Bush unifying the Middle East?

[Charlatan]

Bush pointing fingers at Iran and saying they are sponsoring terrorism needs to be proven, as it is not in the nature of governments to do such things. Of course that would be perfect for Iran, to do such a thing, it is like having an army in disguise, but then there would be much more instances of it happening in America, where the main target of Iran is. What could be accomplished by terrorising your peers? Well Iran has had a long running of hatred for the USA, so they could dampen the spirit of things a bit - I haven't heard of anything major since the nine eleven thing, and it wouldn't destabalise the country that much would it? A few building bombed here and there would serve only as an annoyance to the system that is America. Now if they were out in full force they would be making demands that America recognise them as a closer ally wouldn't they? The only talks are coming from the US, so Iran has nothing to say it would seem. Of course that would be the perfect cover, not demanding things but attacking your enemy without speaking to them, but if they didn't identify themselves, then what good were the bombings? They would only go so far as frightening the American public into action, which they have done with talks and soon with force they say.

What is a secret war may not be so secret, because they are the prime suspects, as they are seen as very ambitious, and rather rebellious to global norms, so they could be out for making America back away, but then they would start, stop waiting for a reaction, then start again, always hoping that America would recognise the threat as coming from them. If America was to reply with peaceful talks, then they would play along a bit, then up the ante as the talks don't go their way, as is usually the case I guess, with increasing hostility. Actually after every talk that didn't go well, they would probably flex their muscles to make America think twice before they talk to them again. Such instances would be bold, and not disguised, and if that is the case but the public hasn't been informed, they are wasting time before declaring war, and prolonging the hostility between them. That is the terrorism side of it as I see it.

Now America wants to make the region turn their backs on their most avid supporter, as Iran is having the region in mind I would suppose. That means that people will either come to the aid of their ally, or decide not to get involved, but if they all stick together then they are sure to be stronger. If Iran was going against the wishes of the region, then they would have talks, but these are secretly held to appear to hold together the region in the eyes of their nemesis - politically and economically. And if America was saying to Iran to do things differently, and no one got involved, seeing as how the region is unified towards their nemesis, they would all react. This leads me to believe that they might have forgotten their ally as they try to make it on the global stage, as most regions share the same opinions as America with regards to norms being enforced. So is the region united or not? Even if called to show up for each other the more effective thing is to do it secretly, or not at all. This makes me think that their is major trouble brewing - something that intelligence would have picked up a long time ago - or Iran is alone. It is not like a government to put it's people on the line, so it looks like Iran might be alone, although this goes against some thinking.

Iran is always stretching things, then breaking them as far as regulations go, so they must be used to being on the other side as America. This could lead to long lasting irritation on them and give some substance to the argument that they are funding terror against the US, but maybe they are just rebels used to making it without anyone's consent. I think Bush is scared of a war, so will try to initiaite the process by saying that he will bring them - the rest of the region - what they want. And he will. Why does anyone need to pay for democracy with the sacrificing of another? If they wanted to be democratic they would have dome so long ago, but maybe the people are oppressed. Maybe he is trying to stir up support from the people to make themselves heard by the monarchies and such, as all will say that an easier lifestyle is quite becoming. Maybe it is a tactic to use against Iran to make them scared of isolation?

[Dieval]

Quote by: Charlatan Bush pointing fingers at Iran and saying they are sponsoring terrorism needs to be proven

Umm..what exactly do you mean by that? If you're suggesting that Iran isn't a sponsor of terrorists/ism, I suggest you do a bit more research before making that claim.

[simple simon]

Quote by: Charlatan Bush pointing fingers at Iran and saying they are sponsoring terrorism needs to be proven, as it is not in the nature of governments to do such things.

it's not ?

Syria - Libya - Iraq - Sudan - North Korea - South Yemen - Cuba - Iran

all these countries do or have at one time supported terrorism

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Charlatan Bush unifying the Middle East? Maybe it is a tactic to use against Iran to make them scared of isolation?

And you seem to be correct.
A sort of 2 opposition blocks, as it happened in post-war Europe :
- NATO vs. Warsaw Pact

[thx1138]

Quote by: simple simon it's not ? Syria - Libya - Iraq - Sudan - North Korea - South Yemen - Cuba - Iran all these countries do or have at one time supported terrorism

You forgot a few of the countries that supported terrorism.. U.S.A. and U.K.

