Iran is next

iPlop

Here we go again, more BS from the USA, I bet Libya had a role too :rolleyes:

NEW YORK: Two defectors from Iran's intelligence service have testified that Iranian officials knew in advance about the attacks of September 11, 2001, says a US court filing that seeks damages for Iran's ''direct support for, and sponsorship of, the most deadly act of terrorism in American history''.
One of the defectors also claimed that Iran was involved in designing the attacks, the filing said.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/iran-accused-of-september-11-role-20110520-1ewq7.html#ixzz1MzRSsefM

I thought Saddam had a role in the attacks? Oh yeah I forgot he didn't and he didn't have WMD's either, ahh well here we go again

Monty Burnz

I hope Iran IS next, but hopefully the US military won't be involved. The people of Iran are in general extremely nice (based on those that I have met) and they deserve a proper democratic government, not a crazy theocracy.

namloc1980

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I hope Iran IS next, but hopefully the US military won't be involved. The people of Iran are in general extremely nice (based on those that I have met) and they deserve a proper democratic government, not a crazy theocracy.

Democracy is way over-rated. Look at the morons it produced to govern this country down the years.

whiteonion

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I hope Iran IS next, but hopefully the US military won't be involved. The people of Iran are in general extremely nice (based on those that I have met) and they deserve a proper democratic government, not a crazy theocracy.

What's so great about democracy? Look at the PIIGS.

Monty Burnz

whiteonion wrote: »

What's so great about democracy? Look at the PIIGS.

You have a better alternative?

I'm astonished to see the level of anti-democratic feeling here to be honest.

MRPRO03

Democracy in the modern day is failing, as it has in the past in Ancient Rome and Greece. It goes in phases Democracy then few leaders (Autocracy, Oligarchy, Dictators), then revolts by people, back to democracy and it starts all over again.

Hookah

Monty Burnz wrote: »

You have a better alternative?

I'm astonished to see the level of anti-democratic feeling here to be honest.

A different type of democracy perhaps.

I like what they're doing in Iceland, atm.

On topic; Iran/conspiracy.

Jeboa Safari

Hookah wrote: »

A different type of democracy perhaps.

I like what they're doing in Iceland, atm.

On topic; Iran/conspiracy.

Ahmadinejad is a madman, France is currently experiencing drought so he's wrong about forcing the water to Europe. Also, Europeans forcing drought on 'cultures they fear' would surely be counter-productive, seeing as drought would most likely lead to poverty, higher birth rates and a more radicalized society in these countries, and this would surely be recognized.

namloc1980

Monty Burnz wrote: »

You have a better alternative?

I'm astonished to see the level of anti-democratic feeling here to be honest.

How about a system where the people have a real choice and are actually consulted on decisions that affect them. I mean look at Ireland. The three main parties are different shades of the same colour. There is no real substantive differences between FG, FF and Labour. Then they get voted in and the people aren't consulted again for 5 years.

Monty Burnz

namloc1980 wrote: »

How about a system where the people have a real choice and are actually consulted on decisions that affect them. I mean look at Ireland. The three main parties are different shades of the same colour. There is no real substantive differences between FG, FF and Labour. Then they get voted in and the people aren't consulted again for 5 years.

Fine notion, but in practice you're just going to see the same retards who thought that Fianna Failure and that corrupt clown Ahern were doing great things during the bubble consulted more frequently on stuff that they either can't understand (as they lack the brains or the education), can't be arsed to understand (as it involves reading and other boring stuff) or don't want to understand (as it goes against their interests - how many would have voted for policies to reduce property prices in 2005?).

The system we have at present is crap, but it beats dictatorships etc., and with reform it can be made better. Whether a system where we effectively have daily or weekly referenda on legislation could work, I have my doubts.

caseyann

And here we come back to one world order,have everyone barking and quacking like all the other ducks and dogs.
Stay the hell out of other people countries and business.They cant even fix their own country and take care of their own people,yet still sticking their noses in everyone else's.

iPlop

namloc1980 wrote: »

How about a system where the people have a real choice and are actually consulted on decisions that affect them. I mean look at Ireland. The three main parties are different shades of the same colour. There is no real substantive differences between FG, FF and Labour. Then they get voted in and the people aren't consulted again for 5 years.

Yeah, but the Irish system is now being dictated by Peter Sutherland, he calls the shots, along with NM.Rothschild as a documented adviser.I don't know why these fcukers want to keep the world in poverty??

Yitzhak Rabin

Whats so bad about a one world government?

I think that its only an idealistic goal, and unachievable, but the sooner we stop seeing each other as being from other 'nations' and instead just saw each other as humans, things would be a lot simpler. Just look at the devastation nationalism has caused on this island, and for what?


In regards the OP, if people fall for that then there is no hope.

caseyann

yekahS wrote: »

Whats so bad about a one world government?

