You are so predictable.

Post #115,984 by marlowe 8/30/03 2:20:47 PM Reply	You are so predictable. That business with the embassy in Tehran wasn't exactly a love tap, was it? And all that [link\|http://www.terrorismanswers.com/sponsors/iran.html\|state sponsiring of terrorism] is simply attack by proxy. So yes, they have attacked us, and you know it, you liar. And isn't it interesting that this enriched uranium doesn't worry you in the least, but the idea of us doing anything about just fills you with dread? The United States is not going to let things get out of hand anymore. Not after what happened on 9/11. We're wised up now, we're in a proactive mood, we're nipping future 9/11's in the bud, and there's nothing you can do about it. The America haters have lost the culture war. They lost it the moment we decided to fight back. It's all over but the shooting and the reconstructing. Both of which are going to go forward no matter how much you kick and scream. ---------------------------------------------------------------- DEAL WITH IT. It's time for the US to infringe on the sovereignty of Liberia! Never mind all the mass graves. Where's the nerve gas? [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfire...arlowe/index.html]
Post #115,998 by Simon_Jester 8/30/03 3:56:46 PM 8/30/03 11:24:46 PM Reply	Bad move there chuckles...(Trolling for dollars) That business with the embassy in Tehran wasn't exactly a love tap, was it? Nope, it wasn't. Pretty nasty, I'd say. Personally, after that nasty business, anyone working with Iran, support them, etc. I'd consider a traitor to the US. Congress seemed to agree and outlawed stuff going to Iran. Unfortuately, [link\|http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/execsum.htm\| some people ] in the US felt that it was okay to give support, Weapons, and other stuff (including one bible). So, which side do belong to Marlowe? Do you believe that it's okay to trade with someone who attacks the US? Do you believe said individuals should still work in the Federal government? Would you vote for them? And all that state sponsiring of terrorism [] is simply attack by proxy. So yes, they have attacked us, and you know it, you liar. And you've got ANY* proof that Iran supported an attack on the US? I'll grant that they've supported terrorist attacks against Israel. Furthermore, I'll grant that Iran has MUCH stronger ties to Osama - and likely more ties to 9/11 - than Iraq ever had. I believe I even said as much to you before. But I haven't seen ANY proof that Iran was involved in 9/11 or any attack on the US (with the exception of the Tehran - and a certain wimpy President who gave them gifts for said attack). But, there IS proof that Saudia Arabia was involved in 9/11. There IS proof that investigations into the family of Osama bin Ladin (in the US) were hampered with. Certainly you support getting to the bottom of these issue, no? And isn't it interesting that this enriched uranium doesn't worry you in the least, but the idea of us doing anything about just fills you with dread? Bzzt. Sorry, I never said anyone regarding Iran having enriched uranium not being a worry. Furthermore, I haven't said that the idea of us attacking them fills me with dread. In fact - if you check back - I believe I am the one who stated that Iran was a bigger threat than Iraq. Edited by Simon_Jester Aug. 30, 2003, 11:24:46 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #116,053 by Simon_Jester 8/30/03 11:28:13 PM Reply	CERTAINLY IRAN was involved in the attack on UN? Oops...maybe not. NAJAF, Iraq (AP) -- Police have arrested 19 men - many of them foreigners and all with admitted links to al-Qaida - in the car bombing of the Imam Ali shrine in the holy Shiite city of Najaf, a senior Iraqi investigator told The Associated Press on Saturday. Two Iraqis and two Saudis grabbed shortly after the Friday attack gave information leading to the arrest of the others, said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity. They include two Kuwaitis and six Palestinians with Jordanian passports with the remainder Iraqis and Saudis, the official said, without giving a breakdown. Initial information shows the foreigners entered Iraq from Kuwait, Syria and Jordan, the official said, adding that they belong to the Wahhabi sect of Sunni Islam. "They are all connected to al-Qaida," the official said. [link\|http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ?SITE=FLPET&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT\| St. Petersburg Times ] Damn...no Iran. Lots of Saudia Arabia though. And still no offical report. You'd think ol' Marlowe would be screaming for that by now. Hey look, Kuwait is harboring terrorists (entering through Kuwait)...can we invade Kuwait now?
