PDA

View Full Version : US Judge rules Iran responsible for 9/11



Apocalypse
12-25-2011, 10:33 AM
US Judge rules Iran responsible for 9/11
By Daniel Harding
Dec 24, 2011


Judge George Daniels in Manhattan signed the judgement a week after hearing evidence in the 10-year-old case.


The signed ruling came in a $100 billion lawsuit brought by victims’ families.
Judge Daniels signed findings of fact saying the plaintiffs had established that the attacks were caused by the support the defendants provided to al-Qaida.


It also said Iran continued to provide material support and resources to al-Qaida by providing a safe haven for al-Qaida leadership and rank-and-file members.


During last week’s hearing, September 11 victims’ families sat through a four-hour presentation from lawyers who cited evidence supporting their claims that Iran actively assisted the hijackers of planes that crashed into the World Trade Center towers, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania.


Former members of the September 11 Commission and three Iranian defectors also spoke.


Read more: http://www.irishexaminer.com/w.....z1hTuAj7xC (http://www.irishexaminer.com/world/kfqlidkfgbkf/rss2/#ixzz1hTuAj7xC)


So what does this accomplish?

SarasotaRepub
12-25-2011, 01:41 PM
spooked911 of DU will not be happy...:D:D

Apache
12-25-2011, 02:16 PM
US Judge rules Iran responsible for 9/11
By Daniel Harding
Dec 24, 2011


Judge George Daniels in Manhattan signed the judgement a week after hearing evidence in the 10-year-old case.


The signed ruling came in a $100 billion lawsuit brought by victims’ families.
Judge Daniels signed findings of fact saying the plaintiffs had established that the attacks were caused by the support the defendants provided to al-Qaida.


It also said Iran continued to provide material support and resources to al-Qaida by providing a safe haven for al-Qaida leadership and rank-and-file members.


During last week’s hearing, September 11 victims’ families sat through a four-hour presentation from lawyers who cited evidence supporting their claims that Iran actively assisted the hijackers of planes that crashed into the World Trade Center towers, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania.


Former members of the September 11 Commission and three Iranian defectors also spoke.


Read more: http://www.irishexaminer.com/w.....z1hTuAj7xC (http://www.irishexaminer.com/world/kfqlidkfgbkf/rss2/#ixzz1hTuAj7xC)


So what does this accomplish?

Wow! 100 billion dollars. What a windfall. Wonder what Obama will take out in taxes from these new 1%ers. Of course'll have to wait for the UN to use its muscle and collect it....:rolleyes:

Tecate
12-26-2011, 11:11 AM
http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i228/Loveways/WarDrums.jpg

Odysseus
12-26-2011, 11:18 AM
http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i228/Loveways/WarDrums.jpg

Wow. The only thing missing from this cartoon is a hook nose on the conductor. Okay, maybe a star of David too, just to make the point completely obvious.

Once again, it's Iran that declared war on us. Pretending that they haven't benefits nobody but Iran, and costs us lives.

Tecate
12-26-2011, 11:43 AM
Wow. The only thing missing from this cartoon is a hook nose on the conductor. Okay, maybe a star of David too, just to make the point completely obvious.

Once again, it's Iran that declared war on us. Pretending that they haven't benefits nobody but Iran, and costs us lives.
You're starting to sound like Sonnabend who played the anti-semite card on all things involving the central banking system of the world. No facts are allowed, just "you hate Joooooze!" It doesn't work.

Iran is the complete opposite of Alqaeda. In fact, Iran HATES Alqaeda. This story is complete bullshit. How many other nations are we going to blame for 9/11? How many nations are we going attack in retaliation for 9/11?

Wei Wu Wei
12-26-2011, 10:17 PM
Wow. The only thing missing from this cartoon is a hook nose on the conductor. Okay, maybe a star of David too, just to make the point completely obvious.

Once again, it's Iran that declared war on us. Pretending that they haven't benefits nobody but Iran, and costs us lives.

Are you suggesting than criticizing the policies of the nation of Israel is the same as anti-semitism?

Sounds a lot like the claim that criticizing President Obama is the same as racism.

txradioguy
12-27-2011, 09:44 AM
You're starting to sound like Sonnabend who played the anti-semite card on all things involving the central banking system of the world. No facts are allowed, just "you hate Joooooze!" It doesn't work.

Ody has more proof in what he says than you do posting that stupid cartoon.

You just sound like your a lip synching Ronulan.

You're the one that seems eager to blame teh JOOOOOOOOOOOO'S

Tecate
12-27-2011, 10:12 AM
Ody has more proof in what he says than you do posting that stupid cartoon.

You just sound like your a lip synching Ronulan.

You're the one that seems eager to blame teh JOOOOOOOOOOOO'S
Do you believe that bullshit article txradioguy? I want an answer.

