west, trying to oppress people

What is a show of power by the West? Allowing British soldiers to be captured without stopping it?

[Darkseid]

Bush is a dumb idiot and he isn't a muslim. So when you are talking about Allah, he thinking you are talking about someone other than god or at least "his" god. Bush like other ignorant people do not associate the whole threshold of monotheism as the belief and worship of the same one god.

There are many ingorant people in the world. You just have to be glad that there are still people that aren't ignorant like me.

[Trumble]

By George Galloway. MP

The commander of the ship HMS Cornwall unwittingly captured the mentality of imperial occupation when he said the sailors had been captured in "our waters".

He meant the waters belonging under international law and treaty to the Republic of Iraq.

What nonsense.

There is no evidence of "imperialist mentality" there. "Our" waters and "their" (or "your") waters is just a rather more quick and convenient way to say "the territorial waters of the Republic of Iraq in which we have a warship presence in according to a United Nations mandate" or "the territorial waters of the Islamic Republic of Iran". The same informal terminology has been used throughout naval history.

Galloway, as ever, just demonstrates himself to be a fool. He should stick to reality TV.

[wilberhum]

Bush is a dumb idiot and he isn't a muslim. So when you are talking about Allah, he thinking you are talking about someone other than god or at least "his" god. Bush like other ignorant people do not associate the whole threshold of monotheism as the belief and worship of the same one god.

There are many ingorant people in the world. You just have to be glad that there are still people that aren't ignorant like me.

I think you have provided the proof about you. Just different than you plan. :D
You must be a close personal friend of Bush. :skeleton:
Shame on you for slandering other peoples religion. :raging:
But you are first in line saying "They just don't understand Muslims". :? :?

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace


Live Dialogue

Subject: The British Sailors' Standoff


http://www.islamonline.net/english/index.shtml

Guest Name Iranian Activist Rostam Pourzal



Date Sunday,Apr 1 ,2007

Time Makkah

From... 04:30...To... 06:30
GMT
From... 01:30...To...03:30

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace ,


NEWS YOU WON'T FIND ON CNN




Call that humiliation?

No hoods. No electric shocks. No beatings. These Iranians clearly are a very uncivilised bunch


By Terry Jones

03/31/07 "The Guardian" -- --


I share the outrage expressed in the British press over the treatment of our naval personnel accused by Iran of illegally entering their waters.


It is a disgrace. We would never dream of treating captives like this - allowing them to smoke cigarettes, for example, even though it has been proven that smoking kills.



And as for compelling poor servicewoman Faye Turney to wear a black headscarf, and then allowing the picture to be posted around the world - have the Iranians no concept of civilised behaviour?


For God's sake, what's wrong with putting a bag over her head? That's what we do with the Muslims we capture: we put bags over their heads, so it's hard to breathe.

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle17455.htm



Resisting the Drums of War


10 Minute Video

The Bush administration promoted the misguided and destructive war in Iraq by targeting our concerns about vulnerability, injustice, distrust,

superiority, and helplessness. The continued occupation of Iraq or an attack on Iran will likely be sold to us in much the same way. This video

examines these warmongering appeals and describes how to counter them.


http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle17456.htm

[AvarAllahNoor]

^^^ Haha Great post

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace;


Behind the Iran Crisis: The Israel Lobby's Campaign for War
Mark Weber


http: //www.ihr.org/news/0704_weber.shtml



In recent months the most pressing international issue has been the question of a new war in the Middle East ...


This crisis is artificial. It is every bit as phony as the one manufactured to provide a pretext for war against Iraq ...


Once again we are told that another country that Israel regards as an adversary is a grave threat to peace. Once again our politicians and a compliant media present a barrage of sensational and frightening propaganda claims – claims remarkably similar to those we heard in 2002 and 2003, and from the same Israel-friendly crowd ...


The Jewish-Zionist grip on our nation is an expression of a profound and deeply rooted problem... Such a lobby or power... could only gain such a hold on the governmental machinery of a society that is fundamentally sick and corrupt.

[wilberhum]

It is Israel's fault that Iran wants nuks.
Interesting!

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace;

It is Israel's fault that Iran wants nuks. Interesting!

In the region, the only country that currently has a nuclear weapons arsenal, that occupies territory of its neighbors, and which is in violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions – is Israel.



In fact, if the United States held Israel to the same standards that it has applied to Iraq and now Iran, American bombers and missiles would be blasting Tel Aviv, and American troops would seize Israel’s leaders and punish them for war crimes and crimes against humanity.



....One might argue that Israel and the Lobby have not had much influence on policy towards Iran, because the US has its own reasons for keeping Iran from going nuclear. There is some truth in this, but Iran’s nuclear ambitions do not pose a direct threat to the US. If Washington could live with a nuclear Soviet Union, a nuclear China or even a nuclear North Korea, it can live with a nuclear Iran.



An address by Mark Weber,

http://www.ihr.org/news/0704_weber.shtml

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace


Israeli Poll: U.S. Should Strike Iran

Fully 71 percent of Israelis think the U.S. should launch a military strike on Iran if diplomacy fails to stop Tehran’s nuclear program, a new poll reveals.



The survey commissioned by Bar-Ilan University’s BESA Center and the Anti-Defamation League, also found that 59 percent of Israelis still believe the war in Iraq was justified, while 36 percent think it was not.



Other results of the poll reported by the Web site Haaretz.com include:



# 65 percent of Israelis polled said the U.S. is a loyal ally of Israel, and only 11 percent said it was not.




Story Continues Below


# 48 percent said U.S. support for Israel was due to strategic considerations, 30 percent credited American Jewry and 17 attributed it to shared values and shared democratic traditions.



# 91 percent said close relations with the U.S. are vital to Israel’s security.



# 52 percent said American support of Israel is "sufficient,” while 33 percent said it is not.



http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...939.shtml?s=os

[Keltoi]

http://www.islamicity.com/graphics/BLRR.gif

Salaam/peace


Israeli Poll: U.S. Should Strike Iran

Fully 71 percent of Israelis think the U.S. should launch a military strike on Iran if diplomacy fails to stop Tehran’s nuclear program, a new poll reveals.



The survey commissioned by Bar-Ilan University’s BESA Center and the Anti-Defamation League, also found that 59 percent of Israelis still believe the war in Iraq was justified, while 36 percent think it was not.



Other results of the poll reported by the Web site Haaretz.com include:



# 65 percent of Israelis polled said the U.S. is a loyal ally of Israel, and only 11 percent said it was not.




Story Continues Below


# 48 percent said U.S. support for Israel was due to strategic considerations, 30 percent credited American Jewry and 17 attributed it to shared values and shared democratic traditions.



# 91 percent said close relations with the U.S. are vital to Israel’s security.



# 52 percent said American support of Israel is "sufficient,” while 33 percent said it is not.



http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...939.shtml?s=os

I'm sure most countries in the region and the West in general are secretly hoping for a U.S. strike on Iran, that way they don't have to deal with the problem and can continue to criticize American foreign policy...while they secretly celebrate.

[Chiteng]

It is all very simple really.

In 1938 Chamberlin allowed Germany to absorb Czechoslovakia.
In doing that he was following the dictates of appeasment.

It was a mistake, and it took 6 years of war to end the problem.

Like it or not, Iran is seen as the SAME as Nazi Germany.
Because 'nice' countries do NOT seize hostages.
Iran will NOT escape that stereotype. And no one forced them to
sieze hostages.

So allowing Iran to have Nuclear Weapons is seen as the same
as Chamberlin allowing Germany to absorb Czechoslovakia.

That impression is NOT GOING TO CHANGE.

That and the reckless statements of the Iranian President.

So in my opinion, there is very little hope that Iran will get what it wants
w/o a fight. Almost no hope at all.

We dont buy oil from Iran, their threats do not scare us.

So it is like watching a train wreck, that you have no power to stop.
Because Iran foolishly feels that the USA is too cowardly to act.
They are wrong. They will find that out, the hard way.

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/ peace ;


did not read the whole articles...if u notice any anti-Islamic matters ,pl. let me or mod know about it ...so the links be removed.





Does 'The Decider' Decide on War?

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Has Congress given George Bush a green light to attack Iran?

For he is surely behaving as though it is his call alone. And evidence is mounting that we are on a collision course for war.


http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle17797.htm


While U.S.-Iran discussions have begun, there are reports Vice President Cheney and the neo-con remnant, along with the Israelis, are opposed to talks and believe that the only solution to Iran's nuclear program is military.

Whether this is part of a good-cop, bad-cop routine to convince Tehran to suspend enrichment, we do not know.


William E. Odom: Exit From Iraq Should Be Through Iran:


The lesson for both Iran and North Korea is simple: acquire nuclear weapons and the US will not only stop threatening "regime change," but will also seek good relations.

Effectively the US has demolished the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.



http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=9223


War Pimp Alert:

The Case for Bombing Iran :

I hope and pray that President Bush will do it.


http://www.opinionjournal.com/federa.../?id=110010139

[Muslim Woman]

:sl:



An American in Iran



Christmas trees at Esfahan's Vank Cathedral (Photo by Scott Fisher)


The difference between Iran of the headlines and the reality of the Islamic Republic is what Scott Fisher has managed to discover.



While working as an Asia analyst for the US Department of Defense in Washington, D.C., Fisher visited the "axis of evil" countries, traveling to Iran in January 2006.



Visiting nearly every region of the country, he takes us with him on a tour around Iran. As part of our special coverage of Iran, Scott Fisher's diary of his visit to the Islamic Republic will be published in a six-part series.











http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/S...rs%2FMAELayout


&&

The US vs. Iran

A Love-Hate Relationship

By Amal Hamada

Lecturer – Cairo University








An Iranian student holds a placard during a protest against negotiation with the US in front of the Iran Supreme National Security Council's building in Tehran, Iran, April 8, 2006. (Reuters photo)


http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/S...rs%2FMAELayout

[Zman]

:sl:/Peace To All

Emperor Bush: I'm the "Decider," and when I decide to bomb I-Ran, it will be with Nook-E-Yar Weapons

[......]

i don't really get it..?

^COSIGN

[Zman]

It is all very simple really.

In 1938 Chamberlin allowed Germany to absorb Czechoslovakia.
In doing that he was following the dictates of appeasment.

It was a mistake, and it took 6 years of war to end the problem.

