Hey KAM...there is no proof of upper level government being invovled. So your full of shit. a thank youKmarion wrote:
Turq link: Private Saudi citizens?
Is that supposed to be the same as a government sending Hezbollah terrorist into Iraq to kill 5 American Soldiers?
The other link is a speculative op'ed piece. Again not nearly as concrete as capturing a Sauidi operative in Iraq.
BTW I'm not denying some Saudis are funding charities with links to the insurgency. But clearly there is a difference in the links you guys provided and what I posted. This guy claims to be acting on direct orders from the Iranian Quds Force. That is what you call a direct link. (If it holds up)
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Iranian-backed Hezbollah has been captured in Iraq (CNN)
Explaining the difference between a branch of the Iranian military sending bomb makers to Iraq and private citizens contributing to "charity" terrorist organizations does not make me full of shit. Keep in mind I have said if it holds to be true also.Fen321 wrote:
Hey KAM...there is no proof of upper level government being invovled. So your full of shit. a thank youKmarion wrote:
Turq link: Private Saudi citizens?
Is that supposed to be the same as a government sending Hezbollah terrorist into Iraq to kill 5 American Soldiers?
The other link is a speculative op'ed piece. Again not nearly as concrete as capturing a Sauidi operative in Iraq.
BTW I'm not denying some Saudis are funding charities with links to the insurgency. But clearly there is a difference in the links you guys provided and what I posted. This guy claims to be acting on direct orders from the Iranian Quds Force. That is what you call a direct link. (If it holds up)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Can we hold the country of Iran responsible then? Is this a level of plausible deniability?Kmarion wrote:
Explaining the difference between a branch of the Iranian military sending bomb makers to Iraq and private citizens contributing to "charity" terrorist organizations does not make me full of shit. Keep in mind I have said if it holds to be true also.
Lets reverse the roles. Lets have the Navy Seals be the ones sending bomb makers into Iran. And United States citizens contributing to "charity" terrorist organization inside Iran. Would Iran and the World blame the United States?
What I'm suggesting is that there is a inherent hate of the United States in the World opinion...a benefit of the doubt that the United States would not have if the shoe was on the other foot.
No we can't on our own. The world is dealing with Iran. Right or wrong the US has lost it's credibility in determining threats. Even as the mountain of evidence pours in. If Iran continues to destabilize the region it will take the entire world to perceive them as a threat. Unfortunately for Iran that seems to be more and more possible everyday. What's funny is even al-Qaida is starting to get annoyed. Iraq al-Qaida group threatens IranHarmor wrote:
Can we hold the country of Iran responsible then? Is this a level of plausible deniability?Kmarion wrote:
Explaining the difference between a branch of the Iranian military sending bomb makers to Iraq and private citizens contributing to "charity" terrorist organizations does not make me full of shit. Keep in mind I have said if it holds to be true also.
Lets reverse the roles. Lets have the Navy Seals be the ones sending bomb makers into Iran. And United States citizens contributing to "charity" terrorist organization inside Iran. Would Iran and the World blame the United States?
What I'm suggesting is that there is a inherent hate of the United States in the World opinion...a benefit of the doubt that the United States would not have if the shoe was on the other foot.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I wonder what the consequences would be if the United States did attack Iran preemptively without U.N. approval. Does the United States need U.N. approval?
Basically, is not having the U.N. approval the equivalent of not having K-Y to do a dry hump? Yes you can do it, but boy are you going to feel it in the morning.
Basically, is not having the U.N. approval the equivalent of not having K-Y to do a dry hump? Yes you can do it, but boy are you going to feel it in the morning.
The Domestic consequences are more worrisome than foreign.Harmor wrote:
I wonder what the consequences would be if the United States did attack Iran preemptively without U.N. approval. Does the United States need U.N. approval?
Basically, is not having the U.N. approval the equivalent of not having K-Y to do a dry hump? Yes you can do it, but boy are you going to feel it in the morning.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
With that then should George W. Bush do an attack on Iran before the 2008 election next November? Many of the Republican Presidential candidates will support him. All the Democratic Presidential candidates would denounce it.Kmarion wrote:
The Domestic consequences are more worrisome than foreign.Harmor wrote:
I wonder what the consequences would be if the United States did attack Iran preemptively without U.N. approval. Does the United States need U.N. approval?
Basically, is not having the U.N. approval the equivalent of not having K-Y to do a dry hump? Yes you can do it, but boy are you going to feel it in the morning.
Would it hurt the Republicans more or help the Democrats more?
If we attack Iran, we're insane...
We should just send Jon Stewart over to negotiate
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/504612/a_ … aily_show/
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/504612/a_ … aily_show/
Xbone Stormsurgezz
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Iranian-backed Hezbollah has been captured in Iraq (CNN)