Al Qaeda #2: We'll Attack Iran

[ViolaLee]

But Al Qaeda is there, they are functioning, they are supported in many times, in many ways by the Iranians.

This is the 4th time McCain claimed Al Qaeda and Iran are allies.

The truth is they are enemies. One being Sunni and the other being Shia.

Al Qaeda's Zawahiri would love for us to attack Iran.

The dispute between America and Iran is a real dispute based on the struggle over areas of influence, and the possibility of America striking Iran is a real possibility. As for what might happen in the region, I can only say that major changes will occur in the region, and the situation will be in the interest of the Mujahideen if the war saps both of them. If, however, one of them emerges victorious, its influence will intensify and fierce battles will begin between it and the Mujahideen, except that the Jihadi awakening currently under way and the degeneration state of affairs of the invaders in Afghanistan and Iraq will make it impossible for Iran or America to become the sole decision-maker in the region.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/04/al-qaeda-2-well.html

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/20/mccain-asserted-iranal-qaeda-ties-last-month/

http://intelcenter.com/

It would be in Al Qaeda's best interests if we invaded Iran. McCain is as clueless as Bush is about the Middle East. Ignorance like this gets us stuck in wars with no end.

[Go Fish]

Are you saying that al Qaeda will help us when we nuke Iran? I have a few suggestions for their Forward Observers if that's the case.

[ViolaLee]

Sure, with McCain at the helm we can fight right alongside Al Qaeda, with them as our allies.

[Troubadour]

Sure, with McCain at the helm we can fight right alongside Al Qaeda, with them as our allies.


Bush already does fight beside al Qaeda.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/070305fa_fact_hersh

No reason his clone wouldn't follow suit.

[Go Fish]

Sure, with McCain at the helm we can fight right alongside Al Qaeda, with them as our allies.


Bush already does fight beside al Qaeda.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/070305fa_fact_hersh

No reason his clone wouldn't follow suit.


You might want to inform the innocent victims at Guantanamo Bay about this. Maybe they'll quit hurling shit at our troops.

[Mia]

Al-Queda has us doing their bidding - wherever they go or claim to be, we attack. They use us as at tool for their goals, and we just follow along like idiots.

[ViolaLee]

It's the truth.

And it boils my blood.

I really wanted so badly for the USA to be the good guys, and go after the real bad guys, and keep our good name in the world.

I really think we can actually finally do all that, when Obama is our President.

[NDNdancer]

Al-Queda has us doing their bidding - wherever they go or claim to be, we attack. They use us as at tool for their goals, and we just follow along like idiots.


Not only them, but the various militias in Iraq. While we pour 153 million a month into Iraq and who knows how much in our newest target, Iran, everyone else is saving their money and using the US to fight their battles.

[Mia]

It's the truth.

And it boils my blood.

I really wanted so badly for the USA to be the good guys, and go after the real bad guys, and keep our good name in the world.

I really think we can actually finally do all that, when Obama is our President.




Obama stated he'd invade Pakistan if there was credible intelligence that Al-Queda is there.

I hate to burst your bubble (and I mean that seriously, not sarcastically) but he's no different in this regard.

RP is the ONLY candidate who wants to mind our own business, stop the nation building, and use our money for things at home.

[ViolaLee]

Obama stated he'd invade Pakistan if there was credible intelligence that Al-Queda is there.

I hate to burst your bubble (and I mean that seriously, not sarcastically) but he's no different in this regard.

RP is the ONLY candidate who wants to mind our own business, stop the nation building, and use our money for things at home.


I want us to go after Al Qaeda. I think we should get out of Iraq and go after the terrorists that attacked us. I've felt this way since 2002 when Bush started talking about invading Iraq. You didn't burst by bubble, don't worry. I totally agree with Obama on the issue of Al Qaeda. They killed 3000 people and destroyed the World Trade Center. I'm a NYC girl. I love NY. I'm furious that Bush didn't go after the people that attacked our country.

[Mia]

Are you saying that al Qaeda will help us when we nuke Iran? I have a few suggestions for their Forward Observers if that's the case.




No, they will go into Iran after we nuke it for them!

They weren't in Iraq until we cleared the way for them, now they are.

We supposedly ran them out of Afghanistan,,,,,,,, a lot of good that did, they just re-grouped and are going back, and now they're in Pakistan too.