If so, WTF have we been doing militarily for the last 10 years in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Do you think Iran is going to invade the US?

Who will be the next boogeyman of the week after Iran?


These are simple questions which you should have no problem answering if I'm such an idiot.

Lanie
12-27-2011, 02:20 PM
Do you believe that bullshit article txradioguy? I want an answer.

If so, WTF have we been doing militarily for the last 10 years in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Do you think Iran is going to invade the US?

Who will be the next boogeyman of the week after Iran?


These are simple questions which you should have no problem answering if I'm such an idiot.

I don't know about whether Iran is responsible for 911. Personally, this is the first I've heard about it and I want to find out more.

I am going to say that Iran's leader is crazy, really crazy. He's threatened to wipe Israel off the planet before. I think he's hinted at the idea of attacking us. I do think this guy has it in him to really attack a country if given the chance. I think I would support military action over there IF we can ensure we get all the nuclear areas. I'm sort of afraid of attacking and not getting our target.

Lanie
12-27-2011, 02:30 PM
Okay, I'm finding that individuals from Iran (who worked with government) are responsible, particularly one person. I'm not finding a whole lot of evidence that the Iranian government itself is responsible although I'm open minded.

Starbuck
12-27-2011, 02:48 PM
"The streets will run red with the blood....Your mustaches will fall from your faces....The dogs will piss on the bodies of....Your women will wail in mourning for the loss of...Your daughters will be raped by ........The Zionists will be wiped from the face...."

Seriously, now. Rhetoric aside. Do sane people talk like that? I don't even worry about people who talk like that.

They know they can get everyone all exited by "practicing closing the Straight of Hormuz" and "preparing to launch long range missiles" and so forth.
Did Iran cause 9/11? I dunno. Don't much care. Damn near all of the perpetrators are dead now and our security is much improved over where it was on 9/10. And even if there was no improvement in official security, Iranians would not be able to pull off a 9/11 style attack because all Americans are watching for that kind of stuff.

I kind of like the way we are currently waging war with Iran. We fly over their country any time we want, bomb their top level scientists, hack into their centrifuges, and God knows what all. Aerial photos show that 6 warehouses have been leveled....dunno who did it or why; they're just gone. Gee, whattamystery:confused:

My own feeling is that Iran is irrelevant, but not to the degree that we can turn our back. They declared war, they're losing, and there is nothing they can do about it.

Odysseus
12-27-2011, 03:50 PM
You're starting to sound like Sonnabend who played the anti-semite card on all things involving the central banking system of the world. No facts are allowed, just "you hate Joooooze!" It doesn't work.
What facts? The cartoon that accuses Jews of orchestrating a war on Iran? That's not a fact, it's propaganda. Most American Jews opposed the various Middle East wars. They're Democrats, remember? They voted against Bush in far greater numbers than for him, despite the fact that he was pro-Israel. Obama got an overwhelming majority of Jewish voters, and still has higher approval ratings among Jews than among any other group except blacks. The facts directly contradict the agitprop.


Iran is the complete opposite of Alqaeda. In fact, Iran HATES Alqaeda. This story is complete bullshit. How many other nations are we going to blame for 9/11? How many nations are we going attack in retaliation for 9/11?
Iran and al Qaeda share common interests, namely the defeat of the United States, which both see as an impediment to their goal of a global caliphate. The fact that al Qaeda is Sunni while Iran is Shia only means that after they have defeated other infidels, they'll turn their weapons on each other, but until then, your enemy's enemy is your ally. Hamas, BTW, is just as much a Sunni terror group as al Qaeda, but notice that Iran has been arming them to the teeth and financing their jihad. The Iranians provided safe have to Sunni terrorists throughout the last forty years, as long as they have been willing to focus their enmity on the US and Israel.

Are you suggesting than criticizing the policies of the nation of Israel is the same as anti-semitism?
Sounds a lot like the claim that criticizing President Obama is the same as racism.
No, I have never said that, and never will. There is a difference between criticizing Israeli policies and hatred of Israel. Writing in “Progressive” Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism (http://www.ajc.org/atf/cf/%7B42D75369-D582-4380-8395-D25925B85EAF%7D/PROGRESSIVE_JEWISH_THOUGHT.PDF), Alvin H. Rosenfeld defined the difference between antisemitism and legitimate criticism:


Questioning Israel’s Essence, Not Israeli Policies Israel’s policy of encouraging Jewish settlement in Gaza (which it abandoned in 2005) and the West Bank has long been a flash point of dispute, and its sometimes harsh treatment of Palestinian Arabs living in those areas has also drawn a great deal of negative attention. Criticizing such policies and actions is, in itself, not antiSemitic. To call Israel a Nazi state, however, as is commonly done today, or to accuse it of fostering South African-style apartheid rule
or engaging in ethnic cleansing or wholesale genocide goes well beyond legitimate criticism. Apart from the United States, to which it is almost always linked by its enemies, no country on earth is as vilified as the Jewish state. Moreover, those who denounce it as an outlaw or pariah nation are found on both the left and the right, among the educated elites as well as the uneducated classes, and among Christians as well as Muslims.