Operation Gladio - State Sponsored Terrorism in Europe

[simple simon]

Quote by: thx1138 You forgot a few of the countries that supported terrorism.. U.S.A. and U.K. Operation Gladio - State Sponsored Terrorism in Europe

can you summarize this for me ? ..... i dont have speakers on this computer and even if i did i dont have time to watch an over 2 hour video

and even if youre correct on this .. it only further proves my point that you were wrong when you said governments dont support terrorism ..... so i guess thanks for helping me prove you wrong

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: simple simon can you summarize this for me ? ..... i dont have speakers on this computer and even if i did i dont have time to watch an over 2 hour video and even if youre correct on this .. it only further proves my point that you were wrong when you said governments dont support terrorism ..... so i guess thanks for helping me prove you wrong

Charlatan made that claim, not thx1138.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: thx1138 You forgot a few of the countries that supported terrorism.. U.S.A. and U.K. Operation Gladio - State Sponsored Terrorism in Europe

Russia endorses peace all over the globe, then see Chechnya for outcomes.
China promotes meditation, especially for Tibet region.
Iran loves nuclear unification, over the whole Middle-East region.
Syria supplies "live-bombers" to ensure and/or enforce peace, love and tranquillity.
Etc.
These states have nothing to do with your definition for "terrorism-filled-with" activity.
Am I correct ?

Politics is a dirty business. Neither Morality nor Ethics is being listed within political menu. Idealism and Pacifism go the opposite way.

[thx1138]

Quote by: Rainbow Russia endorses peace all over the globe, then see Chechnya for outcomes. China promotes meditation, especially for Tibet region. Iran loves nuclear unification, over the whole Middle-East region. Syria supplies "live-bombers" to ensure and/or enforce peace, love and tranquillity. Etc. These states have nothing to do with your definition for "terrorism-filled-with" activity. Am I correct ? Politics is a dirty business. Neither Morality nor Ethics is being listed within political menu. Idealism and Pacifism go the opposite way.

No, but you're correct those states do support terrorism, but so does the the U.K. and the U.S. To think only other countries (the axis of evil) support terrorism is naive, and lacks any serious study of history. The Boxer rebellion would be a good place to start with the history of terrorism sponsored by the U.K. and U.S. in Asia.

Even if you try to justify terrorism sponsored by the U.S. as necessary to counter act the terrorism sponsored by its enemies, it doesn't change the fact that is it still terrorism. Terrorism by any country is wrong.. Am I right?

I'm in no way part of the political system, so morality and ethics hold a higher place in my opinion.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: thx1138 Even if you try to justify terrorism sponsored by the U.S. as necessary to counter act the terrorism sponsored by its enemies, it doesn't change the fact that is it still terrorism. Terrorism by any country is wrong.. Am I right?

I am not trying to justify states' (political) actions.
My efforts are (rather) directed at the following point :
- politics is a dirty business
I do not necessarily agree, promote, endorse, etc. with all the political decisions. I (simply) present them as they are in reality, along with all potential outcomes that reflect our life everyday.

You are correct.

[thx1138]

Quote by: Rainbow I am not trying to justify states' (political) actions. My efforts are (rather) directed at the following point : - politics is a dirty business I do not necessarily agree, promote, endorse, etc. with all the political decisions. I (simply) present them as they are in reality, along with all potential outcomes that reflect our life everyday. You are correct.

Well, we see eye to eye on that, but there are some members of this forum that see only terrorism from countries like Iran or Syria and can not (or will not) believe that terrorism has been sponsored by the U.S. and U.K. (along with other European countries) or that is just called speical operations.

I've tried to post some proof of this based on papers release by the CIA and some video documentaries, but I don't think such proof is accepted even thougth second hand stories and proaganda government press releases are taken as gospel about countries.

[grandpa]

Quote by: thx1138 Well, we see eye to eye on that, but there are some members of this forum that see only terrorism from countries like Iran or Syria and can not (or will not) believe that terrorism has been sponsored by the U.S. and U.K. (along with other European countries) or that is just called speical operations. .

For some, there is no American "image" other than the 'Enlightened Superpower." The US is the only
state organization with any genuine saintliness. To think otherwise is to see this great, benign creature assaulted in the most degrading way, and that's a no-no. What could they be called, if not "great?"
You will get here much of what you would expect from a well indoctrinated population.

But, because I'm a heretic, here are some of the refuted lies and/or hafl-truths used to "unify the Middle East":
Claims in Secretary of State Colin Powell’s UN Presentation concerning Iraq, 5th Feb 2003

Quote by: thx1138 I've tried to post some proof of this based on papers release by the CIA and some video documentaries, but I don't think such proof is accepted even thougth second hand stories and proaganda government press releases are taken as gospel about countries.