When will anyone get that you can't destroy a stateless enemy by destroying states?

[Mia]

Obama stated he'd invade Pakistan if there was credible intelligence that Al-Queda is there.

I hate to burst your bubble (and I mean that seriously, not sarcastically) but he's no different in this regard.

RP is the ONLY candidate who wants to mind our own business, stop the nation building, and use our money for things at home.


I want us to go after Al Qaeda. I think we should get out of Iraq and go after the terrorists that attacked us. I've felt this way since 2002 when Bush started talking about invading Iraq. You didn't burst by bubble, don't worry. I totally agree with Obama on the issue of Al Qaeda. They killed 3000 people and destroyed the World Trade Center. I'm a NYC girl. I love NY. I'm furious that Bush didn't go after the people that attacked our country.


But invading Pakistan - do you think that's the way to do it? It's just like what we're discussing here - it just weakens Pakistan and leaves it more vulnerable for the Taliban when we leave, or heck, even while we're there if Iraq and Afghanistan are any indication.

Then they can still just go somewhere else. What are we going to do, invade and occupy every country in the ME? Do you have the money to pay for that? Are you willing to commit the lives of Americans to do it?

The rest of the world isn't going to pitch in, how do you think we can actually accomplish this?

Instead, why don't we shore up our OWN borders. Increase our own national security instead of weakening it with every military person and $$ we commit elsewhere?

[Wndrtch]

The truth is they are enemies. One being Sunni and the other being Shia.

True enough, however, "The enemy of my enemy, is my friend".

They may be blood-rivals, but they are both strict Islamists, and we are not. Neither groups will be able to use Iraq, until we are out of there, so they have a vested interest to help each other.

And yes, we have found equipment in Iraq that is Iranian made, and we have even found a few Iranian operatives in Iraq. The Iranians will ultimately support anyone attacking the West, even blood-rivals.

[Mia]

Al-Queda seems able to attack us without the help of any specific nation. I have not seen the good of invading any.

I supported Afghanistan because we were suppose to go after them, but we didn't. We just built an oil pipeline, destroyed another country, and made it vulnerable to Al-Queda, and now people think we need more of the same.

Insanity.

[Mia]

Obama on Iran:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyHJZxNm-Cg&NR=1

Of course, it's all empty rhetoric (peace and love and diplomacy in the ME, gag), and he can always change his mind like he did on Iraq.

He's also saying that we need to threaten Iran. So what will he do if the threats don't work, hmmmmm? :ponder:

Sorry, Viola, these traditional party candidates are all the same on this issue, they only different in their wording of it.

There is only ONE candidate who doesn't seek to keep invading and nation-building.

[Mia]

Why we shouldn't attack Iran: (forward to 4:04)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RBBV-_Uudk

[jafar00]

The truth is they are enemies. One being Sunni and the other being Shia.

True enough, however, "The enemy of my enemy, is my friend".


Why do you try to push a "western" concept onto those that aren't? Besides, you are completely disregarding the fact that even mentioning Shia around these people makes their faces turn bright red with rage. Al Qaeda hate the Shia with great vigour.


They may be blood-rivals, but they are both strict Islamists, and we are not. Neither groups will be able to use Iraq, until we are out of there, so they have a vested interest to help each other.


Help each other to do what exactly? And what is an "Islamist"?


And yes, we have found equipment in Iraq that is Iranian made,


Yeah with English writing, Gregorian dates of manufacture stamped on, and of a type not manufactured in Iran.


and we have even found a few Iranian operatives in Iraq.


Embassy staff are "operatives"?
/me looks suspiciously over at the US embassy in Paris

[Troubadour]

Go Fish,
Does it bother you at all that Bush is funding al Qaeda?


You might want to inform the innocent victims at Guantanamo Bay about this.


I'd rather inform them the torture will stop and they'll be getting fair trials.


Maybe they'll quit hurling sh1t at our troops.


Maybe those "troops" will stop torturing them and refuse assignment to the camp while it continues. In any event, your claim is a crock.

http://safeliving.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/january_jan11guantanamobayarrivalproc.jpg

[Go Fish]

Al-Queda has us doing their bidding - wherever they go or claim to be, we attack. They use us as at tool for their goals, and we just follow along like idiots.

Call me nosy, but where did you get that idea? CNN? NYT? PBS?

