| Terrorism Discuss the War on Terrorism |
| Reply to Thread New Thread |
06-10-2010, 05:20 AM
|
#21 |
|
|
No surprises here. The question is when are we going to admit that Iran has declared war on us, and we are at war with Iran? So frankly, even your holyness king Dubya had his hands tied for over 5 years. War against Iran is not an option. Get over it. |
|
|
06-10-2010, 05:26 AM
|
#22 |
|
|
Iranian companies are paying, so?
Because they are killing Americans. What a stupid question. |
|
|
|
06-10-2010, 05:42 AM
|
#23 |
|
|
Foxnews links to an article in the Sunday Times that is only available by subscription. Since both are Murdoch media and the Fox piece does not even list one named source for its claims I will reserve my judgement for the moment when others pick up on the story (or don´t). And then there would also be a couple of questions : Iran and the Taliban are actually deadly foes ( radical sunnites versus radical Shiites) Iran is supporting the shiite Hazara tribe in Afghanistan in the civil war against the Taliban, and Iran is also fighting drug trafficking on its territory ( that is one of the prime money sources for the Taliban). All of these points are well documented and make such a cooperation rather unlikely.
|
|
|
|
07-09-2010, 09:12 AM
|
#24 |
|
|
I'm guessing its gonna happen soon after US acknowledges that it is at war with Pakistan (which has documented instances of supporting & arming Taliban even now) ... and the US is giving billions in aid to that country ... |
|
|
|
07-09-2010, 09:23 AM
|
#25 |
|
|
Exactly. They kill americans. We try to talk. I doubt we will see a President or congress willing to actually fully defend american lives. Bush only went halfway. |
|
|
|
07-09-2010, 10:51 AM
|
#26 |
|
|
Iranian companies are paying, so? |
|
|
|
07-09-2010, 10:51 AM
|
#27 |
|
|
I'm guessing its gonna happen soon after US acknowledges that it is at war with Pakistan (which has documented instances of supporting & arming Taliban even now) ... and the US is giving billions in aid to that country ... |
|
|
|
07-09-2010, 10:55 AM
|
#28 |
|
|
Foxnews links to an article in the Sunday Times that is only available by subscription. Since both are Murdoch media and the Fox piece does not even list one named source for its claims I will reserve my judgement for the moment when others pick up on the story (or don´t). And then there would also be a couple of questions : Iran and the Taliban are actually deadly foes ( radical sunnites versus radical Shiites) Iran is supporting the shiite Hazara tribe in Afghanistan in the civil war against the Taliban, and Iran is also fighting drug trafficking on its territory ( that is one of the prime money sources for the Taliban). All of these points are well documented and make such a cooperation rather unlikely. |
|
|
|
07-09-2010, 11:06 AM
|
#29 |
|
|
The article still relies on one source that is not even named exept " a treasurer". I`m not saying it must inaccurate but this story is a bit weak on actual facts to be simply bought without question marks.