In some quarters, the challenge is not to Israel’s policies, but to its legitimacy and right to an ongoing future. Thus, the argument leveled by Israel’s fiercest critics is often no longer about 1967 and the country’s territorial expansion following its military victory during the Six-Day War, but about 1948 and the alleged “crime,” or “original sin,” of its very establishment. The debate, in other words, is less about the country’s borders and more about its origins and essence. One of the things that is new and deeply disturbing about the new anti-Semitism, therefore, is precisely this: the singling out of the Jewish state, and the Jewish state alone, as a political entity unworthy of a secure and sovereign existence. As Jacqueline Rose, the author of The Question of Zion (Princeton University Press, 2005), puts it, “the soul of the nation was forfeit from the day of its creation.”

In other words, singling out Israel for a double standard which no nation can meet, accusing American Jews of disloyalty to America and sabotaging American interests, ignoring or justifying the acts of terror against innocent Israelis while exaggerating the defensive actions taken by Israel, blaming Israel for the lack of peace in the Arab/Muslim world and attacking every policy of Israel's, not because they are right or wrong on their own merits, but because they are the policies of a Jewish state, constitutes antisemitism.

Tecate
12-27-2011, 07:22 PM
What facts? The cartoon that accuses Jews of orchestrating a war on Iran? That's not a fact, it's propaganda. Most American Jews opposed the various Middle East wars. They're Democrats, remember? They voted against Bush in far greater numbers than for him, despite the fact that he was pro-Israel. Obama got an overwhelming majority of Jewish voters, and still has higher approval ratings among Jews than among any other group except blacks. The facts directly contradict the agitprop.
There's one other small country listed before Israel in the cartoon that you forgot to mention...

Israel has the third largest military in the world, including nuclear weapons. I do not live in Israel, I live in the USA.


Iran and al Qaeda share common interests, namely the defeat of the United States, which both see as an impediment to their goal of a global caliphate. The fact that al Qaeda is Sunni while Iran is Shia only means that after they have defeated other infidels, they'll turn their weapons on each other, but until then, your enemy's enemy is your ally. Hamas, BTW, is just as much a Sunni terror group as al Qaeda, but notice that Iran has been arming them to the teeth and financing their jihad. The Iranians provided safe have to Sunni terrorists throughout the last forty years, as long as they have been willing to focus their enmity on the US and Israel.
We both know that's never going to happen in this lifetime. This is all the same stuff we heard as justification for previous wars. Where exactly does it end?

Rockntractor
12-27-2011, 07:30 PM
Okay, I'm finding that individuals from Iran (who worked with government) are responsible, particularly one person. I'm not finding a whole lot of evidence that the Iranian government itself is responsible although I'm open minded.

Come on Lanie, do you realize how dumb this looks!:o

Wei Wu Wei
12-27-2011, 09:03 PM
What facts? The cartoon that accuses Jews of orchestrating a war on Iran? That's not a fact, it's propaganda. Most American Jews opposed the various Middle East wars. They're Democrats, remember? They voted against Bush in far greater numbers than for him, despite the fact that he was pro-Israel. Obama got an overwhelming majority of Jewish voters, and still has higher approval ratings among Jews than among any other group except blacks. The facts directly contradict the agitprop.

Except that the cartoon isn't talking about Jews. It's talking about the nation/government of Israel.

American Liberal Jewish voters are not mentioned at all. Why do you feel the need to lump them in with the government of Israel? The cartoon didn't do that, you're arguing with a strawman.

Odysseus
12-27-2011, 09:22 PM
There's one other small country listed before Israel in the cartoon that you forgot to mention...
I didn't forget. US/Israel Hawks = Jews.


Israel has the third largest military in the world, including nuclear weapons.

Even if this were true, what does it have to do with Iran's complicity or lack of same in the 9/11 attacks?
And, it isn't true. In terms of manpower, Israel is way down on the list.

State Total Active

Russian Federation 21,476,000 1,027,000
Democratic People's Republic of Korea 9,495,000 1,106,000
Republic of Korea 8,691,500 687,000
Vietnam 5,495,000 455,000
India 4,768,407 1,325,000
People's Republic of China 4,585,000 2,285,000
Iran 3,833,000 523,000
United States of America[179][180] 2,937,899 1,468,364
Republic of China 1,964,000 290,000
Brazil 1,667,710 327,710
Pakistan 1,434,000 617,000
Egypt 1,344,500 468,500
Cuba 1,234,500 49,000
Ukraine 1,214,825 129,925
Turkey 1,041,500 510,600
Indonesia 982,000 302,000
Israel 749,550 176,500

I do not live in Israel, I live in the USA.
Congratulations. You know where you live. Now try to stay on topic.