[apdst]

I say we instigate a war between AQ and Iran, then destroy them both while they are embroiled with each other.

Maybe those "troops" will stop torturing them and refuse assignment to the camp while it continues. In any event, your claim is a crock.

I don't see anyone being tortured in that photograph. You may want to post abother that would better prove your point.

[ViolaLee]

Al-Queda has us doing their bidding - wherever they go or claim to be, we attack. They use us as at tool for their goals, and we just follow along like idiots.


Not only them, but the various militias in Iraq. While we pour 153 million a month into Iraq and who knows how much in our newest target, Iran, everyone else is saving their money and using the US to fight their battles.

I think it's actually 10 to 12 billion a month...

But invading Pakistan - do you think that's the way to do it? It's just like what we're discussing here - it just weakens Pakistan and leaves it more vulnerable for the Taliban when we leave, or heck, even while we're there if Iraq and Afghanistan are any indication.

Then they can still just go somewhere else. What are we going to do, invade and occupy every country in the ME? Do you have the money to pay for that? Are you willing to commit the lives of Americans to do it?

The rest of the world isn't going to pitch in, how do you think we can actually accomplish this?

Instead, why don't we shore up our OWN borders. Increase our own national security instead of weakening it with every military person and $$ we commit elsewhere?
I don't think we should actually INVADE Pakistan. I've thought from the beginning we should do this the way Clinton did it the first time terrorists bombed the WTC. Hunt them down, arrest them, try them, and put them in prison. The legal way. The terrorists that organized the first WTC bombing are in jail right now. Remember the blind Sheik? We have to work with the governments of the countries they are in, and send in the special forces and get them. It's not a war where you invade and occupy like the worst President in history thinks, along with the Republican who wants to replace him. It's a covert war, working along with the rest of the civilized world. We had to invade Afghanistan because they didn't have a civilized government. When Russia invaded them, the royalty that ruled, fled. The Taleban took over and they are just as bad as Al Qaeda. But Pakistan is a different story. They have just had an election. We can work with them and help them, along with our allies and go after Al Qaeda there. We HAVE to. We can't let them get away with what they've done and what they are planning to do.


The truth is they are enemies. One being Sunni and the other being Shia.

True enough, however, "The enemy of my enemy, is my friend".

They may be blood-rivals, but they are both strict Islamists, and we are not. Neither groups will be able to use Iraq, until we are out of there, so they have a vested interest to help each other.

And yes, we have found equipment in Iraq that is Iranian made, and we have even found a few Iranian operatives in Iraq. The Iranians will ultimately support anyone attacking the West, even blood-rivals.
The truth is, the government of Iraq, Maliki, is part of the SIC, the Supreme Islamic Council, founded and located in Iran. He is an ally of Iran. If there are Iranian weapons, they are there for the people who are fighting ALONGSIDE our troops.

Our government is lying when they say Al Qaeda is working with Iran. McCain is lying when he says Al Qaeda is training in Iran.

[Go Fish]

Go Fish,
Does it bother you at all that Bush is funding al Qaeda?


You might want to inform the innocent victims at Guantanamo Bay about this.


I'd rather inform them the torture will stop and they'll be getting fair trials.


Maybe they'll quit hurling sh1t at our troops.


Maybe those "troops" will stop torturing them and refuse assignment to the camp while it continues. In any event, your claim is a crock.

http://safeliving.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/january_jan11guantanamobayarrivalproc.jpg


Those people didn't get there because they were out walking their dogs. They didn't get there simply because they were trying to kill Americans. They got there by being "persons of interest" who were captured in combat. I wore my "Club Git'mo" shirt to work today to honor the memory of Martin Luther King Jr. He'd have been all about kicking some Muslim ass. He'd have been like "Fuck you murderous heathens! If you think you can take MY shit, you got another think comin'." He would'a been all up in their jiggedy-janks. Same with Jack Kennedy. He'd have been wearing a suit and sober and not having sex with a ho and been on TV saying "Fawk thot shat! Broik thaaaa fawkin laigs and paw pint struppah up thah ahhhses."
Nobody with a brain feels sorry for the jihadis. The worst part is that Guantanamo represents the highest standard of living that any of them could ever hope to achieve. I want it shut down because they have it too easy there. 3 hots and a cot, soccer, showers, (Spend some time in the ME and you'll know why THAT is a biggie) and pretty much a real resort time-share kind of atmosphere. Hopefully they're being fed the yellow cake Hussein tried to get out of Nigeria.

