Al Qaida of Iraq Sought Terrorist Attack On US Mainland

Post Reply New Topic

Let me ask this question. Do you think that Iran can be trusted to develop nuclear weapons and then develop ICBMs? Or do you believe them when then say they say their intentions are peaceful?



I read the Weekly Standard and Commentary (which are said to be the "neocons" leading journals) and they never talk about anything like this. NATO isn't so much of an authority as a international originally designed to counteract the danger of a Soviet invasion after World War II.

In regards to Italy, should the United States and the allied powers of World War II simply stood by as the communists (backed by the Soviet Union)attempted to take over Italy? Would you have made the same argument with the National Socialists?



No. I don't think supporting forces in a civil war against Stalinists (or Communists in the later war in Afganistan) is automatically indicative of doing something evil in state policy. Sometimes one is forced to choice to lesser of two evils (although one presumes the forces fighting in the Greek Civil War were a rather mixed group; in fact to be fair there may less extreme forces on the Greek Civil War then far-left and far-right, but the communists were backed by Stalin's Russia).

The European start of World War II was over a treaty that protected the military dictatorship of Poland.



You are smarter then this. Not all soldiers are equally violent or equally savage.



Ramon Magsaysay was elected by a large margin in 1953 after he led successful efforts against Huk forces. He the candidate was backed by the United States' Eisenhower administration. It should be noted that the United States granted independence to the Philippines (delayed because of the Second World War) in 1946.

I don't disagree the Bush I's statement is arrogant. Such statements tend to be based on real-politik and not reality. The US did vocally support the revolutions against both Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos, while being friendly with the dictators themselves (I'm not going to lie to you). The United States remains very popular generally among Filipinos today.



The North (like later North Vietnam, although there was less support for Communism in this case) attempted to subvert the South via terrorist, and infiltrations attacks before they launched the invasion of the South.

Is it? Let's look at some other examples. Japan? US forces militarily occupied Japan for several years (in fact we are still in Japan) and they became a democracy. West Germany became a democracy, East Germany did not. Italy became a democracy. Despite all the complaining about Reagan all Latin American military dictatorships, he did pressure them to make reforms and they did adopt democratic systems (although now under left-wing populists such as Hugo Chavez there is a move away from that). Communist Eastern Europe, which Reagan identified as being under the spell of the communist Soviet Union, fell and is home to democratic nations. The Ukrainian government that fell in the "Orange Revolution" backed the War in Iraq, and the one that replaced it didn't. Under Bush, we took the place of the new democrats, not the old corrupt government.

North Korea did not become democratic (although they claim they are). Vietnam never did. China never did (although the Republic of China, as Taiwan is offically, eventually adopted democracy). Iran only allows parties to run that the permitted by a ruling council. A military regime rules from Burma. Russia has

I define democracy as the right of the people to choose their own representatives. Do you differ?



I don't know either since West Germany wasn't exactly know for engaging in dirty tricks against East Germany. East Germany was stripped of huge amounts of it's industries. The Stasi was also organized the spy on citizens in both of the Germanies. When sGermany collapsed in 1989, it is estimated the Stasi had 91,000 employers, and 300,000 informers. The Stasi also aided left-wing terrorist groups (such as Red Army Faction, also known as Baader-Meidor Gang) in attackers on German and NATO civilian and military interests.



If the United States/Great Britain had the ability to simply have the CIA agents go in, kill Ahmadinejad, and put into place a pro-Western government, I would endorse that in a second (there are some Iranian who would endorse this as well). However, the CIA was essentially crippled in the 1970s Church hearings, and never reached anything near it's former abilities. Additionally, the Iranian regime has had many years to establish itself and would be very difficult to infiltrate.



Why do the democracies openly allow criticism of their policies? Why did Bush allow the democrats to gain control of congress? Why is Blair prepared to step down himself because political problems? Ah, yes, of course...