We both know that's never going to happen in this lifetime. This is all the same stuff we heard as justification for previous wars. Where exactly does it end?

What isn't going to happen? The defeat of the United States? Our departure from the Middle East? A massive drawdown of our military forces? The rise of Islamist governments in Egypt, Libya, Turkey, Syria, Tunisia, Afghanistan or Iraq? What you don't seem to get is that they are winning by every objective measure. We're withdrawing our forces from two countries that we had previously fought hard to remove from the roster of enemy states. Afghanistan is already making overtures to Pakistan, while Iraq is trying desperately to avoid being carved up by the surrounding powers, and both nations are well on the way to theocratic rule. When that happens, they will join the "Arab Spring" Anschluss of Islamist states run by the Muslim Brotherhood, which, BTW, is the parent organization of Hamas and they are the folks who gave us al Qaeda (Ayman al Zawahiri, Bin Laden's deputy in al Qaeda, came out of the Muslim Brotherhood). Hamas, which is as fanatically Sunni as it gets, is backed by Iran. Meanwhile, our government is mounting up debt on useless programs and cutting the military, which, unlike Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, Food Stamps, Welfare and a host of other programs, is the only thing that it's supposed to be maintaining under the Constitution. We're withdrawing form the world as it's getting more dangerous.

As for where it ends, it depends on whose side you're on. For us, it ends when the Muslims figure out that they don't want to mess with us, which hasn't happened yet. For them, it ends with us praying five times a day to Mecca and my daughters ensconced in some lowlife imam's harem. I know which side of that equation that I'd like to be on. How about you?

Common Sense
12-28-2011, 01:21 AM
I don't know about whether Iran is responsible for 911. Personally, this is the first I've heard about it and I want to find out more.

I am going to say that Iran's leader is crazy, really crazy. He's threatened to wipe Israel off the planet before. I think he's hinted at the idea of attacking us. I do think this guy has it in him to really attack a country if given the chance. I think I would support military action over there IF we can ensure we get all the nuclear areas. I'm sort of afraid of attacking and not getting our target.

Ahmadinejad is a puppet of the mullahs. Or more specifically, he is a puppet of "supreme leader (http://www.leader.ir/langs/en/)" Khamenei . Ahmadinejad is not an elected leader in the sense that most everyone understands an elected leader to be. The mullahs decide who will be allowed to be presidential candidates. You don't get to run for president just because you want to. You must have the favor of the mullahs to get on the ballot.

A while back, during obama's presidency, the Iranian people were uprising. Unfortunately, obama gave them no support and they were snuffed out. But I'm sure somehow that was Bush's fault.

Lanie
12-28-2011, 08:50 AM
Come on Lanie, do you realize how dumb this looks!:o

I'm a prove it type of person. We have corrupt people in every government, but they don't necessarily represent the entire government.

FWIW, I do think it's a strong possibility. I just would like to be more certain before we go bombing Iran.

Lanie
12-28-2011, 08:52 AM
Ahmadinejad is a puppet of the mullahs. Or more specifically, he is a puppet of "supreme leader (http://www.leader.ir/langs/en/)" Khamenei . Ahmadinejad is not an elected leader in the sense that most everyone understands an elected leader to be. The mullahs decide who will be allowed to be presidential candidates. You don't get to run for president just because you want to. You must have the favor of the mullahs to get on the ballot.

A while back, during obama's presidency, the Iranian people were uprising. Unfortunately, obama gave them no support and they were snuffed out. But I'm sure somehow that was Bush's fault.

I agree that Obama should have given them support.

Do you think Bush would have?

Tecate
12-28-2011, 01:03 PM
I didn't forget. US/Israel Hawks = Jews.
I was thinking more along the lines of military industrial complex defense contract weapons sales minions, but whatever floats your boat.

I've been accused of many things, but an anti-semite I am not. If I had something against Jewish people I would openly say so. It does serve as an excellent deflection though, and it's used by many.



Even if this were true, what does it have to do with Iran's complicity or lack of same in the 9/11 attacks?
And, it isn't true. In terms of manpower, Israel is way down on the list.

State Total Active

Russian Federation 21,476,000 1,027,000
Democratic People's Republic of Korea 9,495,000 1,106,000
Republic of Korea 8,691,500 687,000
Vietnam 5,495,000 455,000
India 4,768,407 1,325,000
People's Republic of China 4,585,000 2,285,000
Iran 3,833,000 523,000
United States of America[179][180] 2,937,899 1,468,364
Republic of China 1,964,000 290,000
Brazil 1,667,710 327,710
Pakistan 1,434,000 617,000
Egypt 1,344,500 468,500
Cuba 1,234,500 49,000
Ukraine 1,214,825 129,925
Turkey 1,041,500 510,600
Indonesia 982,000 302,000
Israel 749,550 176,500
For starters, I don't buy the BS article in the OP. For argument's sake, let's assume for a moment that the article is true. Doesn't this make the Bush administration, the 9/11 commisision, and all military action subsequent to 9/11 extremely questionable, or perhaps even worse? After all of Bush's rhetoric about smoking them out of their caves and tracking down all funding and support of the terrorists could this just come out now? You'll have to excuse my skeptism, but the timing of this is very suspicious.


