1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Bush admits that terrorist suspects were held in secret prison network

Discussion in 'The OT' started by cj9788, Sep 6, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    A more naive person I don't think I've ever seen or heard 'round these parts.

    ...

    Iran is committed to the destruction of Israel, as is Al Qaeda.


    Naive? I think you are the one being naive. If your fears were true, we would already have seen them happen using other WMDs currently in Iran's possession.

    Iran however is a sovereign state in and of itself, and will not risk being totally destroyed just to take revenge upon Israel. If it didn't have a measure of self-interest, it would ALREADY have attacked Israel and started a full blown war. It doesn't, because it knows it will lose and face destruction.

    If your premise was correct, we would already have seen Iran use chemical weapons against Israel via Hezbollah. Iran certainly has them in stock and also has the missile technology to attack if they wished. They don't however because such weapons would bring the unmitigated destruction of Iran. While Iran hates Israel, they are not willing to commit national suicide for its destruction. After all, Iran has a much older and prouder culture in their opinion to protect.
     
  2. markh

    markh Hall Of Fame

    1,036
    0
    Mar 24, 2002
    Well, they may honor them, but the leadership gets other people and their children to do the suicide bombings, they don't do it themselves. Iran would not risk their survival by giving a nuclear bomb to al Quaeda. Iran's leaders want to live. In fact, they're pretty clever. I wonder how much more money they made on oil by having their president deny the Holocaust and their desire to see Israel disappear.

    Iraq didn't have anything to do with al Quaeda. Does anybody else see the irony in us toppling a pretty secular government in Iraq and replacing it with a government that's a natural ally of Iran?
     
  3. bear paws

    bear paws Icon

    521
    0
    Jan 11, 2006
    NE Ct.
    All this ranting about the "al Queda Bill of Rights" is meaningless if we lose our focus on a few simple words spoken by Osama.
    "We love DEATH. The Americans love LIFE. DEATH to America".
    What are the operative negotiation words in that quote again ??
    UBL does not speak in eloquent legalize but rather in a very concise and direct language. He wants to kill our a** and I don't want to die. At least not yet.
    And if given a choice who I will be in a foxhole with it won't be a liberal.
    And if by the off chance I found myself in a foxhole with a liberal I would shot his a**. He would be more useful dead as a shield than a live pacifist willing to give me up to save his own dead a**. See the Islamic fanatics don't take prisoners. They would much rather kill a pacifist than a fighter. They always choose the path of least resistance. Their MO is killing the unsuspecting, women , chidren, the old, the infermed, and dope smokers. Rare we ever hear of them in a fire fight with soldier men. And you would give them Geneva status ???

    My DI {Drill Instructor} told us "If your fighting for your life and you fail you won't see death coming. If you do not fight you will suffer a very long and painful death." I am here today as a testament to his wisdom. Thanks Sarg.

    Bear!
     
  4. jpl

    jpl Hall Of Fame

    2,776
    6
    Jul 9, 2006
    Bill, I would agree with you except for one thing - North Korea. How close is Iran to having the bomb? Hard to tell - it's not a question simply of producing the bomb... there are also markets out there on which the technology and know-how can be purchased - that was the lesson of the AQ Kahn network. If you think that NK would be beyond selling the technology to Iran... THAT'S what keeps me up at night.
     
  5. jpl

    jpl Hall Of Fame

    2,776
    6
    Jul 9, 2006
    Oh, and it really doesn't take THAT much to hold the west hostage. You don't need enough to wipe out western civilization. You just need to be able to take out a good chunk of one city. Look at what happened in Spain. One train bombing 3 days before an election and they completely changed the government (the conservatives were set to win the election by a healthy margin). Can you imagine what would happen if a psycho like Ahmedenijad was able to detonate a single nuclear bomb? And one thing these weapons do is that they project power. That means you can define the terms of some debate. Imagine Iran pointing a couple warheads at some key Israeli targets - Jerusalem, Tel Aviv... Doesn't take much... what does that do to our ability to shape policy, or heck even AFFECT policy in that region? We do something that Iran doesn't like, and they level a couple Israeli cities, killing hundreds of thousands. But we would retaliate... or would we? Depends. If they are trying to engage in end-of-the-world type annhialation, then us escalating my not be the right thing to do. Letting Iran get the ability to wipe out a city would be devestating for the west.
     