I think that its only an idealistic goal, and unachievable, but the sooner we stop seeing each other as being from other 'nations' and instead just saw each other as humans, things would be a lot simpler. Just look at the devastation nationalism has caused on this island, and for what?


In regards the OP, if people fall for that then there is no hope.

No would be a hell of alot better if we saw eachother from other nations and be happy with that.In order to fix difference is to change others to conform to the others ideals is exact opposite of what you are suggesting.

Yitzhak Rabin

caseyann wrote: »

No would be a hell of alot better if we saw eachother from other nations and be happy with that.In order to fix difference is to change others to conform to the others ideals is exact opposite of what you are suggesting.

Nationalism creates rivalry. Its an arbitrary assignment and tag that people don't need.

I'm not advocating military intervention in Iran or anything, I'm just saying I think nationalism is a silly concept, and the sooner we get rid of it the better.

Here's an interesting vid that kinda explains what I mean (stick with it, its long enough)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g

caseyann

yekahS wrote: »

Nationalism creates rivalry. Its an arbitrary assignment and tag that people don't need.

I'm not advocating military intervention in Iran or anything, I'm just saying I think nationalism is a silly concept, and the sooner we get rid of it the better.

Here's an interesting vid that kinda explains what I mean

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g

Nationalism is a state of belonging of heritage which was fought for by your ancestors through struggles and hard ship and death,as among many many other countries and you want them to give it up?
No as i said respecting others nationalism is the proper answer,the other way is nothing more than fake.
They should stay out of there and let them sort it out for themselves as they should have in all other countries unless its like one ethnicity committing genocide on another religion or nationality, as it only creates a mess and worse situation as we see with Africa .

David Matthew

caseyann wrote: »

No would be a hell of alot better if we saw eachother from other nations and be happy with that.In order to fix difference is to change others to conform to the others ideals is exact opposite of what you are suggesting.

Having trouble making out your second sentence there.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

caseyann

David Matthew wrote: »

Having trouble making out your second sentence there.

Sorry i meant,that difference in nationality and ways should not be changed but understood and respected.And by resorting to force other countries to conform what is right for one country is not right for another country and only causes a mess.

Yitzhak Rabin

caseyann wrote: »

Nationalism is a state of belonging of heritage which was fought for by your ancestors through struggles and hard ship and death,as among many many other countries and you want them to give it up?
No as i said respecting others nationalism is the proper answer,the other way is nothing more than fake.
They should stay out of there and let them sort it out for themselves as they should have in all other countries unless its like one ethnicity committing genocide on another religion or nationality, as it only creates a mess and worse situation as we see with Africa .

You should watch the video. Skip to 6 minutes to see what I mean when I say I think nation states are fictional constructs that are unnecessarily divisive.

I don't understand this 'proud to be Irish/German/Iranian or whatever'. Its no kind of achievement to have happened to be born in certain country. I'm proud of my own achievements, and I'm in awe of other peoples, but where they are born is irrelevant.

Also, take Ireland for example. It has never ever been a all-island nation, yet some people seem willing to blow up civilians to try and achieve this fictional state.

Jeboa Safari

yekahS wrote: »

You should watch the video. Skip to 6 minutes to see what I mean when I say I think nation states are fictional constructs that are unnecessarily divisive.

I don't understand this 'proud to be Irish/German/Iranian or whatever'. Its no kind of achievement to have happened to be born in certain country. I'm proud of my own achievements, and I'm in awe of other peoples, but where they are born is irrelevant.

Also, take Ireland for example. It has never ever been a all-island nation, yet some people seem willing to blow up civilians to try and achieve this fictional state.

Where you grow up though surely shapes who you are as a person, and nationstates tend to have people of a similar culture, pastimes, traditions

digme

yekahS wrote: »

Whats so bad about a one world government?

I think that its only an idealistic goal, and unachievable, but the sooner we stop seeing each other as being from other 'nations' and instead just saw each other as humans, things would be a lot simpler. Just look at the devastation nationalism has caused on this island, and for what?


In regards the OP, if people fall for that then there is no hope.

Nationalism is perfectly fine.Invading other peoples countries is not fine.
The world is beautiful and interesting the way it is,only a handful of people are the instigators of wars,not the majority of people in their respective countries.Perhaps if you thought for a second about what you wrote you would come to the realisation that 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of people don't cause any trouble, but you want everyone to be the same and for what ?

nyarlothothep

yep, such people constitute the concept of "fail" as they run amok spreading the national myth, of course they're voted in by the public, its a groupthink echo chamber. The world should be without nations and without politics as they currently are, which serves idiotic self interest.