Congratulations. You know where you live. Now try to stay on topic.
Israel is more than capable of defending themselves, even to the point of turning Tehran into a smoking hole in the ground. A threat to Israel is not an adequate reason for me to cheer on WWIII.

I think you missed the point deliberately, but whatever.


What isn't going to happen? The defeat of the United States? Our departure from the Middle East? A massive drawdown of our military forces? The rise of Islamist governments in Egypt, Libya, Turkey, Syria, Tunisia, Afghanistan or Iraq? What you don't seem to get is that they are winning by every objective measure. We're withdrawing our forces from two countries that we had previously fought hard to remove from the roster of enemy states. Afghanistan is already making overtures to Pakistan, while Iraq is trying desperately to avoid being carved up by the surrounding powers, and both nations are well on the way to theocratic rule. When that happens, they will join the "Arab Spring" Anschluss of Islamist states run by the Muslim Brotherhood, which, BTW, is the parent organization of Hamas and they are the folks who gave us al Qaeda (Ayman al Zawahiri, Bin Laden's deputy in al Qaeda, came out of the Muslim Brotherhood). Hamas, which is as fanatically Sunni as it gets, is backed by Iran. Meanwhile, our government is mounting up debt on useless programs and cutting the military, which, unlike Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, Food Stamps, Welfare and a host of other programs, is the only thing that it's supposed to be maintaining under the Constitution. We're withdrawing form the world as it's getting more dangerous.

As for where it ends, it depends on whose side you're on. For us, it ends when the Muslims figure out that they don't want to mess with us, which hasn't happened yet. For them, it ends with us praying five times a day to Mecca and my daughters ensconced in some lowlife imam's harem. I know which side of that equation that I'd like to be on. How about you?
So we have to "GET THEM" before they "GET US".

Or would it be more along the lines of starting WWIII in order to prevent WWIII?

Rockntractor
12-28-2011, 01:19 PM
I was thinking more along the lines of military industrial complex defense contract weapons sales minions, but whatever floats your boat.

I've been accused of many things, but an anti-semite I am not. If I had something against Jewish people I would openly say so. It does serve as an excellent deflection though, and it's used by many.



For starters, I don't buy the BS article in the OP. For argument's sake, let's assume for a moment that the article is true. Doesn't this make the Bush administration, the 9/11 commisision, and all military action subsequent to 9/11 extremely questionable, or perhaps even worse? After all of Bush's rhetoric about smoking them out of their caves and tracking down all funding and support of the terrorists could this just come out now? You'll have to excuse my skeptism, but the timing of this is very suspicious.


Israel is more than capable of defending themselves, even to the point of turning Tehran into a smoking hole in the ground. A threat to Israel is not an adequate reason for me to cheer on WWIII.

I think you missed the point deliberately, but whatever.


So we have to "GET THEM" before they "GET US".

Or would it be more along the lines of starting WWIII in order to prevent WWIII?

People like you would rather wait until there is a knock on your door and a gun butt to your forehead.

Tecate
12-28-2011, 01:31 PM
People like you would rather wait until there is a knock on your door and a gun butt to your forehead.
I am armed just as I know you are. So far I haven't seen any roving gangs of Muslims looking for people to subjugate marching down my street.

Are we capable of kicking the entire world's ass all at the same time while leaving our Southern border wide open? We concern ourselves with threats on the other side of the globe, but ignore an open invasion in our own back yard. What's up with that?

Tecate
12-28-2011, 01:33 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWD8kDHCctw

Arroyo_Doble
12-28-2011, 02:35 PM
I've been accused of many things, but an anti-semite I am not. If I had something against Jewish people I would openly say so. It does serve as an excellent deflection though, and it's used by many.

And it worked. See, you are here defending yourself against an anti-semitism charge instead of the issue being addressed. In this case, the drums of war being played in the Media (although I don't think the United States is ready to dance).

It is standard stuff. Kinda like Godwin's Law. Called it Bok's Law; as a conversation on Israel grows longer, the probability of someone being accused of anti-semitism approaches 1.

djones520
12-28-2011, 02:38 PM
(although I don't think the United States is ready to dance).
.

We are always ready to dance Doble. It's what we do.

Arroyo_Doble
12-28-2011, 02:45 PM
We are always ready to dance Doble. It's what we do.