Like it or not, Iran is seen as the SAME as Nazi Germany.

Thats a really bad analogy.

There is no comparison between Nazi Germany and Iran.

There is no comparison between Germany attacking and seizng another country, and Iran. Iran hasn't attacked and seized another nation. And it hasn't embarked on a continental war for domination...

Because 'nice' countries do NOT seize hostages.

So, the US and all the European nations who were complicit in the renidition program, which is in actuality, seizing hostages, torturing them, and imprisoning them without charges nor trial are not nice.

What about the US seizing the 5 Iranian low-level diplomats from the Iranian Embassy in Irbil, Iraq. They are technically hostages and pawns in a game...

So allowing Iran to have Nuclear Weapons is seen as the same
as Chamberlin allowing Germany to absorb Czechoslovakia.

The huge mistake in this claim is that every attempt at proving that Iran has embarked on a nuclear weapons program has failed.

The only thing Iran is doing is embarking on a peaceful civilian nuclear program.

All this nonsense about them enriching uranium for a nuclear bomb is pure propaganda, and is to be used as a pretext for a war for ntervention. Because what they are doing is absolutely legal under the IAEA & UN rules. Iran is a signatory of the NPT, that gives it the right to enrich uranium.

Israel on other hand started its militaristic nuclear program in the late 50's, and doesn't allow IAEA transparent inspections.

India didn't sign the NPT, and the US rewards it by signing a new nuclear cooperation program. That's a great example of our hypocrisy.

That and the reckless statements of the Iranian President.

Hmmm. Compare them to the reckless statements issued by Bush and Israeli officials...

So in my opinion, there is very little hope that Iran will get what it wants
w/o a fight. Almost no hope at all.

It's been getting everything peacefully, so far...

We dont buy oil from Iran, their threats do not scare us.

Other nations do, and the US takes their views seriously and courts their approval of our actions.

All the major powers have refused to sign off on a US strike. The purchasers of Iranian oil, also have refused to sanction a US strike.

Also, if the US controlls Iraq's oil, and then aquires the control of Iranian oil, that would give it huge leverage over the world, and can then dictate to the nations who do buy Iranian oil. That's another reason for their refusal in allowing a us strike.

So it is like watching a train wreck, that you have no power to stop.
Because Iran foolishly feels that the USA is too cowardly to act.
They are wrong. They will find that out, the hard way.

The US and Israel don't dare to attack Iran. Iran is a powerful nation. We can inflict much damage, but, we'll get hit hard in a retaliatory attack.

Iran is not Iraq.

If we wanted to or could have attacked Iran, we would have done it a long time ago.

The longer we put it off, the more stronger Iran gets and the less likely we do attack...

[Muslim Woman]

:sl:







Manufacturing Consent For War With Iran?:

U.S. troops detain four insurgents smuggling Iranian weapons in Baghdad :


The detainees are believed to be members of a "secret cell terrorist network known for facilitating the transport of weapons and explosively formed penetrators, or EFPs, from Iran to Iraq, as well as bringing militants from Iraq to Iran for terrorist training," a military statement said.




http://tinyurl.com/2px2h4

[Zman]

:sl:

Manufacturing Consent For War With Iran?:

U.S. troops detain four insurgents smuggling Iranian weapons in Baghdad :

The detainees are believed to be members of a "secret cell terrorist network known for facilitating the transport of weapons and explosively formed penetrators, or EFPs, from Iran to Iraq, as well as bringing militants from Iraq to Iran for terrorist training," a military statement said.

http://tinyurl.com/2px2h4

:sl:

That's what I don't get about the corporate media's propaganda. In this instance, they're being highly generalistic and vague.

Are all Muslim groups in Iraq, being placed under the umbrella term of insurgents.

Because, I highly doubt that the Iranians are helping the national Sunni Insurgency.

Do they mean by insurgents, the Shia militia's?

Or by stating "terrorist network," that brings to mind, Al Qaeda. But, the Iranians loathe Al Qaeda, and have imprisoned many members fleeing Afghanistan after the initial U.S. Assault.

They even have one of OBL's sons in Jail...

[islamirama]

CIA running black propaganda operation against Iran, Syria and Lebanon, officials say
Larisa Alexandrovna
Monday June 4, 2007

Some intelligence sources more wary of covert Pentagon operations

The Central Intelligence Agency has received approval at least twice in the last several years to conduct an “information war” against several countries in the Middle East, including Iran, Lebanon and Syria, according to current and former intelligence officials.

In addition, the Bush Administration has been running operations out of the Defense Department that are not subject to Congressional oversight, intelligence sources say. These programs appear murkier, and have included support for an alleged terrorist group in Iran.

A recent ABC News report revealed that President George W. Bush had signed a presidential finding giving the CIA the authority to conduct “non-lethal” covert operations against Iran. Former and current intelligence sources tell RAW STORY, however, that there have been “at least two” presidential findings over the past few years which have empowered the agency to run an “open-secret” information war against Iranian interests, mainly leveraging resources and assets “within the United States and France.”

Although the resources – people, groups, organizations – were not identified, sources say that they are not terrorist organizations or groups using violent tactics to achieve their goals. “It's a propaganda operation,” said a former intelligence case officer who wished to remain anonymous due to the sensitive nature of the information. “It is not new or aggressive,” the source added, explaining that the operation has been going on for some time and has Congressional funding and oversight.

CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano would not comment about the allegations made in the ABC report or discuss the existence of the presidential findings identified to RAW STORY.

“The CIA does not, as a matter of course, publicly discuss allegations of covert action, whether the assertions are wrong, right, or somewhere in-between,” Gimigliano said. “That's one reason why the term ‘covert action’ still exists.”

“But it's important to remember that, through the Congress, there is vigorous oversight of secret intelligence activities,” he added.

According to current and former intelligence officials, the various presidential findings are not limited to Iran. Several countries within the Middle East – including Syria and Lebanon – as well as groups such as Hezbollah, are being targeted through what sources call “black propaganda” efforts.

Iran is being targeted by the CIA's activities with a “pro-democracy” message, sources say, and the agency is supporting overt “pro-democracy” groups.

The program’s particulars are highly classified. Intelligence sources stress, however, that the groups being used are rather mainstream and the operations are almost entirely restricted to information warfare.

Sources would not identify what mechanism was being employed to distribute the propaganda, if it included news media, individuals or organizations, or whether that information was seeping back into domestic news reports.

One former intelligence case officer did explain that the CIA's program is operating largely outside of the Middle East and is aimed at identifying potential allies, as well as using already existing well known groups through whom information can be delivered. The type of “information” and the “groups” and “organizations” involved were not identified.

ABC News may have reported the presidential finding as “new” because of the recently passed massive intelligence budget. Under the bill, roughly $50 million was appropriated for the “Democracy Fund” and the “Broadcasting Board of Governors,” both earmarked for Iran operations.

Sources close to the Select Senate Committee on Intelligence would not discuss any aspect of the CIA program or comment on anything relating to the presidential findings.

“This is an area I simply cannot get into,” said one source.

Pentagon operation supporting terrorist group kept from Congress

RAW STORY has also learned that the Pentagon is continuing to conduct more aggressive “black” operations, approved by the National Security Council and the Office of the Vice President.

Current and former intelligence officials would not identify new specific covert programs running out of the Pentagon, though sources stressed these are far riskier and more truly covert operational activities against Iran than the activities of the CIA.

These operations started almost immediately after the Iraq war and have continued for several years. Because they can be considered part of a military operation, they are not subjects to the same requirements for Congressional authorization as the activities of the CIA.

The majority of these efforts to destabilize Iran through a covert war of aggression have been carried out by the Department of Defense, largely steered by the Office of the Vice President and by then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

A series of RAW STORY reports has identified some of the “off book” or black operations running out of the Pentagon over the last several years. In 2003, the Defense Department began working with terrorist and dissident groups in an effort to destabilize Iran, bypassing traditional intelligence channels. One of the assets the Pentagon used was a terrorist organization known as Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), which was being “run” in two southern regional areas of Iran, including a Shia region where a series of attacks in 2006 left many dead and hundreds injured.

These activities have often been guided by the same individuals whose actions during Iran-Contra were the reason for a 1991 law on covert activities which for the first time clearly defined covert activities and how their oversight should be handled.

During Iran-Contra, the Reagan White House – via the National Security Council – sold weapons to Iran, an avowed enemy of the United States, and used the money to fund various terrorist and dissident groups, collectively called the Contras, to fight a proxy war against the government of Nicaragua.

Sources say that MEK has been used for intelligence collection, an activity which has traditionally fallen under the CIA. The administration also appears to be looking the other way as groups such as MEK commit acts of violence.

Intelligence sources interviewed for this article all expressed concern over the lack of attention to the Pentagon’s covert activities. Some believe illegal activities like those of the Iran-Contra days are now being hidden under the loophole of “traditional military activities” to avoid Congressional oversight.

Steven Aftergood, director for the Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy, says this loophole exists in Congressional oversight with regards to military covert activities.

“CIA covert actions have to be authorized by a written presidential finding, which must be provided to Congress,” Aftergood said. “By contrast, DOD operations, including clandestine or covert operations, are not subject to this procedure.

“As a result,” he added, “there may be a temptation to opt for a purely military action to take advantage of the loophole in congressional notification requirements.”

Covert economic warfare may not be limited to CIA

Another former intelligence official said that the CIA has been cleared to target Iran's economic interests, but that the approval is limited to non-aggressive activities. The CIA “has been empowered to put economic pressure on Iran,” the former intelligence officer stated, but would not elaborate on what the meaning of “pressure” is.

Yet some suggest that the economic element of the covert program is either far more aggressive or is being attributed to the CIA when in fact another agency may be running it.

Foreign intelligence sources say that economic pressure is aimed at Iran's oil-rich economy, with US efforts serving to “persuade” financial institutions, oil companies, and international investment interests to pull out of Iran and even drop already existing energy projects.

These sources cite the example of an unnamed company that is being denied financing for energy projects inside Iran by international banks, indicating that many more such examples exist.

Other possible forms of pressure would include less subtle activities, such as intercepting supply convoys and confiscating equipment. Foreign sources are not sure if this covert activity is in fact part of the CIA program.

The Department of Defense did not respond to comment on this story.

Muriel Kane contributed to the research for this article.