[ViolaLee]

Wow so many untruths in that post. Let's start with the last sentence. Saddam didn't try to get yellow cake out of Nigeria. The country in question was Niger. And there was no yellow cake sought. When Bush said that, he was using an already debunked forged document and false intelligence. The CIA knew it was false, thought it was out of the speech, and were surprised when he said it. That's when Wilson wrote his column "What I didn't find in Africa", that set in motion the outting of his wife by the traitors, Cheney, Rove, Libby and Armitage.

[apdst]

And there was no yellow cake sought.

Niger and Iraq were opening trade negotiations. Niger's two main exports are goats and yellow cake uranium. Which one do you think the Iraqis were most interested in?

[Mia]

Musharaff isn't working with us as much as we'd like. And Obama stated in the debates he would invade Pakistan if that continues. None of the candidates differ on this, your guy is just as foolish about war as the others. He has no plans to legally capture and arrest terrorists - he plans to move the war to other nations, and threaten Iran.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama issued a pointed warning yesterday to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, saying that as president he would be prepared to order U.S. troops into that country unilaterally if it failed to act on its own against Islamic extremists.

In his most comprehensive statement on terrorism, the senator from Illinois said that the Iraq war has left the United States less safe than it was before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and that if elected he would seek to withdraw U.S. troops and shift the country's military focus to threats in Afghanistan and Pakistan.


"When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won," he told an audience at the Woodrow Wilson Center in the District. He added, "The first step must be to get off the wrong battlefield in Iraq and take the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/01/AR2007080101233.html

Barack Obama, a leading Democrat candidate in the US presidential race, provoked anger yesterday by threatening to send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists — even without permission from that country’s Government.

Standing in front of a Stars and Stripes flag, Mr Obama said: “There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again . . . If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.�

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2182955.ece




Our government is lying when they say Al Qaeda is working with Iran. McCain is lying when he says Al Qaeda is training in Iran.




I guess Obama believes the lies - he wants even more pressure put on Iran. Sanctions, etc. And what do we do when sanctions fail? :ponder:

[Mia]

Those people didn't get there because they were out walking their dogs. They didn't get there simply because they were trying to kill Americans. They got there by being "persons of interest" who were captured in combat.




How do you know how they got there? That information is not available to the public.

Captured in combat is most certainly NOT the only way to wind up in Gitmo.

[apdst]

The truth is, the government of Iraq, Maliki, is part of the SIC, the Supreme Islamic Council, founded and located in Iran.

The real truth is, Nouri al Maliki is a member of The Islamic Dawa Party, not The Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council. The next real truth, is there is no Supreme Islamic Council. There's a Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, that has nothing to do with Iran, however.

And Obama stated in the debates he would invade Pakistan if that continues

He crawfished on that dumbassed idea, too.

Hunt them down, arrest them, try them, and put them in prison.

Yeah, that really scared the crap out of'em. How many more times did they attack us after that? Eight?

[Troubadour]

Go Fish,
You didn't answer my question. Does it or does it not bother you that, as described in my link, the Bush regime is funding al Qaeda?


Those people didn't get there because they were out walking their dogs.


How do you know how they got there? Is it enough in your world that someone in the Bush regime says so?


I wore my "Club Git'mo" shirt to work today to honor the memory of Martin Luther King Jr. He'd have been all about kicking some Muslim ass. He'd have been like "f_ck you murderous heathens! If you think you can take MY sh1t, you got another think comin'." He would'a been all up in their jiggedy-janks.


I think you're mistaking him for Bull Connor. MLK was a "bleeding-heart anti-Amurrcan librul wut hates Amurrca and loves thems tay-rists."


Same with Jack Kennedy. He'd have been wearing a suit and sober and not having sex with a ho and been on TV saying "Fawk thot shat! Broik thaaaa fawkin laigs and paw pint struppah up thah ahhhses."


Kennedy would have fired and court-martialed every single civilian and military leader involved in turning Gitmo into a torture camp, and then closed the detention facility down.


Nobody with a brain feels sorry for the jihadis.


Nobody with a brain thinks an accusation is a fact.


The worst part is that Guantanamo represents the highest standard of living that any of them could ever hope to achieve.