[quote-"psyth"]NWO theorists often state that communism was initially bankrolled by the major world banks. This is something ive been meaning to research for a while now..[/quote]

Why is the chairman of the Federal Reserve appointed by the President of the United States? Would he not wish use his appointment to influence his policies? The World Bank Group, which is "responsible for providing finance and advice to countries for the purposes of economic development and eliminating poverty," has a president. This president by tradition, the bank president is a national of and is nominated by the largest shareholder in the bank, the United States. The President is elected by the Board of Governors for a five-year, renewable term. Guess who that President is? Paul Wolfowitz. Of course, it they wanted to downplay a conspiracy, why would they choose him?

They President of the IMF is nominated by it's European governors.

Lenin said that capitalists would sell them the rope that they (communists) would hang them with. He said it disparagingly. Corporations are amoral things. They are designed to make money. If a corporation can make money by selling things to a communist, they will do it.

Also, individual rich people can be communist or fascist or (whatever). A road (something, I forget) fairly close to my house was named after a communist sympathizer Armand Hammer. He actually was invited by Stalin to visit the work site of one of Stalin's massive industrial projects (that ended up killing huge amounts of people). He praised it, and praised Stalin himself.

Precisely, anyone that thinks they are for real is misinformed.

The link you posted is a Zioinist/Israeli/Neocon site...Do you really think you are going to formulate an objective opinion and understanding of the situation when you read what is quite clearly disinformation with an objective???

Know that it is the Zioinists who are behind AQ.

Iran would have to be stupid not to want a nuclear deterrant.

a) They are trading oil in Euros now i believe (or want to)
http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_05 ... 11606.html

b) US covert operations can now be performed without previous accountability. http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/a ... 124fa_fact

c) Nearly (if not) every country in the vicinity have strong US ties, or at least one US military base (usually many more)

So no, i dont trust them. Im not sure anyone can be trusted on this matter as even US/UK have illegal, (presumably undeclared) weapon stockpiles.

I think you overlooked the flippancy in my remark there. I was referring to past events - WMD & the invasion of Iraq without UN backing. Perhaps i should have said UN rather than NATO.

If you dont mind, ill refrain from attempting to comment on every example as your own research clearly exceeds mine by a great margin & itd take me weeks to catch up



Ostensibly, that is the definition of democracy. Although im told it has changed radically since its conception. One could argue that if the people are not adequately represented, and a re unable to represent themselves then democratic criteria (by your definition) are not met.





The link i gave earlier suggests that covert operations are now largely under the command of the pentagon. Im not sure how useful killing Ahmadinejad would be (in and of itself)

Its difficult to understand Irans place in the diplomatic scheme of things, as when they have made concessions to the US (or tried to open negociations, 2003 i believe) the US simply pretends it never happenned and the media seems to black it out. (afraid i cant find the link atm).
Apparantly the same thing happenned before the Iraq invasion - Hussein bent over backwards trying to negociate his way out of war - but rhetoric in the media was along the lines of 'hes just not cooperating, hes had many chances' etc

Contrast with the 'wiping off' debacle.

They dont always. Peaceful protesters around the world are savagely beaten by riot police (UK riot police have no identifying markings so even when you video them they evade justice)
In New York peaceful protestors were herded into a decaying asbestos warehouse wherein several recieved chemical injuries. Coverage in the corporate media spins events so as to blame any violence on the protestors.

Allowing criticism (in media) can actually be beneficial to a sham-democracy. You can take note of peoples grievances, then work them into a manifesto. If people feel like they have some say, some meaning in the ballot-box, that will peacefully quell dissent.




Why would they need to downplay anything? The average person (ie voter, consumer) is more likely to be concerned with who shot JR, or something equally vacuous. (there is also the psychology of the double-bluff to consider)




I agree that corporations are amoral. Its also reasonable to expect that those at the top of the capitalist food chain take a long term view, which would support the advent of an east-west duality and resultant cold war, if it could be made profitable.