  6. billpa

    billpa Icon

    869
    0
    Jul 11, 2003
    IF Iran ever was holding us hostage with a nuke, we'd go to war with them. I seriously doubt it would ever get to that point. We like to paint our enemies with the "evil" brush; whoever we're in opposition to is looked at as the most evil, horrible, person/country going. They'll be compared to Hitler. We'll say they don't care if they live, so long as they can take us out.
    I just don't see that in Iran. I'm not naive. I don't think I would have the same type of judgement about the leader of North Korea.
     
  7. pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    But its not that simple. Iran holding us hostage with a nuke? Sometimes that's not their style. They would slip the nuke out to someone else, and let them pull the trigger. That makes Iran every bit as guilty as the ones they help pull the trigger. And no, they (the leaders) probably don't think they have anything to lose. Iran has already made it clear - Israel is to be destroyed. A nuke + missile to carry it - either they would pick an opportune time and do it themselves or they would let it "slip out" of their control, and allow someone else to pull that trigger.

    And that is where N Korea comes in. The threat is not so much directly from Korea - its the fact they will sell to anyone, and have ties to terrorists. Perhaps you think this is not a problem, terrorists with a path to a nuke + missile, but the rest of the civilized world do see it as a threat - including the communist states. Rational people do not want to see the world burn in a nuclear war. The radical Islamic element does not care - just more virgins for them.
     
  8. bear paws

    bear paws Icon

    521
    0
    Jan 11, 2006
    NE Ct.
    If only that were true, I"m not seeing overwhelming evidence of concern by the rest of the civilized world leaders and certainly none from their populace as long as the economics of ignorance prevail. We as a people, Americans, keep making the mistake of looking at the rest of the world thru our own prism. One, of many factors, is we are the only nation that is capable self sustenance. Not even the Russians with their vast national resources can provide for them selves in isolation. The creeping and growing socialism in the larger world sector, the idea of take care of me first I'm the worlds child, has become another problem. Notice that the countries that do not help or see "it "our way are far more socialist [ left ] than we are. The ones, the "New Europe" that lived under the socialist/communist scourge for 60 years, that see "it" can't help much.

    The radical Islamic factions see them selves as still fighting the "Holy War" and thus in a twist of fate it has become a holy war.

    Another thing. I believe the socialists/liberals/pacifists are self lothing because they understand in their hearts they gave up the right to self determination.

    Bear!
     
  9. Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    Iran holding us hostage with a nuke? Sometimes that's not their style. They would slip the nuke out to someone else, and let them pull the trigger.

    But again, if this were true, wouldn't they have already done so using the more potent chemical weapons they already have in their possession? Sorry, I just don't buy the huge boogyman scenarios involving Iran. North Korea perhaps, but not Iran. Like Iraq, they are containable in my opinion, and even in their work with proxies like Hezbollah, have limited their aggressiveness and certainly not provided them with chemical agents either.

    Sorry, but while Iran states they would certainly love to wipe Israel off the face of the map, and may even have offered incidental help to Al Qaeda, the simple fact is that as a sovereign state the certainty of mutually assured destruction stays their hand from doing anything nearly as dastardly as you folks predict.

    Nuclear and chemical material (even after detonation) can be traced, which is why we have not seen Al Qaeda in possession of any useful militarized chemical weapons that can be deployed against any large targets. The most we've ever seen is a rather weak cyanide gas (another low tech chemical any high school student can make if they know how) which we saw used on animals.

    Also I think people overestimate Iran's links with Al Qaeda as well. In fact, I think the whole idea of Iran linked with Al Qaeda is more fear-mongering from the Bush Administration than reality, just as we saw with supposed Iraq-Al Qaeda links.