Larisa Alexandrovna is the Managing Editor of Investigative News for Raw Story and regularly covers intelligence and national security. She can be reached at larisa@rawstory.com.
#

Related Raw Story articles on US planning and operations concerning Iran:

Escalation of US Iran military planning part of six-year Administration push, 1/23/07

Senior intel official: Pentagon moves to second-stage planning for Iran strike option, 9/21/06

Intelligence officials doubt Iran uranium claims, say Cheney receiving suspect briefings, 8/18/06

Congress quietly holds classified briefings on Iran as Democrats seek access to intelligence, 6/22/06

Pentagon confirms Iranian directorate as officials raise new concerns about war, 6/15/06

On Cheney, Rumsfeld order, US outsourcing special ops, intelligence to Iraq terror group, intelligence officials say, 4/13/06
#

Raw Story articles on US dealings with Iran-Contra figure Manucher Ghorbanifar:

Intelligence Laundry: To Paris again, 10/16/06

Cheney has tapped Iranian expatriate, arms dealer to surveil discussions with Iran, officials say, 4/20/06

Spurious attempt to tie Iran, Iraq to nuclear arms plot bypassed U.S. intelligence channels, 1/11/06

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/CIA_ru...st_060 4.html

[Muslim Woman]

:sl:



Countdown to War on Iran:

US Foments Unrest and Spurns Overtures



http://www.counterpunch.org/gresh06062007.html




If You Think Bush Is Evil Now, Wait Until He Nukes Iran

Paul Craig Roberts

The war in Iraq is lost.


This fact is widely recognized by American military officers and has been recently expressed forcefully by Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the commander of US forces in Iraq during the first year of the attempted occupation. Winning is no longer an option.


http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle17834.htm

===

Could al Qaeda Attack Trigger War With Iran?

Analysis by Gareth Porter

Following revelations of a George W. Bush administration policy to hold Iran responsible for any al Qaeda attack on the U.S. that could be portrayed as planned on Iranian soil, former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinksi warned last week that Washington might use such an incident as a pretext to bomb Iran.



http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle17843.htm

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace

Israeli Losing Patience for Iran Talks:

A senior member of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's government suggested Wednesday that his country is running out of patience with a U.S.-backed diplomatic overture to head off Iran's nuclear ambitions.


http://tinyurl.com/2t28sd



Iran caught 'red-handed' shipping arms to Taliban:

"It is inconceivable that it is anyone other than the Iranian government that's doing it," said former White House counterterrorism official Richard Clarke, now an ABC News consultant.


http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56060




War pimp alert: 'Military plan against Iran is ready':

Predicting that Iran will obtain a nuclear weapon within three years and claiming to have a strike plan in place, senior American military officers have told The Jerusalem Post they support President George W. Bush's stance to do everything necessary to stop the Islamic Republic's race for nuclear power.



http://tinyurl.com/yqznb3

[Chiteng]

Thats a really bad analogy.

There is no comparison between Nazi Germany and Iran.

There is no comparison between Germany attacking and seizng another country, and Iran. Iran hasn't attacked and seized another nation. And it hasn't embarked on a continental war for domination...

So, the US and all the European nations who were complicit in the renidition program, which is in actuality, seizing hostages, torturing them, and imprisoning them without charges nor trial are not nice.

What about the US seizing the 5 Iranian low-level diplomats from the Iranian Embassy in Irbil, Iraq. They are technically hostages and pawns in a game...


The huge mistake in this claim is that every attempt at proving that Iran has embarked on a nuclear weapons program has failed.

The only thing Iran is doing is embarking on a peaceful civilian nuclear program.

All this nonsense about them enriching uranium for a nuclear bomb is pure propaganda, and is to be used as a pretext for a war for ntervention. Because what they are doing is absolutely legal under the IAEA & UN rules. Iran is a signatory of the NPT, that gives it the right to enrich uranium.

Israel on other hand started its militaristic nuclear program in the late 50's, and doesn't allow IAEA transparent inspections.

India didn't sign the NPT, and the US rewards it by signing a new nuclear cooperation program. That's a great example of our hypocrisy.


Hmmm. Compare them to the reckless statements issued by Bush and Israeli officials...

It's been getting everything peacefully, so far...

Other nations do, and the US takes their views seriously and courts their approval of our actions.

All the major powers have refused to sign off on a US strike. The purchasers of Iranian oil, also have refused to sanction a US strike.

Also, if the US controlls Iraq's oil, and then aquires the control of Iranian oil, that would give it huge leverage over the world, and can then dictate to the nations who do buy Iranian oil. That's another reason for their refusal in allowing a us strike.

The US and Israel don't dare to attack Iran. Iran is a powerful nation. We can inflict much damage, but, we'll get hit hard in a retaliatory attack.

Iran is not Iraq.

If we wanted to or could have attacked Iran, we would have done it a long time ago.

The longer we put it off, the more stronger Iran gets and the less likely we do attack...

I dont agree. Iran is eager for status. It wants recognition.
And quite frankly, I personally think that the people running Iran, dont really
care how many people may die, as long as their goals are met.

Right now the only reason Iran isnt being attacked is Rice.
She is talking Bush out of it. But Cheney wants a military solution.

Nice countries dont take hostages. Your sophistry is ignored.

Yes it is possible that nothing will happen. IT IS POSSIBLE.
But it is also possible that something WILL happen.

[Muslim Woman]

:sl:




Cheney is Pressing for War Against Iran



Steven C. Clemons - The Washington Note




http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/ 002145.php





...The person in the Bush administration who most wants a hot conflict with Iran is Vice President Cheney. ...



Cheney does not support President Bush's tack towards Condoleezza Rice's diplomatic efforts and fears that the President is taking diplomacy with Iran too seriously.





This White House official has stated to several Washington insiders that Cheney is planning to deploy an "end run strategy" around the President if he and his team lose the policy argument.




The thinking on Cheney's team is to collude with Israel, nudging Israel at some key moment in the ongoing standoff between Iran's nuclear activities and international frustration over this to mount a small- scale conventional strike against Natanz using cruise missiles (i.e., not ballistic missiles).



Exit From Iraq Should Be Through Iran




William E. Odom (Lt. Gen., US Army, Ret.)



http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article? id=9223




... Thus the US footing in the Arab camp has been eroding. If that continues, the cost in increased US military power to maintain Israel's ultimate security will soon be beyond US means.


A rapprochement with Iran, therefore, is the key to restoring regional stability as the US withdraws from Iraq. Tehran has as much interest in stability in both Iraq and Afghanistan as does Washington. Both oppose Al Qaeda ...



Effectively the US has demolished the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran might settle for a security guarantee against an Israeli nuclear strike ...

[Muslim Woman]

:sl:



High on Hate?

By Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich & Nader Bagherzadeh

Left without a pretext for a military assault on Iran, the Bush administration finds itself in a position where it needs to prepare the world opinion for mass genocide with a compelling reason.



With its control over the media, it is accomplishing this by denouncing Iran as the killer of American troops while causing civil unrest in Iraq.



http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle17877.htm


don't remember if i posted it earlier :


Presstitute and war pimp alert:

Fightin' words Iran must hear:

End border raids or bombs away: Can you believe that Joe Lieberman?


Iran has gone to war with us, sending troops across its border with Iraq to kill perhaps as many as 200 of our soldiers, and Lieberman wants to stop them



http://tinyurl.com/273ewo

[Muslim Woman]

:sl:



What Will We Do Then?

The Day After We Strike Iran

By Gary Leupp

Let us suppose that the Bush-Cheney administration answers the neocons' prayer and does indeed bomb Iran sometime soon.



http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle17889.htm

[Chiteng]

:sl:



What Will We Do Then?

The Day After We Strike Iran

By Gary Leupp

Let us suppose that the Bush-Cheney administration answers the neocons' prayer and does indeed bomb Iran sometime soon.



http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle17889.htm

I have a different question. What if the USA does NOT attack Iran.
But Israel does. What will happen then?
Oddly, I suspect it wont matter to Iran, and they will attack the USA anyway.
Which will mean that they will allow Bush to do whatever he wants.

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/ peace ;

I have a different question. What if the USA does NOT attack Iran. But Israel does. What will happen then?

let me guess......Israel will say , we don't do body counts.....some websites will be created to count the numbers how many died in the war as if human being are numbers only.


We will have some brave embaded journalists who will beat the best private secretaries ever one can ask for....will report exactly what they hear from their bosses , we will post something bashing Israel & the life will go on as it's going for us now etc , etc.



Many of us will forget - everything is being recorded for the last day.

Oddly, I suspect it wont matter to Iran, and they will attack the USA anyway.

do u really believe , Iran has this power to attack USA & win the war ?

Which will mean that they will allow Bush to do whatever he wants.

I don't think , Bush is waiting for Iran's allowing him to start the war. May be , he is waiting for the most suitable time .


[

[Curaezipirid]

The sort of dialogue going on here seems so absurd that we even need to bother with it.

Is it true that George Bush nearly died choking on a Pretzel?

This morning Aussie network TV had a US senator speaking against the war.

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/ peace ;

Lying Us In to War
Again
Charley Reese


http://www.lewrockwell.com/reese/reese368.html

The drumbeat for war against Iran has begun again, led by Sen. Joe Lieberman, the independent Democrat from Connecticut, and the usual pro-Israel crowd...





I don't see how any honest man can believe that Iran is a threat to the United States or its neighbors.




Iran has not invaded anyone in the past 100 years.









Iran has from the beginning insisted that its nuclear program is for peaceful energy purposes, and there has been no evidence - I repeat, no evidence - to the contrary...





As for Iran's alleged threat to "wipe Israel off the map," that is propaganda based on a mistranslation.





Nobody in Iran has ever threatened to attack Israel militarily.

Our Leaders, the Enemy

By Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich

In line with Adolf Hitler, the neo-cons are delivering bigger lies for a more violent conflict.


They are accusing Iran of a nuclear threat in spite of the IAEA inspections to the contrary, further destabilizing Iraq by arming and feeding the frenzy on all sides, and stoking the flames by such incendiary accusations as: Iran is now arming the Taliban.



http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17901.htm

===

[wilberhum]

I don't see how any honest man can believe that Iran is a threat to the United States or its neighbors.

Maybe because they help finance militant groups in neighbors countries. :skeleton:

[islamirama]

Maybe because they help finance militant groups in neighbors countries. :skeleton:

US does that as well, forget neighbors, US does it across the world. It doesn't just finance, but uproot unfriendly regimes and anything and everything to make it beneficial to it.