Post #116,055 by boxley 8/30/03 11:31:43 PM Reply	Sunni's(Saudis especially hate Shiites) Iraqi majority good thing, gives Iran and Iraq an excuse to releive Medina of the Sunni occupation, when that hapens evens. thanx, bill America, Love it or give it back questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #116,084 by scoenye 8/31/03 10:57:06 AM Reply	Incorrect The Shiites make up 2/3 of Iraq's population [link\|http://www.franksmyth.com/clients/FrankSmyth/FrankS.nsf/0/8F420191888F0B4F85256C470075D3C9?OpenDocument\|http://www.franksmyt...D3C9?OpenDocument]
Post #116,085 by boxley 8/31/03 11:07:31 AM Reply	what I meant, sorry America, Love it or give it back questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #116,277 by jake123 9/1/03 10:14:40 PM Reply	Basic Metric The attack on the shrine would never have been done by Iran. Iran is Shiia; they would no more attack that shrine than Boston Catholics blowing up the main Cathedral in New York. Sunni's might, but it's probably unlikely... at least for Iraqi Sunni; they live too close and have had far more opportunity in the past to do so. Why would they do it now? Furthermore, discord between Iraqi Sunni and Shiia is not going to happen now; they are far more likely to make common cause against the Western occupiers than anything else, and the lack of revenge killing between the two groups in Iraq bears that out. Wahabbists, OTOH, they would be very likely to do something like that. And Wahabbism means radical Saudi's. I bet the money trail leads right to Riyadh, if not much else does. Considering the infrastructure required for the two attacks, my personal suspicion is that the same group was responsible for both, that the group was al-Qaida, that you're looking at Wahabbist noise making (as they have done for the last 150 years, most of which has been and continues to be directed at other muslims), and that any reasonable person in the intelligence community in the US knows this is far and away the likeliest scenario. Any saber rattling one may hear about Iran flowing out of this is mostly people pushing an agenda in defiance of facts. --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #116,283 by Simon_Jester 9/1/03 10:29:31 PM Reply	It does look that way... although at least [link\|http://www.juancole.com/\| one commentator ] says he still thinks it could have been Saddam's men. In contrast, this move makes perfect sense for Saddam loyalists. They have not scrupled to damage the shrine in the past, when they put down the 1991 uprising. Saddam sent out a videotape around August 15 calling on the Shiite clergy to declare jihad against the Americans. All of the major Shiite clerics, including Baqir al-Hakim rejected and derided this call. I believe that this bombing was the Saddam loyalists' response to that rebuttal. It also punishes Baqir al-Hakim for cooperating with the Americans and for his years of guerrilla attacks on the Baath from Iran. He also recommend holding off on finger pointing at this time. (Emphasis added) *In Najaf crowds demonstrated in protest of Friday's bombing. Some anti-American slogans were heard (the US is blamed for not providing enough security.) Najaf police have arrested some 19 suspects in Friday's massive car bombing. They say that some have confessed, and that some have clear ties to al-Qaeda and/or Saddam's secret police. I'd take all this with a large grain of salt. Apparently the criterion for arresting people was that they weren't local Najafis and were different in dress or outward appearance. A couple of Basrans in a coffee house were taken away in handcuffs at first, but the US military expressed extreme skepticism that they were involved. The Najaf police chief appears to have described some Palestinians, Syrians and Jordanians picked up as "Wahhabis." Only most Saudis and Qataris are really properly so called, which does not increase confidence in the Najaf police's cultural knowledge of Sunnis. CNN kept talking about 2 Pakistanis arrested, but the UPI and other print articles do not refer to them. It is no doubt a confused scene. As for the alleged confessions, I suspect that a hapless Sunni looking at the furious crowds of Shiites in the street and promised police protection if he will cooperate might well choose to enter the penal system than to try to walk the streets again after having been fingered as a suspect. The Pakistani newspaper Dawn characterized the likely perpetrators as a mix of Saddam loyalists and Sunni radicals, and that is entirely possible. But I would be very surprised if the Najaf police have already cracked the case the way that they claim.

Welcome to IWETHEY!