Being tortured and driven insane with terror and anguish is not a standard of living.


I want it shut down because they have it too easy there.


Many Republicans seem to agree, so I have a proposal: Keep it open and operating just as it is, but let Bush and Cheney enjoy its luxuries rather than the "tay-rists."


3 hots and a cot, soccer, showers


For those who confess, sign everything put in front of them, and name every name they're told to implicate.


(Spend some time in the ME and you'll know why THAT is a biggie)


You know what's a biggie here in America? Decency.


and pretty much a real resort time-share kind of atmosphere.


Yeah, the air's real nice outside the torture chambers. At least, if you stay upwind of them - dungeons tend not to be very clean, given all the bodily fluids that end up being spilled.


Hopefully they're being fed the yellow cake Hussein tried to get out of Nigeria.


I'm pretty sure imaginary food is less nutritious than the real variety.

[ViolaLee]

Musharaff isn't working with us as much as we'd like. And Obama stated in the debates he would invade Pakistan if that continues. None of the candidates differ on this, your guy is just as foolish about war as the others. He has no plans to legally capture and arrest terrorists - he plans to move the war to other nations, and threaten Iran.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama issued a pointed warning yesterday to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, saying that as president he would be prepared to order U.S. troops into that country unilaterally if it failed to act on its own against Islamic extremists.

In his most comprehensive statement on terrorism, the senator from Illinois said that the Iraq war has left the United States less safe than it was before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and that if elected he would seek to withdraw U.S. troops and shift the country's military focus to threats in Afghanistan and Pakistan.


"When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won," he told an audience at the Woodrow Wilson Center in the District. He added, "The first step must be to get off the wrong battlefield in Iraq and take the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/01/AR2007080101233.html

Barack Obama, a leading Democrat candidate in the US presidential race, provoked anger yesterday by threatening to send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists — even without permission from that country’s Government.

Standing in front of a Stars and Stripes flag, Mr Obama said: “There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again . . . If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.�

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2182955.ece




Our government is lying when they say Al Qaeda is working with Iran. McCain is lying when he says Al Qaeda is training in Iran.




I guess Obama believes the lies - he wants even more pressure put on Iran. Sanctions, etc. And what do we do when sanctions fail? :ponder:


Invade and occupy is very different than send troops to take out the terrorists. Obama doesn't want to do to Pakistan what Bush did to Iraq. He wants to wipe out Al Qaeda. And I want him to do so.

Obama doesn't believe the lies about Iran and Al Qaeda. He would sanction Iran so they don't develope nukes.

I don't think you really want Iran to have nukes, do you? The leader of Iran is one of the hostage takers during the Carter admin. He's not our friend.

[apdst]

Invade and occupy is very different than send troops to take out the terrorists.

If you send a force into a country, without that country's consent, then it's an invasion.

[Mia]

Invade and occupy is very different than send troops to take out the terrorists. Obama doesn't want to do to Pakistan what Bush did to Iraq. He wants to wipe out Al Qaeda. And I want him to do so.

Obama doesn't believe the lies about Iran and Al Qaeda. He would sanction Iran so they don't develope nukes.

I don't think you really want Iran to have nukes, do you? The leader of Iran is one of the hostage takers during the Carter admin. He's not our friend.



When you send troops to a sovereign nation to take action without their consent, it is called an invasion.

He is not against the way we conducted the Iraq invasion, he just thinks it was the wrong place to invade!

Viola, I hate to say it, but you're engaging in double-talk!

Again, I ask you, WHAT WILL HE DO WHEN THOSE SANCTIONS DON'T WORK?

You don't threaten without intending to back it up, that's even more foolish than following through.

I know you love the man, but he's not the dream man you suppose he is, and I'm disheartened that you let your feelings about him override practical analysis of his postions on key foreign policy issues.

[jafar00]

I don't see anyone being tortured in that photograph. You may want to post abother that would better prove your point.


Imagine one day you are happily driving your taxi, and the next you are dressed in orange, chained up, head and face covered in various paraphernalia, forced to kneel in gravel for several hours while being shouted at in a language you don't understand by a half neanderthal dressed in green. However mild, that would still be torture. Many of Guantanamo inmates are completely innocent people turned in because the US offered money for people to turn in Taleban and AQ, but just to get money, they just pointed out anyone at random.

Anyway, it's not what you see in the photo that you have to worry about, it's what you don't see.