Iran has not invaded anyone in the past 100 years.


how many wars has US waged and lands US invaded within last 5yrs?

I think we know who the real terrorist regime is here.

[wilberhum]

US does that as well, forget neighbors, US does it across the world. It doesn't just finance, but uproot unfriendly regimes and anything and everything to make it beneficial to it.



Iran has not invaded anyone in the past 100 years.


how many wars has US waged and lands US invaded within last 5yrs?

I think we know who the real terrorist regime is here.

What the US does or does not do was not part of your statement.
How many wars the US has waged was not part of your statement.
The statement was:

I don't see how any honest man can believe that Iran is a threat to the United States or its neighbors.

I addressed your statement, yet you do not address mine. You just dump the standard garbage.
You say anything about what I respect and I will just say what you respect is worse. It is the standard "Your momma is uglier than my momma” argument.
Iran has been pushing for war from inspection. I fear some day they will get it.

[islamirama]

Iran has been pushing for war from inspection. I fear some day they will get it.

Accept Reality: Iran and North Korea Will Not Be Denied Nuclear Weapons


by Ivan Eland
(Tuesday, June 19, 2007)


"...unless the United States is ready to launch unlikely ground invasions in both of these nations, in order to neutralize all their nuclear facilities, fissionable material, or weapons, which would make the invasion and occupation of Iraq look like a day at the beach, Iran and North Korea will probably get or retain nuclear weapons, respectively."


The Bush administration may live in a bubble of “unreality,” regarding its foreign policy in Iraq, but neo-conservatives inhabit a parallel universe on Iran. Unbelievably, despite the fact that the U.S. quagmire in Iraq has greatly weakened the U.S. position vis-à-vis Iran, the neocons are pushing for military action against that theocratic regime. According to the New York Times, David Wurmser, one of Vice President Dick Cheney’s principal advisors, told conservative groups of Cheney’s assertion that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s diplomatic effort to shut down Iran’s nuclear program was faltering. Cheney further asserted that by the spring of 2008 President Bush might have to decide whether to use military force against that nation, according to the report.


Fortunately, however, the Times also reports that the friends and associates of Secretary Rice say she believes a military strike against Iran would be “disastrous” and is winning the internal administration debate so far. Even more encouraging is President Bush’s decision in late 2002 and early 2003, when he decided not to give North Korea an ultimatum or threaten to attack that nation over its ejection of international nuclear inspectors and plans to create more weapons-grade plutonium that could be made into nuclear bombs. North Korea followed through on its plans, is now believed to have enough fuel for eight or more weapons, and exploded a nuclear device in the fall of 2006. Yet during the time of Bush’s decision, North Korea already had enough fissile material to make some nuclear weapons, whereas Iran doesn’t. That is, the reality of going to war with a nuclear nation is much more sobering than going to war with a nation that is still three to eight years away from generating the fissionable material needed to make an atomic weapon.


Even if the United States launched air strikes against Iran, they would probably only delay the inevitable. Such strikes would be unlikely to eliminate all of Iran’s nuclear facilities, because the United States doesn’t know where all of them are located; in addition, some have been deeply buried, and still others are in densely populated areas. Air strikes would likely rally the young Iranian population, thirsting for change, around the autocratic and theocratic fossils now running Iran’s government—eliminating all hope that regime change would terminate the Iranian nuclear program. Indeed, such U.S. belligerence, or even saber rattling, is one of the prime factors motivating Iran to obtain the weapons.


If one doubts this effect, in late 2002 and early 2003, North Korea redoubled its nuclear efforts, a move that coincided with the North Koreans’ conclusion about what was going to happen to a non-nuclear Iraq. As a result, North Korea’s more recent agreement to readmit international weapons inspectors and stop its nuclear program, in exchange for aid and the unfreezing of its assets, should be taken with a grain of salt. North Korea cheated on the last such agreement it made with the Clinton administration. More important, the agreement did not require the North Koreans to give up the fissionable material already generated.
Therefore, unless the United States is ready to launch unlikely ground invasions in both of these nations, in order to neutralize all their nuclear facilities, fissionable material, or weapons, which would make the invasion and occupation of Iraq look like a day at the beach, Iran and North Korea will probably get or retain nuclear weapons, respectively.


This reality should not preclude the United States from trying to negotiate a “grand bargain” with these nations: to get them to give up their nuclear weapons in exchange for a full normalization of relations, to integrate them into the world economy by the lifting of economic sanctions, and to guarantee that the United States will not attack them. However, in the wake of the U.S. invasion of non-nuclear Iraq and the existence of regional rivals—some with nuclear weapons or weapons potential—it is unlikely that either Iran or North Korea will negotiate away their nuclear programs.
Thus, the United States probably will have to deter an Iranian or North Korean nuclear attack, or the giving or selling of these nuclear weapons to terrorists, by using the most powerful nuclear arsenal in the world. Such deterrence was effectively carried out against bigger and more powerful states--Maoist China and the USSR--until they either moderated their behavior or disintegrated, respectively. In the case of Maoist China, the United States deterred a radical nation that indirectly threatened nuclear war with the West. If the United States deterred such large powers, it should certainly be able to deter the smaller and poorer Iran and North Korea. It is also a good bet that both unpopular, autocratic governments will collapse at some time in the future. In addition, the United States could offer these two nuclear powers limited assistance in safeguarding their nuclear weapons against theft and tips on keeping control of them in order to avoid an accidental or unauthorized launch.


Acceptance, deterrence, and limited technical assistance are smarter policies than counterproductive U.S. saber rattling and belligerence, which merely cause more countries to start or accelerate secret nuclear programs in order to obtain the ultimate weapon to keep the United States at bay.



http://www.islamicity.com/m/news_fra...erenceID=32492

[wilberhum]

Accept Reality: Iran and North Korea Will Not Be Denied Nuclear Weapons

I accept reality. I also fear reality. WWIII is on it's way.

[islamirama]

I accept reality. I also fear reality. WWIII is on it's way.

bush and his monkey gang needs to accept reality.

You know experts say that these wars (afghan, iraq, and syria/iran/libya on the list) are initial stages of WWIII. I think its envitable and we will see it coming soon.

Hitler started WWII and Hitler 2 (Bush) started WWIII (still in its infancy)

[wilberhum]

bush and his monkey gang needs to accept reality.

You know experts say that these wars (afghan, iraq, and syria/iran/libya on the list) are initial stages of WWIII. I think its envitable and we will see it coming soon.

Hitler started WWII and Hitler 2 (Bush) started WWIII (still in its infancy)

Oh no not another one who distorts to make there point.
Ya, It is all Bush's fault. (Hitler 2) Da
Poor little Iran. They just want peace.
Say, if you buy that, I have a bridge I would like to sell you.

[tears4husain]

:sl: I totally agree, but I also believe that WWIII will be against Islam as it already is. My question is will we stand for it as muslims? these are our brothers and sisters over there getting killed.and we do nothing but seek refuge in america when its there soldiers with our blood on their hands with no remorse. We have the right to arm our selves against the aggressors. Iran, Iraq, Arabia and so on we have the right to stand for what we believe and not bow down to the real terrorist and murderers. We're over here paying taxes to kill our brothers and sisters our wealth is spent to inforce the killings and not in the way of Allah (s.w.t.) when we migrate to the land of disbelief.:cry: :w:

[wilberhum]

If it is a war against Islam, how did you get in? Da Did you read that in the News?

[tears4husain]

:sl: what do you mean? I think you get a kick out of debating with people regardless if you win or lose.:D

[wilberhum]

:sl: what do you mean? I think you get a kick out of debating with people regardless if you win or lose.:D

What do I mean? Reread it. I think it is quite clear.
I debate to express my opinion and hopefully get an intelligent response. A different opinion from an intelligent person can quite offend help one form a new opinion. It is an amazing way to learn.
But what I usually find is people that define everything as black or white and ignore the 98 shades of gray. That and the totally unintelligent statements like “It is a war against Islam”; everything bad is caused by the US.
I do have some fun when people make really stupid statements like “Iran is peaceful”.
But I don’t do it to win.
Well maybe I do. Every time I see new intelligent things, I gain knowledge and to me that is winning.

[Keltoi]

World War is probably not going to run the normal historical course. The major powers have too much destructive power in their hands. If there was a world war now, it would probably be fought in some "neutral" territory, that way the home countries will probably escape destruction. Of course the poor nations caught in the middle will be totally decimated. Whether these countries are eastern European, middle eastern, etc, who knows.

[Woodrow]

We can look at the bright side a nuclear war will not be a long drawn out war. Should last 15 to 20 minutes and then in a few thousand years our descendants can come out of their caves and fight WW4 with sticks and rocks.

A nuclear war will have no winners. There can be no conquest through the use of nukes. To conquer you have to have something left you can invade and colonize.

[Chiteng]

:sl: I totally agree, but I also believe that WWIII will be against Islam as it already is. My question is will we stand for it as muslims? these are our brothers and sisters over there getting killed.and we do nothing but seek refuge in america when its there soldiers with our blood on their hands with no remorse. We have the right to arm our selves against the aggressors. Iran, Iraq, Arabia and so on we have the right to stand for what we believe and not bow down to the real terrorist and murderers. We're over here paying taxes to kill our brothers and sisters our wealth is spent to inforce the killings and not in the way of Allah (s.w.t.) when we migrate to the land of disbelief.:cry: :w:

Then leave

[islamirama]

We can look at the bright side a nuclear war will not be a long drawn out war. Should last 15 to 20 minutes and then in a few thousand years our descendants can come out of their caves and fight WW4 with sticks and rocks.

A nuclear war will have no winners. There can be no conquest through the use of nukes. To conquer you have to have something left you can invade and colonize.

Einstien said that WWIII will be with nukes and the next war will be with sticks. I think we'll see WWIII with nukes and a good way to cut the population from 5billion to very very small amount, Perhaps in the thousands.

[ACC]

lol....this is rich..no really. How exactly does someone go about "faking" every Al-Qaeda video released since 9-11? Not to mention the tape with Osama Bin Laden taking credit and praising the "martrys". Perhaps a "true" Muslim wouldn't go down the path of 9-11, I hope that is true. However, the truth is that self-proclaimed Muslims hijacked planes, slit the throats of stewardesses and pilots in front of passengers, and crashed into buildings, with the exception of Flight 93. I understand you don't want to believe a self-proclaimed Muslim would do this, but intentionally playing dumb isn't the answer.