|
|
|
|
07-09-2010, 11:07 AM
|
#30 |
|
|
The U.S. apparently trains assassins to kill those who might seriously hamper our goals. Tit for Tat I guess.  We can not control the airways. We need the wit to recognise Iranian state TV as enemy propaganda and those broadcasting IRIB from space as giving material assistance to the enemy in a time of war and therefore subject to sanctions, criminal prosecution, fines, jail, etc if they don't desist immediately. We can't always control what is broadcast from space but we can insist on what is not broadcast from space by virtue of the fact that enemy-controlled satellites can be knocked out or disabled by technical or military means if all else fails. However probably it would not need to come to targeting satellites in space for most or all satellites which carry IRIB because the countries and companies who control or maintain the satellites are very often countries with personnel and assets within the reach of the US or friendly powers. What doesn't help is a "no can do" attitude.  You must not dwell on the old days of the British Empire. So I don't hold with monarchy and kingdoms. I am for republican revolution. I am against Queen Elizabeth and the Windsor family drawing one more breath in Britain. I want them exiled, judicially tried and executed or assassinated.  I certainly would not invite them to my house.   Just like Clementine "they are lost and gone forever". Dreadful sorry Clementine ! But I got wise You're the devil in disguise Oh yes you are The devil in disguise You fooled me with your kisses You cheated and you schemed Heaven knows how you lied to me You're not the way you seemed You look like an angel Walk like an angel Talk like an angel The Devil Queen visits the White House (YouTube) |
|
|
|
07-09-2010, 11:40 AM
|
#31 |
|
|
The article still relies on one source that is not even named exept " a treasurer". I`m not saying it must inaccurate but this story is a bit weak on actual facts to be simply bought without question marks. Taliban fighters training in Iran, U.S. officials say - CNN |
|
|
|
07-09-2010, 01:01 PM
|
#32 |
|
|
I havent seen evidence of the Pakistani govt supporting and arming the Taliban The Secret Enemy in Pakistan According to the war logs, the ISI envoys are present when insurgent commanders hold war councils -- and even give specific orders to carry out murders. These include orders to try to assassinate Afghan President Hamid Karzai. For example, a threat report dated August 21, 2008 warned: "Colonel Mohammad Yusuf from the ISI had directed Taliban official Maulawi Izzatullah to see that Karzai was assassinated." ..... Another claims the ISI delivered 1,000 motorcycles to the Haqqanis, a warlord family led by Sirajuddin Haqqani who -- together with the Taliban and Hekmatyar -- are among the three greatest opponents of Western forces in Afghanistan. Another mentions 7,000 weapons that were sent to the border province of Kunar, including Kalashnikovs, mortars and Strella rockets. Haqqani Network Pakistan Connection Haqqani’s connection with the ISI dates back to the times of the Soviet jihad. According to U.S. Special Envoy and Ambassador to Afghanistan (1989-1992), Peter Tomsen, the ISI has maintained its Jihad era ties with Haqqani.15 Right after the U.S. invasion in October 2001, Haqqani was invited to Islamabad for talks about a post-Taliban government.16 In a transcript passed to Mike McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence in May 2008, Pakistan’s army chief General Ashfaq Kayani was heard referring to Haqqani as “a strategic asset.”17 A top ISI official was reported to have held talks with Sirajuddin Haqqani, one of Jalaluddin’s sons who has replaced him as the leader of the movement due to his father’s ill-health, in Miranshah of North Waziristan in early March 2009.18 In a prisoner exchange with Pakistani Taliban led by Baitullah Mehsud, the Pakistani government released three family members of the Haqqani family in November 2007 – Haqqani’s brother Khalil Ahmad, son Dr. Fazl-i-Haqqani and brother-in-law Ghazi Khan.19 Haqqani is said to have mediated peace deals between the Pakistani government and Waziri and Mehsudi commanders of the Pakistani Taliban in North and South Waziristan.20 THE SUN IN THE SKY:THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PAKISTAN’S ISI AND AFGHAN INSURGENTS - PDF document Some very interesting excerpts from this document ... Insurgent commanders confirmed that the ISI are even represented, as participants or observers, on the Taliban supreme leadership council, known as the Quetta Shura, and the Haqqani command council. Indeed, the agency appears to have circumscribed the Taliban’s strategic autonomy, precluding steps towards talks with the Afghan government through recent arrests. President Zardari himself has apparently assured captive, senior Taliban leaders that they are ‘our people’ and have his backing. He has also apparently authorised their release from prison. The ISI even arrested and then released two Taliban leaders, Qayyum Zakir, the movement’s new military commander, and Mullah