newt g. advocates terror

[Goater]

The investigation was indeed a shambles and no 100% definitive "proof" has been offered re Irans guilt, however the Argentinians are sufficiently convinced to make official charges and statements like the one I quoted. Another bomb attack on the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires in 1992 was also suspected to have been strongly linked to Iran.

[ QUOTE ]
HOWEVER, this CANNOT be a reason to justify military action against them until we have a LOT more evidence and a MUCH MUCH larger threat.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree 100%.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe OP's underlying point is just that, ie claiming the US Army is a terrorist organization. You know the drill. All wars are wrong, there are no good wars, can't we smoke a peace pipe and sing Kumbaya, etc.

Typical peacenik bs.

edit: So basically, the two of you are probably in agreement.

[/ QUOTE ]

you poeple need to look up the word "covert". by definition the US army would not be involved in covert operations.

[DblBarrelJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe OP's underlying point is just that, ie claiming the US Army is a terrorist organization. You know the drill. All wars are wrong, there are no good wars, can't we smoke a peace pipe and sing Kumbaya, etc.

Typical peacenik bs.

edit: So basically, the two of you are probably in agreement.

[/ QUOTE ]

you poeple need to look up the word "covert". by definition the US army would not be involved in covert operations.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess you're unfamiliar with the term "US Special Forces"?

[TomVeil]

Well, I'd never flame away at somebody who's being honest. If we have to go to war with Iran, then it should be because we HAVE to and should wipe them out as fast as we can.

But all of this talk about terrorism sponsorship and them being a threat to us is [censored]. If they move on us, we kill them quick. But if you put yourself in the shoes of Iran, there's considerable reason to be "interfering" with the Iraq war. Considering our actions, what would you expect them to do?

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
you poeple need to look up the word "covert". by definition the US army would not be involved in covert operations.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] You do know that Delta Force is a US Army organization? And they don't wear uniforms, have the same grooming standards, carry ID cards, or fight overtly (in general)?

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
You do know that Delta Force is a US Army organization? And they don't wear uniforms, have the same grooming standards, carry ID cards, or fight overtly (in general)?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm talking about blowing up an iranian oil thingee. if you watch the link newt talks about how the US blew up russian piplelines and infrastructure, and it was done totally by stealth, not by force.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Coper, in the case of Blackwater, we're not only paying them, we're protecting them from any kind of prosecution AFTER these incidents. <font color="red">Again, if these incidents are being fairly reported and are outside the scope of their legitimate assignments, then they are wrong and we are wrong to protect them. I still have never seen anything that says that is the case. </font> Could you not see how the Iraqis, Iranians, or ANYBODY ELSE IN THE WORLD could see this as a legitimate sponsoring of terrorism? <font color="red">absolutely, if it happened </font>

And still, war with Iran would have nothing to do with terrorism. Just like war with Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. It's just the "big bad enemy" like communism was in the 80s.

[/ QUOTE ] <font color="red">lol. Communism WAS a threat, and terrorism IS a threat. Terrorists are the enemy, and will continue to be for longer than communism was the enemy. </font>

[TomVeil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Coper, in the case of Blackwater, we're not only paying them, we're protecting them from any kind of prosecution AFTER these incidents. <font color="red">Again, if these incidents are being fairly reported and are outside the scope of their legitimate assignments, then they are wrong and we are wrong to protect them. I still have never seen anything that says that is the case. </font> Could you not see how the Iraqis, Iranians, or ANYBODY ELSE IN THE WORLD could see this as a legitimate sponsoring of terrorism? <font color="red">absolutely, if it happened </font>

And still, war with Iran would have nothing to do with terrorism. Just like war with Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. It's just the "big bad enemy" like communism was in the 80s.

[/ QUOTE ] <font color="red">lol. Communism WAS a threat, and terrorism IS a threat. Terrorists are the enemy, and will continue to be for longer than communism was the enemy. </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

Terrorism is A threat. Drunk driving is A MUCH LARGER threat. Almost EVERYTHING is A threat. But being a good poker player, you'd have to understand that there is some sort of cost-reward ratio that should be applied. Spending this incredibly large amount of money to combat terrorism makes us worse at combatting OTHER REAL threats to our way of life. At some point, the cost outwieghs the gains. Especially when you're not just talking money, you're talking lives. And doubly so when the very thing you're fighting against gains strength because you're fighting it so badly.

As for Blackwater, the [censored] that they are doing is just now coming out. Don't be suprised when you're suprised what they are doing over there.

[DblBarrelJ]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I'd never flame away at somebody who's being honest. If we have to go to war with Iran, then it should be because we HAVE to and should wipe them out as fast as we can.

But all of this talk about terrorism sponsorship and them being a threat to us is [censored]. If they move on us, we kill them quick. But if you put yourself in the shoes of Iran, there's considerable reason to be "interfering" with the Iraq war. Considering our actions, what would you expect them to do?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I've never said that attacking Iran using covert US Special Forces troops or the CIA was the right thing to do. I simply said that if we did it was not "terrorism" it was an act of war.

The same thing is true in reverse. If an oil field in Texas was destroyed by Iranian forces, that's not terrorism, that's an act of agression by a country.

The most important point I'm trying to make is that terrorists do not represent countries, soldiers do.

And soldiers, no matter what flag they serve under, are not terrorists.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Coper, in the case of Blackwater, we're not only paying them, we're protecting them from any kind of prosecution AFTER these incidents. <font color="red">Again, if these incidents are being fairly reported and are outside the scope of their legitimate assignments, then they are wrong and we are wrong to protect them. I still have never seen anything that says that is the case. </font> Could you not see how the Iraqis, Iranians, or ANYBODY ELSE IN THE WORLD could see this as a legitimate sponsoring of terrorism? <font color="red">absolutely, if it happened </font>

And still, war with Iran would have nothing to do with terrorism. Just like war with Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. It's just the "big bad enemy" like communism was in the 80s.

[/ QUOTE ] <font color="red">lol. Communism WAS a threat, and terrorism IS a threat. Terrorists are the enemy, and will continue to be for longer than communism was the enemy. </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

Terrorism is A threat. Drunk driving is A MUCH LARGER threat. <font color="red">currently, yes. if terrorism is left unchallenged, dd wont be the greater threat for long. You can play statistics all you want, exposure is half of the formula. The 215 colleagues of mine who died on 9/11 were exposed to a risk they never assumed. </font> Almost EVERYTHING is A threat. But being a good poker player, you'd have to understand that there is some sort of cost-reward ratio that should be applied. Spending this incredibly large amount of money to combat terrorism makes us worse at combatting OTHER REAL threats to our way of life. <font color="red"> you are understating the threat and the cost/benefit analysis imo</font> At some point, the cost outwieghs the gains. Especially when you're not just talking money, you're talking lives. And doubly so when the very thing you're fighting against gains strength because you're fighting it so badly. <font color="red"> again, this is unproven </font>

As for Blackwater, the [censored] that they are doing is just now coming out. Don't be suprised when you're suprised what they are doing over there.

[/ QUOTE ] <font color="red"> we'll see, and until we do, you are just speculating </font>