I think it is important to remember that the soviet union had news agency and supporters that pointed to the US media as controlled by the government and full of lies. As did the nazis, and other horrible ideologies. The funny thing is that these exact same media sources were more controlled and full of lies than any other media source. The same will be proven of the 'unbiased' media sources that claim osama did not commit heinous acts or that the taliban was a good organization. In the end, the truth always triumphs, as it will again here. Some people can’t accept the fact that there are people that do horrible things in the name of something they believe in. That is their issue.

I know there will be many links to 'unbiased' news sources. I can provide as many to support my claim. It is a game of tit for tat.

[ACC]

bush and his monkey gang needs to accept reality.

You know experts say that these wars (afghan, iraq, and syria/iran/libya on the list) are initial stages of WWIII. I think its envitable and we will see it coming soon.

Hitler started WWII and Hitler 2 (Bush) started WWIII (still in its infancy)

The name calling reminds me of what the communists and other failed ideas used to do. If there is to be WWIII, it will be because the USA has decided to defend its way of life from people that do not believe that I should be able to choose what to believe in.

[ACC]

:sl: I totally agree, but I also believe that WWIII will be against Islam as it already is. My question is will we stand for it as muslims? these are our brothers and sisters over there getting killed.and we do nothing but seek refuge in america when its there soldiers with our blood on their hands with no remorse. We have the right to arm our selves against the aggressors. Iran, Iraq, Arabia and so on we have the right to stand for what we believe and not bow down to the real terrorist and murderers. We're over here paying taxes to kill our brothers and sisters our wealth is spent to inforce the killings and not in the way of Allah (s.w.t.) when we migrate to the land of disbelief.:cry: :w:

I agree that these countries and regimes have the right to stand and fight for what they believe in, as does the USA and other countries. In the end, it is a matter of who can impose its will on the other more effectively.

[islamirama]

The name calling reminds me of what the communists and other failed ideas used to do. If there is to be WWIII, it will be because the USA has decided to defend its way of life from people that do not believe that I should be able to choose what to believe in.

It has nothing to do with name calling, remember "curious george" the little monkey that was curious about everything in those childhood books?

well, US george is anything but curious, he is dumb like a monkey, looks like a monkey, and yells like a monkey.

Anyways, WWIII has already started. we are in the initial stages where 2-3 countries are first conquered then eventually the whole world gets involved. Hilter did the same thing and now bushroot is doing the same thing. Blow stuff up in his own land and blame a group of people and then wage a worldwidw war on them, finding excuses and making up faulty intelligence reports to bomb nations and invade them. Only thin he is protecting is the interests of his oil buddies an US or american way of life.

[ACC]

It has nothing to do with name calling, remember "curious george" the little monkey that was curious about everything in those childhood books?

well, US george is anything but curious, he is dumb like a monkey, looks like a monkey, and yells like a monkey.

Anyways, WWIII has already started. we are in the initial stages where 2-3 countries are first conquered then eventually the whole world gets involved. Hilter did the same thing and now bushroot is doing the same thing. Blow stuff up in his own land and blame a group of people and then wage a worldwidw war on them, finding excuses and making up faulty intelligence reports to bomb nations and invade them. Only thin he is protecting is the interests of his oil buddies an US or american way of life.

The name calling appears childish and unnecessary. I stated earlier, this is what was done in the past by ideologies that were proven false.

Any belief that the 9/11 attacks were a conspiracy can’t be reconciled with reality in my opinion.

[islamirama]

The name calling appears childish and unnecessary. I stated earlier, this is what was done in the past by ideologies that were proven false.

Any belief that the 9/11 attacks were a conspiracy can’t be reconciled with reality in my opinion.

you're entitled to your opinion as i am to mine, and i anyone who blindly believes their gov't is the biggest fool ever.

[Cognescenti]

I may be confused. But, where have I read or heard anything that the US was planning any military action towards Iran? Perhaps we are all being a bit presumptive about this.

No kidding. Indeed, the public pronouncements of the US Government are that diplomacy is the planned course.

[ACC]

you're entitled to your opinion as i am to mine, and i anyone who blindly believes their gov't is the biggest fool ever.

Name calling seem to be your preferred method. To each his own. Agreeing with them does not automatically mean someone is blibdly following them.

Sincerely,

The biggest fool ever.

[Cognescenti]

Salaam/peace

<cut & paste>...<cut & paste>....<cut & paste>....<cut & paste>

US Now Ready to Attack Iran

Dan Plesch -- New Statesman (Britain)



http://www.newstatesman.com/200702190014

American military operations for a major conventional war with Iran could be implemented any day....<cut & paste>


]

Good one! .."American military operations for a major conventional war with Iran could be implemented any day".....did you look at the date on that article...it's from February :D It appears the New Statesman has Rasputin on their payroll. :p



Guys and gals. You need to distinguish between a contingency plan for a military operation and the order to do it. The US had a contingency plan for nuclear attack on the Soviet Union for 45 years.

Of course, it could happen :smile:

[Cognescenti]

:sl: I totally agree, but I also believe that WWIII will be against Islam as it already is. My question is will we stand for it as muslims? these are our brothers and sisters over there getting killed.and we do nothing but seek refuge in america when its there soldiers with our blood on their hands with no remorse. We have the right to arm our selves against the aggressors. Iran, Iraq, Arabia and so on we have the right to stand for what we believe and not bow down to the real terrorist and murderers. We're over here paying taxes to kill our brothers and sisters our wealth is spent to inforce the killings and not in the way of Allah (s.w.t.) when we migrate to the land of disbelief.:cry: :w:

As they say...don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[ACC]

Good one! .."American military operations for a major conventional war with Iran could be implemented any day".....did you look at the date on that article...it's from February :D It appears the New Statesman has Rasputin on their payroll. :p



Guys and gals. You need to distinguish between a contingency plan for a military operation and the order to do it. The US had a contingency plan for nuclear attack on the Soviet Union for 45 years.

Of course, it could happen :smile:

Good point. The USA has contingency plans for war with Canada, Mexico, Japan, South Africa, etc. Any smart nation should prepare for any possible scenario, while paying special attention to the highest risk factors.

[Cognescenti]

We can look at the bright side a nuclear war will not be a long drawn out war. Should last 15 to 20 minutes and then in a few thousand years our descendants can come out of their caves and fight WW4 with sticks and rocks.

A nuclear war will have no winners. There can be no conquest through the use of nukes. To conquer you have to have something left you can invade and colonize.

That is what a war between two global nuclear powers would be like. A regional nuclear exchange would be bad for the region, but it is not going to end life on Earth....still, it woudl be a bad idea :smile:

[Cognescenti]

Good point. The USA has contingency plans for war with Canada, Mexico, Japan, South Africa, etc. Any smart nation should prepare for any possible scenario, while paying special attention to the highest risk factors.

Yes. The plan for the invasion of Mexico is only two pages. :statisfie There are probably 5 or more different plans for an attack on Iran..ranging from taking out a few Iranian missile sites and ships to a response to Iranian WMD attack.

One also has to consider that the information was released on purpose to make the Iranians twitchy and to drive a wedge betwen Iranian factions. I think that is what is really going on.

[ACC]

Yes. The plan for the invasion of Mexico is only two pages. :statisfie There are probably 5 or more different plans for an attack on Iran..ranging from taking out a few Iranian missile sites and ships to a response to Iranian WMD attack.

One also has to consider that the information was released on purpose to make the Iranians twitchy and to drive a wedge betwen Iranian factions. I think that is what is really going on.

Two pages? One in English and one translated to Spanish for the undocumented workers :smile: ?

[aamirsaab]

:sl:

As they say...don't let the door hit you on the way out.

I can tell you must be a very tolerant person.

Kind reminder: Stay on topic

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/ peace ;
Bush Directive for a "Catastrophic Emergency" in America:




Building a Justification for Waging War on Iran?

By Prof. Michel Chossudovsky



The US media consensus is that "the United States faces its greatest threat of a terrorist assault since the September 11 attacks" (USA Today, 12 February 2006)

The American Homeland is threatened by " Islamic terrorists", allegedly supported by Tehran and Damascus.



http://www.informationclearinghouse.infoarticle17917.htm


"Allaah burdens not a person beyond his scope" [al-Baqarah 2:286]

"And everything they have done is noted in (their) Records (of deeds)."

(al-Qamar 54:52)

"For to us will be their return; then it will be for us to call them to account." (Holy Quran 88:25-26)

[guyabano]

Salaam/ peace ;
Bush Directive for a "Catastrophic Emergency" in America:




Building a Justification for Waging War on Iran?

By Prof. Michel Chossudovsky



The US media consensus is that "the United States faces its greatest threat of a terrorist assault since the September 11 attacks" (USA Today, 12 February 2006)

The American Homeland is threatened by " Islamic terrorists", allegedly supported by Tehran and Damascus.



http://www.informationclearinghouse.infoarticle17917.htm


"Allaah burdens not a person beyond his scope" [al-Baqarah 2:286]

"And everything they have done is noted in (their) Records (of deeds)."

(al-Qamar 54:52)

"For to us will be their return; then it will be for us to call them to account." (Holy Quran 88:25-26)

'informationclearinghouse' is not even worth a reading.

Ya know, if I would post now some stuff out of a webpage of Apostates of Islam, I would be banned.
This shows me agains the unbalance of this forum to promote peace.


my 2 cents

[islamirama]

'informationclearinghouse' is not even worth a reading.

Ya know, if I would post now some stuff out of a webpage of Apostates of Islam, I would be banned.
This shows me agains the unbalance of this forum to promote peace.


my 2 cents

post something from "apostes of islam"? do you like totally suck at logic or something?

you compare political sites (informationclearinghouse) with political sites (FOX, CNN, Washingtonpost)

You compare anti-islam sites with anti-other faith sites.

duh...

[guyabano]

post something from "apostes of islam"? do you like totally suck at logic or something?

you compare political sites (informationclearinghouse) with political sites (FOX, CNN, Washingtonpost)

You compare anti-islam sites with anti-other faith sites.

duh...

oh, I guess you got the message but perfers to play the ignorant.

For for those who don't get it: informationclearinghouse is also so reliable and trustful than apostates of islam.