    Iran is not a natural ally with them, and has worked against them in the past, capturing several leaders and giving support in the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan. If Iran and Al Qaeda work together today (doubtful in my mind), its because of US refusal to consider Iran anything other than an enemy and thus is forcing their hand.

    http://www.antiwar.com/orig/porter.php?articleid=8590
     
  10. bear paws

    bear paws Icon

    521
    0
    Jan 11, 2006
    NE Ct.
    Please Dan, stop and think about what you said.
    Lets start with the fact that Irannian leaders are Islamic. Persian
    Second Al Queda is Islamic, Arab.
    Hezbulla is Islamic, unknown to me
    Taliban is Islamic, unknown
    Hobi [cuse spelling] Islamic
    and a few other minor groups all Islamic.

    Now they all are radical factions of the Muslums.
    They all have declared Jihad on the nonbeliver West, thats us.
    They are now natural allies because we are the common enemy. Been said before but I'll say it again. "My enemy's enemy is my friend." We did with Russia against the Nazi, and like us they will leave their differances for a latter date to fight over. But first things first and WE are first on their list.
    They told us in no uncertain and unambiguas words and acts.
    They already hit us and our allies over our the head many times, what else do you need. A big flash in the sky.
    If it takes them a 100 years more they don't really care. They already waited 800 years. To them thats like a day. They don't look at life as we do. They don't use micro waves to measure time.

    On that piece you linked to. The Iranians would love to be on point to over throw the Taliban. How long do you think we would be welcome in Annexed Afganestan once the Iranians had control with 1-2 million troops . About as long it takes to say Jihad.

    Bear!
     
  11. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    How can you be so sure? As Danny points out, Iran has so far resisted the urge to turn over other nasty weapons like chemical or biological materials to these groups. What makes you think they'd immediately hand over a nuke "or two"? Especially since they've struggled and endured so much to develop them in the first place? And especially since it would invite a massive retaliation on them? And given our invasion of Iraq, I think Iran suspects we wouldn't require all that much iron-clad "proof" that it was Iran who supplied them. We're already posturing pretty belligerently in their direction and at least give the very definate impression we are just itching for an excuse to attack them and institute "regime change".

    In addition, Iran is radically Shiite and al Qaeda radically Sunni. It certainly appears, as witness the current situation in Iraq, that this is a conflict secondary ONLY to the conflict with the west, and in some minds maybe even primary.

    Given all this, it seems highly unlikely Iran would just hand over some of their precious nukes to al Qaeda. And in fact they may see it in their best interests to do all within their power to prevent al Qaeda from obtaining these weapons from ANY source.

    We may assume these are evil, insane men. And perhaps they are and we do well to assume as much. And also that their ultimate goal may be to "destroy us". But that doesn't mean they are self-destructive. In fact, considering out continued animosity towards them over the last 25-30 years indicate they are quite adept at surviving and at least the leaders at the top don't have a death wish.

    While we should consider and plan for all possibilites, it seems most likely Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons for essentially the same reasons every nation that has obtained them since WWII has. And that is deterence, prestige and leverage against those who oppose them. We should also work to convince them NOT to develop nuclear weapons, but so far we haven't been very convincing.:(
     
  12. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Oh, I see. It's a "secret". We are being secretly protected from terrorist attacks. I suppose then this is similar to how we are secretly winning in Iraq?

    I understand the need for secrecy in these matters and that it's not a good idea to reveal everything about our investigations and procedures. But I'm growing a little tired of "if you only knew what we know" as an excuse for everything from the invasion of Iraq to the "necessity" of surrendering some of our own civil liberties in order to fight some generic "war on terror". And in that same vein, I don't see declaring Geneva, etc. irrelevant or not applicable, or attempting to circumvent some of our own statutes and Constitutional guarantees as justified because "the administration knows more than we do"!
     