I'm glad someone else is worrying about the big picture. Framing the discussion in terms of government propaganda is more honest than what some will do. That's exactly what it boils down to, pretty much across the board. Notice how, if I provide info of my own from a non-"mainstream" source, people will instantly question its credibility. And that's okay. But why assume the mainstream networks, which so often are caught in lies, are inherently better than every "lesser source?" It's because the biggest conformists will wallow on what "I should feel" (love of country), and if an argument or body of evidence contradicts the appropriate emotion, it must be incorrect. For some, it feels good to be government shills. Critical thought is not openly welcomed.

Grandpa h.

[Stizzles]

Quote by: grandma For some, it feels good to be government shills. Critical thought is not openly welcomed.

So anyone who disagrees with you is relegated to a government shill? And you're complaining about other people making assumptions? Color me unimpressed.

Quote by: THX Well, we see eye to eye on that, but there are some members of this forum that see only terrorism from countries like Iran or Syria and can not (or will not) believe that terrorism has been sponsored by the U.S. and U.K. (along with other European countries) or that is just called speical operations.

Perhaps that's because there's a qualitative difference between killing Communist dictators and targeting innocent civilians in public areas to intentionally cause the most collateral damage possible.

Quote by: THX I've tried to post some proof of this based on papers release by the CIA and some video documentaries, but I don't think such proof is accepted even thougth second hand stories and proaganda government press releases are taken as gospel about countries.

What a surprise, people reject wacked-out conspiracy theories about the CIA without having clear and convincing evidence. What's the word for that? Oh, right: common sense.

[thx1138]

What a surprise, people reject wacked-out conspiracy theories about the CIA without having clear and convincing evidence. What's the word for that? Oh, right: common sense.

You obviously haven't watch or know anything about the operations of the CIA and MI6 in Europe. They did target innocent civilians in public areas to intentionally cause the most collateral damage possible. The operation was called Gladio and was linked to the CIA which killed innocents.

[Stizzles]

Quote by: thx1138 You obviously haven't watch or know anything about the operations of the CIA and MI6 in Europe. They did target innocent civilians in public areas to intentionally cause the most collateral damage possible. The operation was called Gladio and was linked to the CIA which killed innocents.

Here, I'll make some claims that have exactly as much evidence as you've just offered:

The CIA and M16 blew up the moon and replaced it with a space station.

Angelina Jolie is actually a Mossad agent sent to kill Muslim terrorists.

"Superman" was actually the code name for a chemically-enhanced super soldier in WWII.

[shawmutt]

Here, I'll make some claims that have exactly as much evidence as you've just offered: The CIA and M16 blew up the moon and replaced it with a space station. Angelina Jolie is actually a Mossad agent sent to kill Muslim terrorists. "Superman" was actually the code name for a chemically-enhanced super soldier in WWII.

Um...you didn't hear about the declassified CIA reports did you? The evidence you require comes directly from the CIA.

[Stizzles]

Um...you didn't hear about the declassified CIA reports did you? The evidence you require comes directly from the CIA.

Let me make another claim with exactly as much support as you've given:

You didn't hear about the declassified Megaman reports did you? The evidence that he exists comes directly from the CIA.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Stizzles So anyone who disagrees with you is relegated to a government shill? And you're complaining about other people making assumptions?

First of all, I didn't say that. Second, I noticed you changed the name to "Grandma," which would perhaps be clever to a six year old.

More importantly, though: Do you honestly deny some people are genuine government shills? You
don't have to accept this view, but any reasonable person would acknowledge it. It's hardly just my assumption, and you're going to have to do more than engage in childish tactics to show otherwise.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Stizzles Let me make another claim with exactly as much support as you've given: You didn't hear about the declassified Megaman reports did you? The evidence that he exists comes directly from the CIA.

You're still avoiding answering with any facts yourself. Certainly, they could have provided a link or a source of some kind, but I'm sure you're aware that you could look into things yourself. It's easier if, like they say, such information is in declassified CIA reports.

Grandpa h.

[shawmutt]

Let me make another claim with exactly as much support as you've given: You didn't hear about the declassified Megaman reports did you? The evidence that he exists comes directly from the CIA.

You claim to not need links because you have Google, yet can't look up easy to find information for yourself? Perhaps not everyone has the time to be your personal librarian.