I was thinking more the American people as opposed to the American military. I have little doubt that the Iranian Navy would not fair well if they try to do anything other than bluster over the Straits.

We have had war for awhile, now and even though we have been asked to sacrifice very little (those outside of the military and their families), not even asked to pay for it, we are tired of war. It is going to be hard to get us worked up again. The Hawks shot their 9/11 wad on Iraq.

NJCardFan
12-28-2011, 05:57 PM
The Hawks shot their 9/11 wad on Iraq.
Uh, what? Don't recall Iraq being blamed for 9/11. Did hear that Iraq was sympathetic to Al Qaeda(which was true) not to mention that Iraq was guilty of several UN resolutions they agreed to after the 1991 Gulf War.

NJCardFan
12-28-2011, 05:58 PM
I am armed just as I know you are. So far I haven't seen any roving gangs of Muslims looking for people to subjugate marching down my street.


Please tell me you're not this obtuse.

Wei Wu Wei
12-29-2011, 01:25 AM
People like you would rather wait until there is a knock on your door and a gun butt to your forehead.

If I thought one of my neighbors really disliked me, and was worried about them trying to hurt me, do I have the right to break into their home and kill them before they strike first?

Odysseus
12-29-2011, 09:58 AM
I was thinking more along the lines of military industrial complex defense contract weapons sales minions, but whatever floats your boat.
The Sixties called. They want their rhetoric back. :rolleyes:


I've been accused of many things, but an anti-semite I am not. If I had something against Jewish people I would openly say so. It does serve as an excellent deflection though, and it's used by many.
I didn't say that you were. The cartoon, however, is.


For starters, I don't buy the BS article in the OP. For argument's sake, let's assume for a moment that the article is true. Doesn't this make the Bush administration, the 9/11 commisision, and all military action subsequent to 9/11 extremely questionable, or perhaps even worse? After all of Bush's rhetoric about smoking them out of their caves and tracking down all funding and support of the terrorists could this just come out now? You'll have to excuse my skeptism, but the timing of this is very suspicious.
Why? Do you really think that uber-dove Obama, who is hell-bent on gutting the military, wants to start a war with Iran? Or that the media does?

As for the rest, Iranian support for al Qaeda demonstrates that we failed to go far enough in our efforts. Certainly you agree that Afghanistan was harboring al Qaeda and served as their base of operations when they planned and executed 9/11? And that going after them was a necessity? And while you may not think that Iraq was a threat, its conduct in support of terror operations, including the first WTC bombing, made them a clear and present danger to the US, and despite the media's best efforts to obscure it, Saddam did possess WMD capabilities, including a nuclear program. The NY Times even reported the recovery of hundreds of metric tons of yellowcake uranium from Saddam's nine working nuclear facilities. As for Iran, again, they have declared war on us and acted on it repeatedly. This is just another fact that supports that, in addition to the fact that they have provided weapons and personnel to the Iraqi insurgents and Taliban whose sole purpose was to kill Americans. They even developed a new type of IED, the Explosive Force Penetrating mine, which is designed to destroy armored vehicles, and supplied them to the Iraqi insurgents. We have a causus belli there. However, I'm not advocating that we go to war with Iran, only that we recognize that they are at war with us and act accordingly. We certainly should have supported the opposition movement there and done everything within our power to assist them in overthrowing the mullahs. Obama missed a huge opportunity when Ahmedinejad stole the last election and the Iranian people took to the streets.


Israel is more than capable of defending themselves, even to the point of turning Tehran into a smoking hole in the ground. A threat to Israel is not an adequate reason for me to cheer on WWIII.
I think you missed the point deliberately, but whatever.
No, I got the point. I just throught that it was a stupid point.


So we have to "GET THEM" before they "GET US".

Or would it be more along the lines of starting WWIII in order to prevent WWIII?
No, we're already in a cold war with Iran, although it's a lot hotter than the previous cold war, because the Soviets were much more rational in their actions. The Iranian regime is motivated by religious doctrines that justify and glorify mutual destruction, whereas the Soviets wanted to rule a world that wasn't a smoldering radioactive pit. The mullahs also have another problem, which the Soviets didn't have, which is massive civil unrest. The Iranian people loathe their regime and want it gone, but the mullahs hang on because they have the means to impose terror on their subjects, so they have a certain urgency to their mission to set the stage for the Twelfth Imam, since they can't do it if they are deposed. Iran's strategic goals are therefore maintaining power domestically and suppressing dissent, destroying or overwhelming the bordering Sunni states and eventually destroying or subjugating the rest of the world, starting with the two biggest military threats, Israel and the US. Our strategic goal should therefore be destabilizing the regime, containing it and preventing it from becoming a more powerful threat. None of these goals require that we invade Iran or even bomb them, but we do have to step up our game. We need to hit their economic weaknesses by freezing their assets and getting the Saudis to step up oil production so as to bankrupt the regime. We need to provide the opposition with satphones, laptops and other tools to get their message out and organize against the state and we need to maintain pressure on their nuclear program through the kind of sabotage that either we or the Israelis have been executing to great effect.