[apdst]

Imagine one day you are happily driving your taxi, and the next you are dressed in orange, chained up, head and face covered in various paraphernalia, forced to kneel in gravel for several hours while being shouted at in a language you don't understand by a half neanderthal dressed in green.

I put up with worse than that when I was in basic training. Hell, I was even gassed, when I was in basic training.

Why the half neanderthal comment? Do you know any of those men and women, personally? If I had said that about those dudes kneeling on the ground you would be crying about racism. Remember that next time.

Anyway, it's not what you see in the photo that you have to worry about, it's what you don't see.

Pictures speak a thousand words.

[Mia]

Call me nosy, but where did you get that idea? CNN? NYT? PBS?

Out of my own brain, simply watching events unfold.

[jafar00]

I put up with worse than that when I was in basic training. Hell, I was even gassed, when I was in basic training.


Yeah I've done the basic training stuff too. The important thing to note here is that these people not volunteered for this treatment. They were taken there against their will on the flimsiest of hearsay evidence. The photo doesn't show the half of it.


Why the half neanderthal comment? Do you know any of those men and women, personally?


You can see him shouting at them in the photo. If you were in the military, you should know the type. All brawn, no brains and they like to shout a lot. ;)

[Mia]

I rarely agree with apdst, but he's got you here. That's not a fair generalization about our men and women who serve the country.

[apdst]

Well, jafar, since you've been in basic training, you should know that he's not yelling. He's speaking in a loud tone of voice to insure that he's heard and understood.

The photo doesn't show the half of it? Ok, post some more photos.

[Mia]

Oh come on, now how is he supposed to get pictures from such a place?

[Elrathin]

....you should know that he's not yelling. He's speaking in a loud tone of voice to insure that he's heard and understood.

Yeah and Bill Clinton wasn't getting a blowjob from Monica, he was just checking her tonsils with his dick to make sure they weren't inflamed and needed immediate medical attention. :rolleyes:

Seriously, comparing Gitmo to Basic Training is ridiculous. Number one Basic Training lasted for 9 weeks (at least for me), GITMO lasts most of their lives the way this war is going.

Number two, Basic Training was voluntary, their stay in GTIMO is not.

Number three, in basic training, if you did anything that warranted you getting kicked out, you got a court martial, many of the people in GITMO haven't been up for anything.

The comparison to Basic Training is sophomoric.

[David]

Invading Iran is idiotic. If anything they're an ally. They offered 100% support (resources, supplies, weapons, troops, ect) in Afghanistan and President Shrub the Chimpanzee in his infinite wisdom declared them part of 'the Axis of Evil'. :shame:

[Go Fish]

Invading Iran is idiotic. If anything they're an ally. They offered 100% support (resources, supplies, weapons, troops, ect) in Afghanistan and President Shrub the Chimpanzee in his infinite wisdom declared them part of 'the Axis of Evil'. :shame:

You are so "uninformed". Iran is supplying al Qaeda in Iraq. Where do you get such off-the-mark information?

[Mia]

Oh no - it's too late for this nonsense. 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend' only goes so far.

Any proof for this allegation?

[David]

You are so "uninformed". Iran is supplying al Qaeda in Iraq. Where do you get such off-the-mark information?

Me uninformed? I get this information from the the Iranian offer... :lmao:

You think everything Shrub the Chimpanzee does is good? You are the "uninformed" one.

David, on this forum we use proper names only.

[Wndrtch]

Yeah with English writing, Gregorian dates of manufacture stamped on, and of a type not manufactured in Iran.

jafar00, the Iranians are attemtping to cause chaos in Iraq, and are responsible for the death of US soldiers, or at least they are trying very hard.

"The deadliest clashes were in Basra, where at least 47 people were killed and 223 wounded in the two days of fighting," wrote the AP's Kim Gamel.

Ms. Gamel was writing about the opening clashes of Operation Knight's Charge, the effort by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to take control of Iraq's second most populous city from Iranian-backed militias, chiefly the Mahdi Army nominally headed by the anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080405/COLUMNIST14/804050327/-1/NEWS03

They may not be directly involved with AQ, but they do have their own surrogates on the ground, shooting and blowing things up, and they are supplying that effort. Like it or not, we are already engaged with Iran. It is only a matter of time before things get very heated between our nations. Deal with them now, or deal with them later, but rest-assured, we will be dealing with them at some point.