  13. bear paws

    bear paws Icon

    521
    0
    Jan 11, 2006
    NE Ct.
    Lets make it simple. Because it is.
    In intelligence if you show off what you have you also have shown how you did it because it leaves a trail.
    In other words if a few people [the enemy]know some thing and it becomes public, they [the enemy] can figure out where it came from and the source is compremised. The leak is plugged. Litterally.

    Its no secret we are winning in Iraq, but if all you read are the lossers you will never know about it. It does not serve their agenda to tell you we are winning. You won't be reading them anymore. You are the fuel because you want to believe the worst and they are more than happy to accomedate. THey know you. They know you look at every thing half full, everything is wrong, nothing is right, your unhappy, and you want the world to take care of you because you think you are not getting your share like the people that go out and get it. I read it in your words.

    There are 3 kinds of people.
    The ones that make things happen.
    The ones that watch things happen
    The ones that wonder what happened.
    Which you choose is only your choice. People Places and Things are not to blame.

    Bear!
     
  14. Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    Now they all are radical factions of the Muslums.

    Sorry, thats just not enough. Its like saying the IRA and British government are natural allies because both are based on Christianity.

    As jonstad stated, Iranian government and Al Qaeda are founded by different ideologies of the faith. They would as quickly kill each other as try and kill us.
     
  15. bear paws

    bear paws Icon

    521
    0
    Jan 11, 2006
    NE Ct.
    No I said that they are radical factions of a common religion. Not that they are Muslim and thats the alliance.

    Try and kill us is the commonality they all share and that is their first priority. Killing each other is secondary and comes latter.
    Both of you keep trying to apply western rational and reason to a eastern irrational and unreasonable ideology.

    Bear!
     
  16. cj9788

    cj9788 Hall Of Fame

    1,669
    2
    May 14, 2003
    Radical Islam wants to convert you or kill you. I really do not see why this is so hard to understand.
     
  17. Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    Both of you keep trying to apply western rational and reason to a eastern irrational and unreasonable ideology.

    Actually the simple fact you call their ideology irrational an unreasonable pretty much proves you are the one viewing the situation through only a western point of view.

    Despite Richard King's sarcastic lamentations that "we must understand", the simple fact is that islamic extremists do act according to a logical code of behavior. They don't just toss away their lives without reason or without hoping to further some goal. Even suicide bombers are convinced their deaths will serve a greater purpose. These are not Buddhist monks who set themselves on fire just to prove they can.

    Ergo, Iran isn't going to commit suicide just to strike Israel with WMDs. If they were willing to do so, they would have already. The fact that they haven't is not just because they are "irrational" and haven't throught of it.
     
  18. bear paws

    bear paws Icon

    521
    0
    Jan 11, 2006
    NE Ct.
    Yes that would be too suicidel to further their cause and serve a greator purpose. The logical "code" is to kill your a** and you would defend their right to do just that with your life. RIIIGHT!

    Bear!
     
  19. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Nobody's defending anybody's right to kill anybody's ass! And despite the rosy scenarios apparently dancing around in your brain that everything is going just swimmingly, this does not seem to be the case. I know, I know. It's all the liberal media simply refusing to report the "good news". But even such commie-pinko organizations as the US Department of Defense don't seem to see things quite as optimistically as you.

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2006/09/iraq-060901-voa01.htm

    Here's the good news part-"civil war can still be avoided if the current effort to reduce the violence succeeds."

    My, isn't that encouraging! All our previous efforts to reduce the violence have worked so well.:sure::nono:

    At the same time, the Taliban is making a comeback and our "ally" Pakistan has just negotiated what amounts to a truce with them, and al Qaeda, and Osama bin Laden.

    Right! Our future's so bright, we have to wear sunglasses!:bang Perhaps at least it would help if people like you went with sunglasses instead of the rose-colored ones now stuck to your eyeballs!
     
  20. billpa

    billpa Icon

    869
    0
    Jul 11, 2003
    I don't think I can stand any more of this winning in Iraq.


    Bear Paws done said:

    You can tell all that from his post?
    You, sir, are a genius!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page