Basically there is a lot of tripe about the so called "real world" spouted everywhere, like an endless set of tautologies in a similar style to the sky is blue because it is or that they way world is and always has been, put up or shut up etc, and my response would be No! Me and a lot of others are going to contest the way you want the world to be because thats your perception and not the way it has to be. I recommend these people go read Barthes, although they'd probably shut their minds off because he was a "liberal lefty pinko communist.":rolleyes: But anyway the one truth in this real world bullsh1t is that the work place itself is a tyranny, there is no democracy, its a pyramid structure built on primitive heirarchy, which as such is often irrelevant. The only heirarchy should be based on knowledge and only insofar as it can be used for a mentoring purpose to allow individuals to eventually learn autonomously. But try explaining that to the conventional "real world" thinkers.

I'm going off topic but imo the real news is business news, JP Morgan and the Pentagon are apparently in Afghanistan searching for gold. Any attack on Iran will be financially motivated in some sense.

DoesNotCompute

So is anyone actually interested in discussing the topic at hand (I.e. Iran's involvement in 9/11)?

digme

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

So is anyone actually interested in discussing the topic at hand (I.e. Iran's involvement in 9/11)?

We all know it's pure nonsense.

fontanalis

namloc1980 wrote: »

Democracy is way over-rated. Look at the morons it produced to govern this country down the years.

A theocracy is much better; who better to run a country than men who are ruling the country who think they have a mainline to the big guy.
This type of post and the thanks you've received and the nature of this forum where many posters claim to be anti authoritarian leaves me baffled.

fontanalis

namloc1980 wrote: »

How about a system where the people have a real choice and are actually consulted on decisions that affect them. I mean look at Ireland. The three main parties are different shades of the same colour. There is no real substantive differences between FG, FF and Labour. Then they get voted in and the people aren't consulted again for 5 years.

Name your alternative; actually I don't want to hear one coming from someone throwing soft defenses for Iran.

fontanalis

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

So is anyone actually interested in discussing the topic at hand (I.e. Iran's involvement in 9/11)?

Expect it to go the same way as the march pole shift.

Brown Bomber

Sink The Banana wrote: »

Here we go again, more BS from the USA, I bet Libya had a role too :rolleyes:



I thought Saddam had a role in the attacks? Oh yeah I forgot he didn't and he didn't have WMD's either, ahh well here we go again

I'm going to post this in the links section as well, it's a report from the Zionist-Neocon Saban Centre at The Brookings institute.

These two sections are of the most interest I think. It's like a play-by-play guidebook to whats happening in the Middle East at the moment.

Part II
Disarming Tehran: The Military Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Chapter 3: Going All the Way: Invasion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Chapter 4: The Osiraq Option: Airstrikes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Chapter 5: Leave it to Bibi: Allowing or Encouraging an
Israeli Military Strike . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Part III
Toppling Tehran: Regime Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Chapter 6: The Velvet Revolution: Supporting a Popular Uprising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Chapter 7: Inspiring an Insurgency: Supporting Iranian Minority
And Opposition Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .113
Chapter 8: The Coup: Supporting a Military Move Against the Regime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/files/rc/papers/2009/06_iran_strategy/06_iran_strategy.pdf

Mahatma coat

I dunno, the Hawks ha been ot in force for a long time now foaming at the mouth to attack Iran.

I think if anyone is gonna make a first strike it'll be Israel, they'll cal it a 'Premptive strike' and cite the mountains of 'Data' and various sprious defences, America will join and lo the MilitaryIndustrialComplex grinds on for another decade or 2

daithiordave

A certain amount of nationalism can be healthy, rivalry/tribalism is something that is ingrained in us, as long as we leave the battles to the football and rugby pitches.

A world government will have the same issues that every government does, from corruption to greed and the cycle of republics to aristocracies. Only when i does go to hell there wouldnt be any other world government to step in.

On topic,
Beneath the hype: Is Iran close to nukes?
Retired CIA analyst Ray McGovern speaks on disinformation, Iran, and "faith-based intelligence"
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=4313

doncarlos

whiteonion wrote: »

What's so great about democracy? Look at the PIIGS.

Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.

iPlop

Israel Minister: Strike on Iran Could Be Necessary

MOSCOW -- An Israeli Cabinet minister says the civilized world must take joint action to avert the Iranian nuclear threat, including a pre-emptive strike if necessary.
Moshe Yaalon -- the minister for strategic affairs -- made the statement Monday in an interview with Russia's Interfax news agency ahead of a visit to Moscow.
Yaalon wouldn't discuss who might deal the strike, saying the entire world, not just Israel, must be concerned about the danger posed by a nuclear-armed Iran.
Yaalon's spokesman Ofer Harel told The Associated Press later Monday that the minister was repeating Israel's position that all options are on the table and not calling for anybody to attack Iran.
Iran has insisted its nuclear program is peaceful, but the U.S., Israel and many others believe it is cover for developing atomic weapons.

Foxnews.com