Get it now ? :rollseyes

[islamirama]

oh, I guess you got the message but perfers to play the ignorant.

For for those who don't get it: informationclearinghouse is also so reliable and trustful than apostates of islam.

Get it now ? :rollseyes

it's unreliable cause it disses the bush lies but guess what, It is more reliable than your CNN and FOX propaganda.

[guyabano]

it's unreliable cause it disses the bush lies but guess what, It is more reliable than your CNN and FOX propaganda.

Sure !!

[islamirama]

Sure !!

Reporters Blow Whistle on FOX News - http://www.youtube.com/v/fzu9M6dUCac

MORE FOX News Whistleblowers Fess Up - http://www.youtube.com/v/VuYDRrmIH2w

[MTAFFI]

Reporters Blow Whistle on FOX News - http://www.youtube.com/v/fzu9M6dUCac

MORE FOX News Whistleblowers Fess Up - http://www.youtube.com/v/VuYDRrmIH2w

FOX may be a very biased news source but the information clearing house blatantly distorts facts, supports conspiracies as well as being a biased news source (moreso than fox, which would be apparent to you if you used half your brain) Information Clearing house and all its counterparts and affiliates is no more than internet garbage. It is your choice to read it but it only makes you look foolish when you quote it

[Cognescenti]

:sl:

I can tell you must be a very tolerant person.

Kind reminder: Stay on topic

I have had any number of posts sent to the ethereal cornfield with less direct criticism of another poster. You folks can send me to the cornfield as well because it is your site, but either the pretense of impartiality should be removed or kindly refrain, as a moderator, from direct insults about my "tolerance".

Black, white, brown..who cares? Gay, vegan, Jew, Mormon, Druid, Muslim? I really could not care less.

On the other hand, if you are talking about statements that could (given the proper context) represent treason in a time of war....then I am intolerant. Here is what our good bud from Detroit actually said:


Originally Posted by tears4husain
I totally agree, but I also believe that WWIII will be against Islam as it already is. My question is will we stand for it as muslims? these are our brothers and sisters over there getting killed.and we do nothing but seek refuge in america when its there soldiers with our blood on their hands with no remorse. We have the right to arm our selves against the aggressors. Iran, Iraq, Arabia and so on we have the right to stand for what we believe and not bow down to the real terrorist and murderers. We're over here paying taxes to kill our brothers and sisters our wealth is spent to inforce the killings and not in the way of Allah (s.w.t.) when we migrate to the land of disbelief.

The poor, conflicted author decries his comfortable life in the US while his "brothers and sisters" suffer. I merely offered a simple solution to his dissonance. Get the Hell out.

BTW, for anyone interested, here is the FBI office in Detroit: (313) 965-2323

[Muezzin]

I'll give this thread about a day to get back to the topic (which was originally about Iran would you believe) and for people to calm down and stop mudslinging.

[Amadeus85]

Mr president of Iran, dont do it, dont bomb Israel.

[Cognescenti]

Mr president of Iran, dont do it, dont bomb Israel.

:D ......

[islamirama]

Mr president of Iran, dont do it, dont bomb Israel.

off topic :skeleton:

[MTAFFI]

did anyone see the national geographic special about the Hostage crisis in Iran the other night? That program (in my opinion) gave a lot of incite as to why US and Iranian relations are so strained even to this day

[Amadeus85]

off topic :skeleton:

Why? Iran is under threat of attack only because its lunatic president speaks openly from time to time that Israel must be wiped out from the Earth.

[islamirama]

Why? Iran is under threat of attack only because its lunatic president speaks openly from time to time that Israel must be wiped out from the Earth.

um have you been listening to your lunatic president lately? Iran is under thread becuase some moron claims that he is buidling nukes and not nuclear technology for energy only (something he has right to under UN laws).

[Amadeus85]

um have you been listening to your lunatic president lately? Iran is under thread becuase some moron claims that he is buidling nukes and not nuclear technology for energy only (something he has right to under UN laws).

Why does Iran needs nuclear reactors for energy while Iran has one of the biggest oil resources in the world?
Personally i dont think that Iran's president and ayatollahs are so stupid to attack Israel. They must know that first of all attacking Israel means death of hundreds of thousends sunni muslims living in Israel and nearby countries. Second, Israel's reply would be crushing for the whole Iran.
But Israel cant ignore such threats from a president of another country.
Just imagine, your neighbour speaks once a month that he will kill you, and few weeks ago he bought a new rifle. Wouldnt you be careful ?
Israel has atomic weapon i dont negate it, but this country is sorrunded by hundred millions of enemies. So no wonder that they must protect themselves.

[islamirama]

Why does Iran needs nuclear reactors for energy while Iran has one of the biggest oil resources in the world?
Personally i dont think that Iran's president and ayatollahs are so stupid to attack Israel. They must know that first of all attacking Israel means death of hundreds of thousends sunni muslims living in Israel and nearby countries. Second, Israel's reply would be crushing for the whole Iran.
But Israel cant ignore such threats from a president of another country.
Just imagine, your neighbour speaks once a month that he will kill you, and few weeks ago he bought a new rifle. Wouldnt you be careful ?
Israel has atomic weapon i dont negate it, but this country is sorrunded by hundred millions of enemies. So no wonder that they must protect themselves.

The Question you should be asking is why is US going to wars for israel? Why is the US a goefer for israel? the politicans at the white office don't care about it's citizens and continue to send it's troops to their deaths and continue to make this world a dangerous place for everyone, esp. americans. Got one word for you, AIPAC.... look it up, you'd be surprised as to who is running the show in DC.

[wilberhum]

If you think Jews rule the world, you ar beyond help.

[aamirsaab]

:sl:

...
The poor, conflicted author decries his comfortable life in the US while his "brothers and sisters" suffer. I merely offered a simple solution to his dissonance. Get the Hell out.

Actually you said ''don't let the door hit you on the way out'', hence I made the comment about your being tolerant.

[Cognescenti]

:sl:

Actually you said ''don't let the door hit you on the way out'', hence I made the comment about your being tolerant.

Oh dear. I took that to be sarcastic :-[ If you meant that literally, then it seems I owe you an apology.

Sorry about that.

[Muslim Woman]

With the name of ALLAH ( God Almighty ) -The Bestower Of Unlimited Mercy, The Continously Merciful

Salaam/ peace ;

Threat to world peace: The possibility of a US attack on Iran




Excerpts of presentation, Vancouver 9/11 Truth Conference

By Prof. Peter Dale Scott

"I have been speaking in public for 60 years, but this is perhaps the most important topic I have ever spoken about."


"I want to talk about the threat to world peace, and the possibility of a US attack, possibly a nuclear attack, on Iran."




http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17926.htm



Report: IAF preparing for Iran strike:

The Israeli Air Force (IAF) has been training on long-range flights, including refueling in mid-flight, in preparation for potential strikes against Iranian nuclear targets.


http://tinyurl.com/3br38m

[Muslim Woman]

With the name of ALLAH ( God Almighty ) -The Bestower Of Unlimited Mercy, The Continously Merciful

Salaam/ peace ;

....informationclearinghouse is also so reliable and trustful than apostates of islam.

Get it now ? :rollseyes

[ don't remember if i answered to this post :-[ ]



no.

I read in an anti-Islamic site where the so-called Christian claimed that Islam allows prostituion , homo sexuality etc. Muslims will go to heaven if they abandon slaves in the streets when slaves are old etc .

These are clear lies & hatred against Islam. Unbelievable that a person can call himself follower of Christ (p) & can write lies like these.

can u give me examples where info....... site intentionally lied ? Details will be off topic , so u may start a thread --how reliable is media/ US site etc.

[thirdwatch512]

1. That's good that Republikkkans are finally accepting the fact that the war in iraq is a disgrace, and that we should not go to war in iran!

2. america would not do it anyways!

3. With the unpopularity Iran's president is getting, I am sure he will be out soon :)

[Chiteng]

However,

Israel is NOT the United States.

What will happen if Israel strikes Iran, and the US does not?

It may not matter to Iran, but it will matter a GREAT deal to the US citizen.

And if Iran strikes at the USA.......then the problem will be over.

[guyabano]

With the name of ALLAH ( God Almighty ) -The Bestower Of Unlimited Mercy, The Continously Merciful

Salaam/ peace ;




[ don't remember if i answered to this post :-[ ]



no.

I read in an anti-Islamic site where the so-called Christian claimed that Islam allows prostituion , homo sexuality etc. Muslims will go to heaven if they abandon slaves in the streets when slaves are old etc .

These are clear lies & hatred against Islam. Unbelievable that a person can call himself follower of Christ (p) & can write lies like these.

can u give me examples where info....... site intentionally lied ? Details will be off topic , so u may start a thread --how reliable is media/ US site etc.

There are no reliable news on this website. It's all just opinions but no serious journalism. Anyway, it's so blatant, that all muslims enjoy to provide theirs news on such websites as they perfectly fit theirs needs
Most just bring up infoclearlinghouse, youtube and liveleak as 'serious' sources. That make me so laugh!

[Pygoscelis]

However,

Israel is NOT the United States.

What will happen if Israel strikes Iran, and the US does not?

It may not matter to Iran, but it will matter a GREAT deal to the US citizen.

And if Iran strikes at the USA.......then the problem will be over.

Or how about if Israel launches air strikes on Iran, and Iran responds with a similar attack on Israel. I can see the US spinning that as an excuse for the US to attack Iran.

[Muslim Woman]

There are no reliable news on this website.

yap ,sure , u will find reliable news on CNN & other mainstream media LOL





How The Presstitutes Lie To America :Jessica Lynch myth

http://www.islamicboard.com/general-...ynch-myth.html

[MTAFFI]

yap ,sure , u will find reliable news on CNN & other mainstream media LOL





How The Presstitutes Lie To America :Jessica Lynch myth

http://www.islamicboard.com/general-...ynch-myth.html

So the press was misinformed, and then what happened? They were informed of what actually happened and it was then reported and corrected, to me that is pretty reliable, if the press were truly unreliable they would have just said yeah whatever, that is our story and we are going with it and there would have been nothing she could have done

[islamirama]

So the press was misinformed, and then what happened? They were informed of what actually happened and it was then reported and corrected, to me that is pretty reliable, if the press were truly unreliable they would have just said yeah whatever, that is our story and we are going with it and there would have been nothing she could have done

it's the way most crooks work, they deny it until they are caught red handed or proven wrong then they back track and try to say we made a "mistake" and it should be this or that. US gov't has don't thousand times during this war, and who do you think the media works for during "war"?