[Wndrtch]

Oh no - it's too late for this nonsense. 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend' only goes so far.

Any proof for this allegation?

Ms. Gamel was writing about the opening clashes of Operation Knight's Charge, the effort by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to take control of Iraq's second most populous city from Iranian-backed militias, chiefly the Mahdi Army nominally headed by the anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080405/COLUMNIST14/804050327/-1/NEWS03

[Mia]

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080405/COLUMNIST14/804050327/-1/NEWS03


I missed the part about funding Al-Qaeda, can you point to it? That was the claim I was refuting.

[Wndrtch]

I missed the part about funding Al-Qaeda, can you point to it? That was the claim I was refuting.

Ok I'll give you that one. There is no public evidence of yet, that shows Iran supporting AQ, directly.

However, why does that matter at all? McCain's point was that Iran is training and supplying "fighters" that kill US soldiers.

That was McCains point the first time.

[jafar00]

jafar00, the Iranians are attemtping to cause chaos in Iraq, and are responsible for the death of US soldiers, or at least they are trying very hard.

So people and politicians keep saying, but nobody can seem to offer up any evidence to support it. To me, the concept of the Shia arming and supporting those who have pledged to kill them is like something out of Monty Python. Totally bizarre.

[David]

Ok I'll give you that one. There is no public evidence of yet, that shows Iran supporting AQ, directly.

Iran supports Hezbollah. Hezbollah and Al Quida are at war... You see the flaw in your logic?

[lily]

Musharaff isn't working with us as much as we'd like.

Um.....I just wanted to point out that Musharraf was voted out of office.

[lily]

This is the 4th time McCain claimed Al Qaeda and Iran are allies.

The truth is they are enemies. One being Sunni and the other being Shia.

Al Qaeda's Zawahiri would love for us to attack Iran.



Viola.......you are assuming it's a mistake. I can understand that, since he did need correction before. I'm thinking it's strategy. When Bush wanted re-election, how many times did he put 911 and Iraq in the same sentence? How many people thought Iraq was responsible for 911?

[David]

Um.....I just wanted to point out that Musharraf was voted out of office.

Thank god. That reminds me, I won a bet... :clapper:

[David]

Viola.......you are assuming it's a mistake. I can understand that, since he did need correction before. I'm thinking it's strategy. When Bush wanted re-election, how many times did he put 911 and Iraq in the same sentence? How many people thought Iraq was responsible for 911?

Truth. Wish it wasn't, however. We need honest politicians for once.

[Wndrtch]

So people and politicians keep saying, but nobody can seem to offer up any evidence to support it. To me, the concept of the Shia arming and supporting those who have pledged to kill them is like something out of Monty Python. Totally bizarre.

Why is that so hard to believe? The Shia, Sunni, and Kurds are working together to shut-down Muqtada al-Sadr militia. If they can do that, then why is it far fetched to think Shia and Sunni can band together to kill American Soldiers?

Iraq: Sadr Party Faces Rising Isolation
By HAMZA HENDAWI and QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA – 1 day ago

BAGHDAD (AP) — Iraq's major Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish parties have closed ranks to force anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr to disband his Mahdi Army militia or leave politics, lawmakers and officials involved in the effort said Sunday.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h0_feLSmJcspNYz9g3tqDkkwXD2QD8VSIPN00

It's too bad that so many people think that civility is lost on the average Muslim.

[David]

Why is that so hard to believe? The Shia, Sunni, and Kurds are working together to shut-down Muqtada al-Sadr militia. If they can do that, then why is it far fetched to think Shia and Sunni can band together to kill American Soldiers?



http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h0_feLSmJcspNYz9g3tqDkkwXD2QD8VSIPN00

It's too bad that so many people think that civility is lost on the average Muslim.

*Looks at Go Fish.*

Hope Iraq can stabilize soon. We need to refocus our efforts on Afghanistan.

[Tessy]

Bush already does fight beside al Qaeda.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/070305fa_fact_hersh

No reason his clone wouldn't follow suit.

Exactly right and true!


Obama stated he'd invade Pakistan if there was credible intelligence that Al-Queda is there.

I hate to burst your bubble (and I mean that seriously, not sarcastically) but he's no different in this regard.