Abdul Raouf Khadem, reportedly now head of the Quetta Shura, who are among the three or four highest ranking in the movement below Mullah Omar. ...... ISI involvement in the early stages of the insurgency has been widely acknowledged. From 2003-2004 the ISI were operating training camps for Taliban recruits, and facilitating the supply of funds, equipment and arms from Gulf countries.54 The Pakistani army established medical facilities for Taliban fighters, and were even providing covering fire at border crossings. Communications intercepts showed that Taliban commanders were liaising with Pakistani military officers to ensure safe passage across the border (Rashid 2008:223). ...... Directly or indirectly, the ISI appear to have a major role in sustaining the Haqqani group. The senior commander said that in every three weeks he would usually spend two in Pakistan and one in Afghanistan. Every month he would receive 60-80 boxes of AK47 rounds and two or three large boxes of grenades and IEDs. If he required further supplies or munitions, he would go to the command group (the Haqqanis and former ISI officials) who would issue him with a letter of credit, which he could present to arms dealers in Khost (in south-east Afghanistan) or Miramshah. For operating expenses, he receives a monthly cheque of between 0.5-1 million Pakistani rupees $6-12,000. He believes the money comes from two sources: Gulf Countries, especially Saudi Arabia, that is accessed through the Saudi Bank; and from the ISI, which is accessed from the Islamic Bank of Pakistan, in which the Haqqani network apparently has a representative. Indeed, the former claim is corroborated by a recent report that over $920 million has flowed from Saudi Arabian donors to Afghan insurgents, mainly via Waziristan, over the last four years. The district commander described how arms and ammunition would sometimes arrive in his area by trucks, and sometimes by horses, donkeys or camels, which was ‘from the Pakistani military’. He said that they were paid salaries: fighters receive around 9-10,000 Pakistani rupees ($110-120) a month and he, as a commander, receives 15-20,000 Pakistani rupees ($170-220) a month. It is apparently provided through ‘hawala’ (the informal money transfer system). When asked who it came from he replied: ‘The Americans. From them to the Pakistani military, and then to us.’ He was baffled as to why, in his eyes, the Americans were supporting their activities. (In fact, many Afghans believe that the United States is deliberately funding the insurgency. Although this is not credible, it is hardly surprising given America’s massive and sustained support to the Pakistani military.) Separately, the commander confirmed that groups receive a reward for killing foreign soldiers, usually $4- 5,000 for each soldier killed. One of the footnotes in the paper above is very interesting ... ‘By 2004 they [the US and NATO] had confirmed reports of the ISI running training camps for Taliban recruits north of Quetta, funds and arms shipments arriving from the Gulf countries, and shopping sprees in Quetta and Karachi in which the Taliban bought hundreds of motorbikes, pickup trucks and satellite phones. American soldiers at firebases along the border in eastern Afghanistan and US drones in the skies watched as army trucks delivered fighters to the border at night to infiltrate Afghanistan and then recovered them on their return a few days later. Pakistani artillery gave covering fire to Taliban infiltrators crossing into Afghanistan, and medical facilities were set up close to the border by the army for wounded Taliban.’ (Rashid 2008:222) The whole US-Pakistan-Taliban relationship was captured very well by this cartoon in an Indian magazine.  I have a simple question to the learned folks here ... What is it that Iran has done and Pakistan hasn't done that makes one the enemy and the other a strategic ally? |
|
|
|
07-09-2010, 01:20 PM
|
#33 |
|
|
Except that given everything else Iran has done, its extremely likely. I would be more surprised if it was false. CNN had an article months ago about IRan training Taliban. Iranian weapons getting through to Taliban (Daily Telegraph) By Ben Farmer in Kabul Published: 7:04PM BST 08 Jun 2009 Heavy weapons are continuing to stream across the Afghan border from Iran despite Barack Obama's attempts to enlist Tehran's help in fighting the insurgency, officials have said. Border police say they are regularly intercepting consignments of anti-tank mines and mortars bound for Afghan militants fighting Nato-led forces. I had to factor in Iranian long range weapons when designing a defensive architecture for secure supply routes in Afghanistan. Secure supply route border defences plan diagram (The For Freedom Forums) I have revised this plan to defend against anticipated indirect fire as well. This has involved widening the security border either side of the supply route to keep enemy mortar and rocket launcher teams out of range of the supply line. Apparently, the Taliban are being supplied indirect fire weapons from Iran so defenders need to be prepared to