[MTAFFI]

it's the way most crooks work, they deny it until they are caught red handed or proven wrong then they back track and try to say we made a "mistake" and it should be this or that. US gov't has don't thousand times during this war, and who do you think the media works for during "war"?

Really the media works for the government right now huh? Boy I sure wish that I could just talk openly, like the media does about the US government, about someone I worked for! Take a look at the news on a daily basis, it not only talks negatively about the US government but it also talks about what it should be doing and how it could be better! It is constantly critical of the Bush administration and has been since the beginning of this war, any chance they get to trash Bush or his campaign in Iraq they take it, so simply based on the news that is conveyed through the TV and the internet everyday your paragraph holds no weight

[islamirama]

Really the media works for the government right now huh? Boy I sure wish that I could just talk openly, like the media does about the US government, about someone I worked for! Take a look at the news on a daily basis, it not only talks negatively about the US government but it also talks about what it should be doing and how it could be better! It is constantly critical of the Bush administration and has been since the beginning of this war, any chance they get to trash Bush or his campaign in Iraq they take it, so simply based on the news that is conveyed through the TV and the internet everyday your paragraph holds no weight

The Office of Censorship, an emergency wartime agency, heavily censored reporting during World War II. On December 19, 1941 Roosevelt signed Executive Order 8985, which established the Office of Censorship and conferred on its director the power to censor international communications in "his absolute discretion." Byron Price was selected as the Director of Censorship. However, the censorship was not limited to reporting. "Every letter that crossed international or U.S. territorial borders from December 1941 to August 1945 was subject to being opened and scoured for details."[1] Since that time war censorship had been relatively light until the advent of the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars. In January of 1991, a few weeks before the U.S.-led UN invasion of Iraq during the presidency of George H. W. Bush, Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney had the Pentagon issue a ban on media coverage of returning war casualties.[citation needed]
Several past controversies were the failed attempt to prevent the publication of the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam War and the daily televising of the Iran Hostage Crisis by the national broadcast media, that is believed to have led to the re-election loss of Jimmy Carter in 1980.


http://www.answers.com/topic/censors...-united-states

Concern grows over media 'censorship'

Media Control

book about journalism, the media, and government control of information during wartime


What little criticism you see of bush is nothing compared to the dirty secretes and warcrimes of US in iraq is being hidden.

-------------------------------

Top 25 Censored Stories of 2006

#1 Bush Administration Moves to Eliminate Open Government

#2 Media Coverage Fails on Iraq: Fallujah and the Civilian Death

#3 Another Year of Distorted Election Coverage
#4 Surveillance Society Quietly Moves In
#5 U.S. Uses Tsunami to Military Advantage in Southeast Asia
#6 The Real Oil for Food Scam
#7 Journalists Face Unprecedented Dangers to Life and Livelihood
#8 Iraqi Farmers Threatened By Bremer’s Mandates
#9 Iran’s New Oil Trade System Challenges U.S. Currency
#10 Mountaintop Removal Threatens Ecosystem and Economy
#11 Universal Mental Screening Program Usurps Parental Rights
#12 Military in Iraq Contracts Human Rights Violators
#13 Rich Countries Fail to Live up to Global Pledges
#14 Corporations Win Big on Tort Reform, Justice Suffers
#15 Conservative Plan to Override Academic Freedom in the Classroom
#16 U.S. Plans for Hemispheric Integration Include Canada
#17 U.S. Uses South American Military Bases to Expand Control of the Region
#18 Little Known Stock Fraud Could Weaken U.S. Economy
#19 Child Wards of the State Used in AIDS Experiments
#20 American Indians Sue for Resources; Compensation Provided to Others
#21 New Immigration Plan Favors Business Over People
#22 Nanotechnology Offers Exciting Possibilities But Health Effects Need Scrutiny
#23 Plight of Palestinian Child Detainees Highlights Global Problem
#24 Ethiopian Indigenous Victims of Corporate and Government Resource Aspirations
#25 Homeland Security Was Designed to Fail

-----------------

Big Media Refuses to Report this Basic Fact: Attacking Iraq Violates International Law

http://www.representativepress.org/V...tionalLaw.html

[MTAFFI]

The Office of Censorship, an emergency wartime agency, heavily censored reporting during World War II. On December 19, 1941 Roosevelt signed Executive Order 8985, which established the Office of Censorship and conferred on its director the power to censor international communications in "his absolute discretion." Byron Price was selected as the Director of Censorship. However, the censorship was not limited to reporting. "Every letter that crossed international or U.S. territorial borders from December 1941 to August 1945 was subject to being opened and scoured for details."[1] Since that time war censorship had been relatively light until the advent of the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars. In January of 1991, a few weeks before the U.S.-led UN invasion of Iraq during the presidency of George H. W. Bush, Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney had the Pentagon issue a ban on media coverage of returning war casualties.[citation needed]
Several past controversies were the failed attempt to prevent the publication of the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam War and the daily televising of the Iran Hostage Crisis by the national broadcast media, that is believed to have led to the re-election loss of Jimmy Carter in 1980.


http://www.answers.com/topic/censors...-united-states

Concern grows over media 'censorship'

Media Control

book about journalism, the media, and government control of information during wartime


What little criticism you see of bush is nothing compared to the dirty secretes and warcrimes of US in iraq is being hidden.

-------------------------------

Top 25 Censored Stories of 2006

#1 Bush Administration Moves to Eliminate Open Government

#2 Media Coverage Fails on Iraq: Fallujah and the Civilian Death

#3 Another Year of Distorted Election Coverage
#4 Surveillance Society Quietly Moves In
#5 U.S. Uses Tsunami to Military Advantage in Southeast Asia
#6 The Real Oil for Food Scam
#7 Journalists Face Unprecedented Dangers to Life and Livelihood
#8 Iraqi Farmers Threatened By Bremer’s Mandates
#9 Iran’s New Oil Trade System Challenges U.S. Currency
#10 Mountaintop Removal Threatens Ecosystem and Economy
#11 Universal Mental Screening Program Usurps Parental Rights
#12 Military in Iraq Contracts Human Rights Violators
#13 Rich Countries Fail to Live up to Global Pledges
#14 Corporations Win Big on Tort Reform, Justice Suffers
#15 Conservative Plan to Override Academic Freedom in the Classroom
#16 U.S. Plans for Hemispheric Integration Include Canada
#17 U.S. Uses South American Military Bases to Expand Control of the Region
#18 Little Known Stock Fraud Could Weaken U.S. Economy
#19 Child Wards of the State Used in AIDS Experiments
#20 American Indians Sue for Resources; Compensation Provided to Others
#21 New Immigration Plan Favors Business Over People
#22 Nanotechnology Offers Exciting Possibilities But Health Effects Need Scrutiny
#23 Plight of Palestinian Child Detainees Highlights Global Problem
#24 Ethiopian Indigenous Victims of Corporate and Government Resource Aspirations
#25 Homeland Security Was Designed to Fail

-----------------

Big Media Refuses to Report this Basic Fact: Attacking Iraq Violates International Law

http://www.representativepress.org/V...tionalLaw.html

WOW it is amazing how you can seem to find all of this censored information but the media is not able to?!?! Funny also how media that is not governed by the US also does not report this?! Oh yes, and perhaps you would like to be more specific on the international law that prevents the US of being able to declare war on Iraq (which by the way is no longer an actual war on Iraq, our Army is serving the elected Iraqi government and the people who elected it AT ITS REQUEST by attempting to provide security to its people) Maybe you should make some phone calls and alert everyone of this....... they may just think you are a crackpot though

[MTAFFI]

The Office of Censorship, an emergency wartime agency, heavily censored reporting during World War II. On December 19, 1941 Roosevelt signed Executive Order 8985, which established the Office of Censorship and conferred on its director the power to censor international communications in "his absolute discretion." Byron Price was selected as the Director of Censorship. However, the censorship was not limited to reporting. "Every letter that crossed international or U.S. territorial borders from December 1941 to August 1945 was subject to being opened and scoured for details."[1] Since that time war censorship had been relatively light until the advent of the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars. In January of 1991, a few weeks before the U.S.-led UN invasion of Iraq during the presidency of George H. W. Bush, Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney had the Pentagon issue a ban on media coverage of returning war casualties.[citation needed]
Several past controversies were the failed attempt to prevent the publication of the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam War and the daily televising of the Iran Hostage Crisis by the national broadcast media, that is believed to have led to the re-election loss of Jimmy Carter in 1980.


http://www.answers.com/topic/censors...-united-states

Concern grows over media 'censorship'

Media Control

book about journalism, the media, and government control of information during wartime


What little criticism you see of bush is nothing compared to the dirty secretes and warcrimes of US in iraq is being hidden.