BTW, the people who really want us to take overt military action against the regime are the mullahs themselves. An altercation in the Straights of Hormuz or a raid on a reactor would inflame Iranian nationalism and provide them with an "emergency" that would justify a crackdown on the opposition without provoking international condemnation or sanctions.

Odysseus
12-29-2011, 10:00 AM
I am armed just as I know you are. So far I haven't seen any roving gangs of Muslims looking for people to subjugate marching down my street.

Are we capable of kicking the entire world's ass all at the same time while leaving our Southern border wide open? We concern ourselves with threats on the other side of the globe, but ignore an open invasion in our own back yard. What's up with that?
By the time the Muslims are marching down your street, you won't be in a position to do anything about it. Just ask the Swedes, French, Germans, Italians, British, Danes or Belgians what it's like.

You keep ignoring the fact that we are already at war with Iran, and have been for quite a while. Here is the timeline of the Iran/US war of the last thirty years:


http://wizbangblog.com/2011/10/12/iran-has-been-waging-war-against-the-united-states-for-thirty-years/

1979 Nov 04 Iranian “student activists” [including Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is the current President of the Islamic Republic of Iran] storm and seize the United States Embassy in Tehran. As all embassies are considered the sovereign territory of the Nation they represent, this is an act of war.

1980 Apr 24 President James Earl “Dhimmy” Carter launches operation Eagle Claw from the White House Operations Center. The raid, intended to liberate and extract the 55 hostages being held by Iran, fails after a ground collision resulting in the loss of eight U. S. Service members and one Iranian and the destruction of two aircraft.

1980 Sep 22 Iraq launches an invasion of Iran, subsequently receiving intelligence support (targeting information) from the United States

1981 Jan 20 Minutes after Ronald Reagan is sworn in as President of the United States (and 444 days after being imprisoned), Iran releases the hostages to U. S. control per an agreement signed on 19 April.

1983 Oct 23 Islamic Jihad (a client of Hezbulluh and thus Iran, via instructions relayed from Tehran to the Iranian Ambassador to Syria [also a client of Iran]) detonate a truck bomb at the compound of the U. S. Marines (1st of the 8th) in Beirut, Lebannon. 241 U. S. personnel are KIA.

1987 Sep 21 U. S. Forces detect the motor vessel Iran Ajar (Iranian registry and crew) laying mines in international waters. The vessel is attacked by U. S. Army Helicopters operating from the USS Jarrett (FFG-33). The vessel is subsequently seized by Navy SEALS who document all the remaining mines.

1987 Oct 19 MV Seal Isle City, then anchored in Kuwaiti waters (having been escorted by U. S. forces under Operation Ernest Will to Kuwaiti waters) was struck by a Silkworm missile fired from the Iranian occupied Al Faw peninsula. Later that day U. S. forces attack, and effectively destroy, two oil platforms in Iran’s Rostam (now Rashadat) oil fields which had been used to track neutral shipping and provide targeting information for small craft and SSM’s.

1988 Feb 17 LtCol William R. “Rich” Higgins, USMC, while serving with UN Peacekeeping forces in Lebannon, is captured by hezbulluh, and subsequently tortured and eventually murdered.

1988 Apr 14 USS Samuel B Roberts (FFG-58) strikes an Iranian Mine previously laid by the Iran Ajar in international waters.

1988 Apr 18 In retaliation for the mining of USS Samuel B Roberts, U. S. Armed Forces launch Operation Praying Mantis. Two Iranian oil rigs (Sassan and Sirri) are effectively destroyed by U. S. Forces. Two Iranian warships (Joshan and Sahand) are sunk and a third (Sabalan) damaged such that it had to be towed back into port. Various Iranian small combatants (speed boats) and Aircraft were damaged or destroyed. U. S. losses were two Marine Aviators in a operational incident (crash).

1988 Jul 03 While engaged against Iranian surface forces in the Strait of Hormuz, USS Vincennes (CG-49) engages and destroys Iranian Air flight 655 taking off from the dual use (Military and Civil) airfield at Bandar Abbas.

1988 Aug 20 Iran/Iraq war ends in a cease fire.

1996 Jun 25 Khobar Towers. Iranian supplied and trained terrorists (hezbolluh al hejaz) bomb Khobar Towers where U. S. Air Force personnel are quartered. 19 U. S. Servicemen KIA.

2007 Iran provides arms and IED’s to anti-US forces in Iraq and anti-NATO forces in Afghanistan.

2008 Oct 20 Iraqi forces capture 7 Iranian Quods agents operating in Iraq.

2010 ??? ?? Western Intelligence agencies launch the stuxnet virus against Iranian nuclear program.