expect attacks using weapons such as 120 mm heavy mortars, with a range of 6200 metres and 107 mm rocket launchers with a range of 8500 metres. Iranian weapons getting through to Taliban Heavy weapons are continuing to stream across the Afghan border from Iran despite Barack Obama's attempts to enlist Tehran's help in fighting the insurgency, officials have said. So regretfully there is no avoiding the requirement for compulsory purchase of land and eviction of occupiers along a 19 kilometre or 12 mile wide corridor, the whole length of the supply route. I have suggested action to stop Iranian state TV satellite broadcasts because that is the action which puts the maximum pressure on the Iranian regime while avoiding completely collateral damage. However, in war sometimes the enemy does not give up after a first strike so after IRIB is forced off satellite and if still the Iranian regime is supplying the Taliban, we need to go to the next level which means bombing key regime targets in Iran - Al-Quds force, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, secret police HQ etc. BBC: Israel & Hawks say - Let's Bomb Iran! (YouTube) So sure bomb Iran if necessary but I can't say I could recommend an invasion. |
|
|
|
07-09-2010, 02:18 PM
|
#34 |
|
|
Well then you are either looking the wrong way or keeping your eyes tightly shut to what is happening around you ... |
|
|
|
07-09-2010, 02:20 PM
|
#35 |
|
|
The Iran - Taliban axis also confirmed with this report. |
|
|
|
07-09-2010, 04:06 PM
|
#36 |
|
|
I agree. I dont think an invasion is neccesary. We could simply eliminate their military and let them fight it out internally. Cut the head off, basically. More civilians die that way, though. Far from it. We could fund, train, arm and supply a pro-Western Iranian force; possibly organised through NATO. It would just be that our Iranian allies would come and get their supplies from strong points we control outside Iran, at the border or by plane flying out of airports near Iran when they get control of an airfield in Iran. There are lots of options of bordering countries with Iran to supply from - Turkey, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakisitan. We could supply via landings on the Persian Gulf coast maybe.  You see the Iranian regime is supplying our enemies in Afghanistan but two can play at that game - we could supply the enemies of the Iranian regime in Iran, right? It just is important to make sure we find some decent people to support. We must not repeat the mistake of President Eisenhower and Prime Minister Winston Churchill in 1953 when they backed a military coup against the democratic government of Iran and set the fire under the pressure cooker which after a long simmer of building political frustrations finally blew the lid off the Shah's regime in 1979 and the blowback was the Iranian Islamic revolution and all the problems that caused. A little humility from conservatives would be appropriate I think since it was conservatives of the time who thought the coup was a good idea worth supporting. We must be sure only to support Iranian democratic forces. If we have to start from scratch by finding Iranian exiles and helping them to build a brand new democratic Iranian political party run from outside Iran with associated military supported by NATO which starts with its own covert invasion of Iran then lets do that. There are plenty of good Iranians who have had to flee the country who could provide excellent political leadership. We must convince Iranian exiles however that we understand the terrible error of the 1953 coup otherwise we will not be trusted if they think we want to bring back a Shah and dictatorship. |
|
|
|
07-09-2010, 04:26 PM
|
#37 |
|
|
Sure that could work, although I dont like subcontracting war. If you want to do it right you have to do it yourselves. Im kind of tired of trying to convince everyone of everything also. I would rather just cut Iran off from the world, kill their leaders and let them resolve it themselves. If they resolve it by electing more dictators, kill them too until they understand.
|
|
|
|
07-09-2010, 04:39 PM
|
#38 |
|
|
If we do attack Iran, how will it affect our relationship with the Pro-Iranian government of Iraq?
Before we start rampaging through the next china shop, what will the blowback be. And why has our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan resulted in such humiliating outcomes. Shouldn't we figure that out before we stick our dick in the food processor? |
|
|
|
07-09-2010, 05:01 PM
|
#39 |
|
|
No surprises here. The question is when are we going to admit that Iran has declared war on us, and we are at war with Iran? |
|
|
|
07-09-2010, 05:13 PM
|
#40 |
|
|
So, if two countries are fighting in a war where the US is not directly and openly involved, and the US gives any kind of aid to one warring country, does that equal a declaration of war by the US against the other warring country? |
|
|
| Reply to Thread New Thread |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
Linear Mode
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