-------------------------------

Top 25 Censored Stories of 2006

#1 Bush Administration Moves to Eliminate Open Government

#2 Media Coverage Fails on Iraq: Fallujah and the Civilian Death

#3 Another Year of Distorted Election Coverage
#4 Surveillance Society Quietly Moves In
#5 U.S. Uses Tsunami to Military Advantage in Southeast Asia
#6 The Real Oil for Food Scam
#7 Journalists Face Unprecedented Dangers to Life and Livelihood
#8 Iraqi Farmers Threatened By Bremer’s Mandates
#9 Iran’s New Oil Trade System Challenges U.S. Currency
#10 Mountaintop Removal Threatens Ecosystem and Economy
#11 Universal Mental Screening Program Usurps Parental Rights
#12 Military in Iraq Contracts Human Rights Violators
#13 Rich Countries Fail to Live up to Global Pledges
#14 Corporations Win Big on Tort Reform, Justice Suffers
#15 Conservative Plan to Override Academic Freedom in the Classroom
#16 U.S. Plans for Hemispheric Integration Include Canada
#17 U.S. Uses South American Military Bases to Expand Control of the Region
#18 Little Known Stock Fraud Could Weaken U.S. Economy
#19 Child Wards of the State Used in AIDS Experiments
#20 American Indians Sue for Resources; Compensation Provided to Others
#21 New Immigration Plan Favors Business Over People
#22 Nanotechnology Offers Exciting Possibilities But Health Effects Need Scrutiny
#23 Plight of Palestinian Child Detainees Highlights Global Problem
#24 Ethiopian Indigenous Victims of Corporate and Government Resource Aspirations
#25 Homeland Security Was Designed to Fail

-----------------

Big Media Refuses to Report this Basic Fact: Attacking Iraq Violates International Law

http://www.representativepress.org/V...tionalLaw.html

WOW it is amazing how you can seem to find all of this censored information but the media is not able to?!?! Funny also how media that is not governed by the US also does not report this?! Oh yes, and perhaps you would like to be more specific on the international law that prevents the US of being able to declare war on Iraq (which by the way is no longer an actual war on Iraq, our Army is serving the elected Iraqi government and the people who elected it AT ITS REQUEST by attempting to provide security to its people, perhaps that is why the media doesnt report it) Maybe you should make some phone calls and alert everyone of this....... they may just think you are a crackpot though

[Muslim Woman]

:sl:

.. our Army is serving the elected Iraqi government and the people

a very funny joke :) ....thanks for sharing :D

now ,pl. no more off topic discussion . Pl. start a new thread on Role / responsibilities of media




Obama would consider missile strikes on Iran:

U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama suggested Friday that the United States one day might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan to keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs.




http://tinyurl.com/yawtm2

===

Bolton: I'm 'very worried' for Israel:

Sanctions and diplomacy have failed and it may be too late for internal opposition to oust the Islamist regime, leaving only military intervention to stop Iran's drive to nuclear weapons, the US's former ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, told The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday



http://tinyurl.com/2yy2oc

===

In a world gone crazy:

Congress Votes to Send Iran President Before U.N. Court :

Today the House of Representatives passed H. Con.Res.21, a resolution that pressures the United Nations Security Council to charge Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on Genocide and the United Nations Charter because of his alleged calls for the destruction of Israel.


http://campaignsandelections.com/oh/releases/index.cfm?ID=1328

===

[Keltoi]

:sl:



a very funny joke :) ....thanks for sharing :D

now ,pl. no more off topic discussion . Pl. start a new thread on Role / responsibilities of media




Obama would consider missile strikes on Iran:

U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama suggested Friday that the United States one day might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan to keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs.




http://tinyurl.com/yawtm2

===

Bolton: I'm 'very worried' for Israel:

Sanctions and diplomacy have failed and it may be too late for internal opposition to oust the Islamist regime, leaving only military intervention to stop Iran's drive to nuclear weapons, the US's former ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, told The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday



http://tinyurl.com/2yy2oc

===

In a world gone crazy:

Congress Votes to Send Iran President Before U.N. Court :

Today the House of Representatives passed H. Con.Res.21, a resolution that pressures the United Nations Security Council to charge Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on Genocide and the United Nations Charter because of his alleged calls for the destruction of Israel.


http://campaignsandelections.com/oh/releases/index.cfm?ID=1328

===

If Obama wants to be president he has to be ready to shoot missiles at anybody...comes with the job.

As for Bolton being worried for Israel, that seems a logical reaction. Iran is producing nuclear technology and the Iranian president has threatened Israel with destruction.

As for the congressional vote, it is symbolic. They do stuff like that all the time. Keeps them from voting on important legislation...like immigration.

[Chiteng]

Or how about if Israel launches air strikes on Iran, and Iran responds with a similar attack on Israel. I can see the US spinning that as an excuse for the US to attack Iran.

Personally, I think Israel is better off w/o US interference.

The US temporizes too much.

[Muslim Woman]

With the name of ALLAH ( God Almighty ) -The Bestower Of Unlimited Mercy, The Continously Merciful

Salaam/ peace ;

If Obama wants to be president he has to be ready to shoot missiles at anybody...comes with the job.

what do u mean ? American President has a right to invade any country based on lies ? Only USA & Isreal have that right or other countries enjoy the same ?

As for Bolton being worried for Israel, that seems a logical reaction. Iran is producing nuclear technology and the Iranian president has threatened Israel with destruction.

what i read is Iranian President asked for destruction of illegal occupation . It was a misreport that he asked to destroy Israel or kill all Jews etc.

As for the congressional vote, it is symbolic. They do stuff like that all the time. .

do this kind of symbolic stuff take place against Isreal all the time ?


Verses of the day & night –
"And everything they have done is noted in (their) Records (of deeds)."

(al-Qamar 54:52)

"For to us will be their return; then it will be for us to call them to account." (Holy Quran 88:25-26)
Sufficient is our Lord for us. He is the greatest of all helpers; we depend upon Him alone.

-From the collection "Munajat E Maqbool"

[Keltoi]

With the name of ALLAH ( God Almighty ) -The Bestower Of Unlimited Mercy, The Continously Merciful

Salaam/ peace ;



what do u mean ? American President has a right to invade any country based on lies ? Only USA & Isreal have that right or other countries enjoy the same ?





what i read is Iranian President asked for destruction of illegal occupation . It was a misreport that he asked to destroy Israel or kill all Jews etc.






do this kind of symbolic stuff take place against Isreal all the time ?


Verses of the day & night –
"And everything they have done is noted in (their) Records (of deeds)."

(al-Qamar 54:52)

"For to us will be their return; then it will be for us to call them to account." (Holy Quran 88:25-26)
Sufficient is our Lord for us. He is the greatest of all helpers; we depend upon Him alone.

-From the collection "Munajat E Maqbool"

What I meant about Obama is that any politician running for president will not leave any option off the table.

As for the Iranian president being "misquoted", I'm afraid that little defense doesn't work anymore. Perhaps if he had only said this once I might believe it, but he has stated that Israel should be destroyed many times.

As for congress and Israel, since the U.S. congress is highly supportive of Israel, there have been very few symbolic votes intended to show disapproval of Israel. None that I know of.

[guyabano]

what i read is Iranian President asked for destruction of illegal occupation . It was a misreport that he asked to destroy Israel or kill all Jews etc.

hmmm, in muslim eyes, this has the same meaning, so don't try to get out of this statement.
However you will twist it, it will still remain 'destruction of Israel'

[islamirama]

hmmm, in muslim eyes, this has the same meaning, so don't try to get out of this statement.
However you will twist it, it will still remain 'destruction of Israel'

the western powers destroyed Palestine, wiped it off the map. Can you show me it on the map? how about if you look before 1948?

european jews can go back where they came from so the palestinians can have their land back and can be seen on the map again. Destruction of israel doesn't mean destruction of all israelis, but it does mean return of Palestine.

[Idris]

Was not the Iraq war about WOMD? You know the one's that can hit th UK in 45mins... not sure what lies US Gov told their citizens..

[Chiteng]

You people are strange. The average US citizen does NOT see the issues
as linked. They see Iran, as one issue.
They see Israel as a different issue. Nothing you have to say will change that.

But Bush wont bomb Iran, unless Iran attacks the US.

So unless you know something we dont, its a non-issue.

However if Iran DOES attack the USA, then the problem will be solved.
Forever.

[wilberhum]

Was not the Iraq war about WOMD? .

No the war was about not allowing inspections as promised.

[guyabano]

the western powers destroyed Palestine, wiped it off the map. Can you show me it on the map? how about if you look before 1948?

european jews can go back where they came from so the palestinians can have their land back and can be seen on the map again. Destruction of israel doesn't mean destruction of all israelis, but it does mean return of Palestine.

And what you going to explain to children born in Israel, whose roots are now in this land? How you will explain them to go where they come from. They will tell you: 'But this is my homeland'.
So what you request is just illusionary and will never happen.

[Cognescenti]

You people are strange. The average US citizen does NOT see the issues
as linked. They see Iran, as one issue.
They see Israel as a different issue. Nothing you have to say will change that.

But Bush wont bomb Iran, unless Iran attacks the US.

So unless you know something we dont, its a non-issue.

However if Iran DOES attack the USA, then the problem will be solved.
Forever.

Agreed. I would go even further. I would say the average American couldn't care less about Israel. If the Iranians launched a couple of missiles at Israel that would be Israel's problem, but if the Iranians seized a boatload of US sailors then Iran would have our attention (and it would be unwelcome attention) :)

[Muslim Woman]

With the name of ALLAH ( God Almighty ) -The Bestower Of Unlimited Mercy, The Continously Merciful




Salaam/ peace ;

And what you going to explain to children born in Israel, whose roots are now in this land? How you will explain them to go where they come from. They will tell you: 'But this is my homeland'.
So what you request is just illusionary and will never happen.

if u want to talk about holy land , we have related threads ...pl. post there.



Seymour Hersh details Bush's-Cheney's lunatic plans for Iran. :

Video

http://www.ichblog.eu/content/view/1801/1/

===





Is push for Iran war in interests of U.S. or Israel?:

Before we get ourselves into another quagmire that sacrifices our troops and our treasure in a war that makes us less safe, we should think seriously about whether it is for the protection of American interests or the interests of Israel


http://www.theadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070629/OPINION/706290326/1014

===


War pimp alert:

U.S.: Iran, NKorea missile threat rising:

The top U.S. missile defense official warned Thursday that the ballistic threat from Iran and North Korea was rapidly growing and defended Washington's plans to base parts of its anti-missile shield program in Central Europe.




http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070628/ap_on_re_eu/eu_us_missile_defense

===

Verses of the day & night –Who is of better faith than he who submits himself to God while doing good and
following the creed of Abraham, the true in faith? For God chose Abraham as a
friend.

-Quran (4:125)

[Idris]

No the war was about not allowing inspections as promised.

Maybe if the US let the UN do it's work things can go effortlessly.

PS You and I Know that what you say about the war not being about WOMD is a lie :)

[Chiteng]

:sl: I totally agree, but I also believe that WWIII will be against Islam as it already is. My question is will we stand for it as muslims? these are our brothers and sisters over there getting killed.and we do nothing but seek refuge in america when its there soldiers with our blood on their hands with no remorse. We have the right to arm our selves against the aggressors. Iran, Iraq, Arabia and so on we have the right to stand for what we believe and not bow down to the real terrorist and murderers. We're over here paying taxes to kill our brothers and sisters our wealth is spent to inforce the killings and not in the way of Allah (s.w.t.) when we migrate to the land of disbelief.:cry: :w:

"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...

There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

--Theodore Roosevelt, 1919


That is your answer

[Muezzin]

I'm closing this thread because it has veered too far from the subject.