2011 Oct 11 Indictments unsealed in NYC naming Iran as agent provocateur for planned embassy bombings (Saudi Arabia and Israel) and assasination (Saudi Ambassador) attempts in the United States.

Iran as sponsor of Terrorists

IRGC (Pasdaran) The Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps is the ONLY military formation in Iran that has been kept up to date in terms of equipment and training since the Iranian Revolution of 1979.

Quods A semi independent formation under the Pasdaran charged with supporting islamic revolutionary forces outside of Iran. Quods are the primary conduit for support to Syria, hezbulluh, and other Iranian clients.

hezbolluh (the party of allah) The Quods force proxy of Iran in Lebannon.

And that doesn't include their support for Hamas and al Qaeda.


And it worked. See, you are here defending yourself against an anti-semitism charge instead of the issue being addressed. In this case, the drums of war being played in the Media (although I don't think the United States is ready to dance).

It is standard stuff. Kinda like Godwin's Law. Called it Bok's Law; as a conversation on Israel grows longer, the probability of someone being accused of anti-semitism approaches 1.
Especially when someone introduces crude propaganda like the cartoon in question.


If I thought one of my neighbors really disliked me, and was worried about them trying to hurt me, do I have the right to break into their home and kill them before they strike first?

You have it exactly backwards. The question is, if one of your neighbors has bragged about how they plan to murder you, has gone out and purchased the means to do so, killed others in your family when they were visiting the neighbors, attempted to break into your home and kill a houseguest that he also hates, harrasssed your family whenever they pass his house, committed a series of escalating violent acts and bribed the local cops to turn a blind eye, would you be justified in getting a protection order and then, only then, shooting him when he comes at you on the street?

Molon Labe
12-29-2011, 10:21 AM
The Sixties called. They want their rhetoric back. :rolleyes:

lol. Sorry Ody.....MIC was explored and coined by a very wise "conservative", President Eisenhower.....not a smelly hippy.

An old battalion commander of mine is still in the Reserves and works full time for Raytheon. He makes no bones about it that there is a connection. Several of my former colleagues also work for Northrop Gruman and a weapons targeting system company that I cannot remember........none of them have denied a MIC in our conversations.....they just don't believe it's a conflict of interest.

Stop pretending this is some left wing slander.

Odysseus
12-29-2011, 11:14 AM
lol. Sorry Ody.....MIC was explored and coined by a very wise "conservative", President Eisenhower.....not a smelly hippy.

An old battalion commander of mine is still in the Reserves and works full time for Raytheon. He makes no bones about it that there is a connection. Several of my former colleagues also work for Northrop Gruman and a weapons targeting system company that I cannot remember........none of them have denied a MIC in our conversations.....they just don't believe it's a conflict of interest.

Stop pretending this is some left wing slander.

Oh, I know where it came from, and what Ike meant when he said it. Here is the section of the speech in which it appears:


IV.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.


Ike was concerned about a technocratic elite coming to power through the manipulation of what was then the single largest line item in the federal budget. Since then, defense has taken a back seat to all manner of entitlements, and the technocrats are running areas of our lives that Ike never imagined (tried to buy an incandescent lightbulb lately?) through their control of the tax code, the various social programs and now, the health care industries. Raytheon and other defense contractors are not interested in curtailing civil liberties, nor is the military. The average Soldier or officer is far less likely to want to impose his will on the general public than is the average Health and Human Services or Department of Education drone. The people who are constantly looking for an excuse to expand their influence are not those we think of as the MIC, but the more mundane parts of the government, the social planners and bureaucrats who want to regulate how we work, what we drive, what we eat, where we live and how much energy we use. It's not the military's boot on your neck that you need to worry about, but the Birkenstocks and Gucci loafers of the Washington elites.

Arroyo_Doble
12-29-2011, 12:28 PM
Especially when someone introduces crude propaganda like the cartoon in question.

Crude propaganda? It certainly has an editorial position; that the US and Israeli Hawks are working the Media in an effort to get their war with Iran on. I could even call it crude since it isn't subtle. I would rather they did something with the Walrus (Bolton) and the Corporal (Lieberman) riffing on the Lewis Carroll poem.

Not sure how it is antisemitic, though.


tried to buy an incandescent lightbulb lately?

Yes. Got some at Home Depot just last week.

Odysseus
12-29-2011, 03:12 PM
Yes. Got some at Home Depot just last week.

Have fun trying to buy them next week. 100 Watt bulbs are no longer legal for sale in the US as of 1 January.

Common Sense
12-29-2011, 04:35 PM
I agree that Obama should have given them support.

Do you think Bush would have?

At least rhetorical, and perhaps direct covert. But Obama is an anti-Capitalist that wants our capitalist system to fall and be replaced. Iran's government knows that now is the time to defy the USA since it is unlikely that the occupant of our White House has the balls to do anything about it.