RP is the ONLY candidate who wants to mind our own business, stop the nation building, and use our money for things at home.

Well you're right that Obama is no different! Obama = Hillary = McCain! But there's
already lots and lots of US (CIA/FBI) declassified documentation that shows the CIA
funded Al'Queda with funds funneled through the ISI earmarked especially for them.
So if Obama gets in and he doesn't then there's another campaign promise he'll be
breaking (nothing new for him tho).

[ViolaLee]

Viola.......you are assuming it's a mistake. I can understand that, since he did need correction before. I'm thinking it's strategy. When Bush wanted re-election, how many times did he put 911 and Iraq in the same sentence? How many people thought Iraq was responsible for 911?You're right about that. It's the same question I've always asked about Bush, now we have to ask it about McCain, is he stupid or a liar when he claims Al Qaeda is Shia and being trained in Iran?

He did it again a couple days ago when he was asking Petraeus a question.


JOHN MCCAIN: "There are numerous threats to security in Iraq and the future of Iraq. Do you still view al-Qaeda in Iraq as a major threat?"

GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS: "It is a major threat. Though it is certainly as not as major a threat as it was say, 15 months ago."
MCCAIN: "Certainly not an obscure sect of the Shias overall?
PETRAEUS: "No, sir."
MCCAIN: "Or Sunnis or anybody else then?

[Sublimating]

Viola.......you are assuming it's a mistake. I can understand that, since he did need correction before. I'm thinking it's strategy. When Bush wanted re-election, how many times did he put 911 and Iraq in the same sentence? How many people thought Iraq was responsible for 911?

Does anyone believe McCain would have a snowballs chance in hell of being elected if not for the innocent blood spilled on 9-11?

Never has one party benefited so clearly in recent times from the tragic loss of American lives as the republicans have from this tragic event.

What's worse is that they are still shamelessly manipulating the American people nearly 8 years later. Just say "The war on terror" and the voting IQ of average Americans drops by double digits.

[Pookie]

Holy crap! Sub, that's a damn good point there. I have friends who really, really believe only Republicans can fix terrorism and they will not listen.
You know, as well as I do, whether it be hidden or in the forefront, 9/11 has a LOT to do with this upcoming election.
This will be very, very interesting how this unfolds and what kind of impact it has on voters this year.
Good point.
Purrs,
Pookie

[Wndrtch]

Does anyone believe McCain would have a snowballs chance in hell of being elected if not for the innocent blood spilled on 9-11?

Never has one party benefited so clearly in recent times from the tragic loss of American lives as the republicans have from this tragic event.

What's worse is that they are still shamelessly manipulating the American people nearly 8 years later. Just say "The war on terror" and the voting IQ of average Americans drops by double digits.

That's because the perception is, that modern Democrats are weak on self-defense, and they've just spent the last 5 years proving it true. Now, they come before the American Public and say, "trust us, we'll send flowers and speak kindly, and that will make the terrorists go away". Most rational people relize, that most often, you have to punch back at the bully in order to stop the beatings.

We lost 3,000 citizens and two National Landmarks on 911, which everbody saw unfold in realtime. They have tried repeatedly to to do it again. When the average American (and how ever many illegals the dems can register...) walk in the voting booths, they will ask themselves, who is best to punch the bully back, the Hawks or the Doves. Only the duped and the suicidal will vote for Doves.

"It's the economy, stupid..." is only in play when "It's self defense, stupid..." is not.

Right now, and for the time being, "It's self defense, stupid..." is our reality.

[David]

That's because the perception is, that modern Democrats are weak on self-defense, and they've just spent the last 5 years proving it true. Now, they come before the American Public and say, "trust us, we'll send flowers and speak kindly, and that will make the terrorists go away". Most rational people relize, that most often, you have to punch back at the bully in order to stop the beatings.

We lost 3,000 citizens and two National Landmarks on 911, which everbody saw unfold in realtime. They have tried repeatedly to to do it again. When the average American (and how ever many illegals the dems can register...) walk in the voting booths, they will ask themselves, who is best to punch the bully back, the Hawks or the Doves. Only the duped and the suicidal will vote for Doves.

"It's the economy, stupid..." is only in play when "It's self defense, stupid..." is not.

Right now, and for the time being, "It's self defense, stupid..." is our reality.

Except it's not. No-one worries about the war anymore. The presidency will go to whoever offers us the most money.