lord_casek Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/9/1/183018/1527 september 3rd. how long? a week? two? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SPORTO Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 She metions 'red herring' at the end, I suspect the entire blog/whatever maybe a 'red herring' not because of the information in the text, but with the condescending manner in which its delivered. I don't doubt that a strike on Iran has been planned, In fact the 'red herring' maybe the medias portrayal of the US's incompetence when dealing with Iraq resistance & troop resources. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Fuentes Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 get ready everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted September 2, 2007 Author Share Posted September 2, 2007 She metions 'red herring' at the end, I suspect the entire blog/whatever maybe a 'red herring' not because of the information in the text, but with the condescending manner in which its delivered. I don't doubt that a strike on Iran has been planned, In fact the 'red herring' maybe the medias portrayal of the US's incompetence when dealing with Iraq resistance & troop resources. you know, i heard once that the founder of daily kos is former cia. never looked it up. also, general wesley clark layed out the plan for a seven country strike recently. the chatter is either propaganda or completely real. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theo Huxtable. Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 i don't find someone's personal blog to be credible information. especially over a chat they had with a friend of theirs that's low-ranking female signal officer in the navy. not saying that a strike against iran is improbable, but her just basing this on her emotions and intuition doesn't say much. she has no hard evidence. she's just a pawn of an extremely large chess set. it was mentioned in the news not long ago that u.s. sent a battlegroup to this region to let iran know that just because the u.s. is involved in iraq and afghanistan, that they still have capable means if iran chooses to try to take "advantage" of this situation. the navy routinely sends battle groups to regions as a "show of force" to intimidate their enemy if they feel the enemy is being hostile. this happened in the mid 90's, when the u.s. navy sent a carrier fleet in the taiwan strait just to let china know what's up after threats of invading taiwan. she said it will be a "massive attack" and "sudden" with no warning to anyone or the american people. i can't buy that. it would be politically damaging to those who would authorize such action. there would be an international and domestic uproar over this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 I hope to god we do not go to Iran. I am sure there are plans for it, but there are plans for everything somewhere. Doesn't mean anything. Truthfully I do not see this happening. The military can not support it at all right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted September 2, 2007 Author Share Posted September 2, 2007 i don't find someone's personal blog to be credible information. especially over a chat they had with a friend of theirs that's low-ranking female signal officer in the navy. not saying that a strike against iran is improbable, but her just basing this on her emotions and intuition doesn't say much. she has no hard evidence. she's just a pawn of an extremely large chess set. it was mentioned in the news not long ago that u.s. sent a battlegroup to this region to let iran know that just because the u.s. is involved in iraq and afghanistan, that they still have capable means if iran chooses to try to take "advantage" of this situation. the navy routinely sends battle groups to regions as a "show of force" to intimidate their enemy if they feel the enemy is being hostile. this happened in the mid 90's, when the u.s. navy sent a carrier fleet in the taiwan strait just to let china know what's up after threats of invading taiwan. she said it will be a "massive attack" and "sudden" with no warning to anyone or the american people. i can't buy that. it would be politically damaging to those who would authorize such action. there would be an international and domestic uproar over this. dailykos is somewhat respected and has more than one employee. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WORDISM45 Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 I hope to god we do not go to Iran. I am sure there are plans for it, but there are plans for everything somewhere. Doesn't mean anything. Truthfully I do not see this happening. The military can not support it at all right now. I'm sure the American military has more than neough capital left over to bomb the fuck out of Iran, it wouldn't be an occupation like iraq and afghanistan i'd presume they'd just target every piece of infrastructure with guided missiles and air strikes then get out of there. Dawood you rekon the Arab world would support a strike against Iran because they are Shia? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MayorMeanBeans Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 taken from http://www.juancole.com " My friend had spoken to someone in one of the leading neo-conservative institutions. He summarized what he was told this way: They [the source's institution] have "instructions" (yes, that was the word used) from the Office of the Vice-President to roll out a campaign for war with Iran in the week after Labor Day; it will be coordinated with the American Enterprise Institute, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, Commentary, Fox, and the usual suspects. It will be heavy sustained assault on the airwaves, designed to knock public sentiment into a position from which a war can be maintained. Evidently they don't think they'll ever get majority support for this--they want something like 35-40 percent support, which in their book is "plenty." Of course I cannot verify this report. But besides all the other pieces of information about this circulating, I heard last week from a former U.S. government contractor. According to this friend, someone in the Department of Defense called, asking for cost estimates for a model for reconstruction in Asia. The former contractor finally concluded that the model was intended for Iran." ----- Cole: there has been some recent similar reporting. For instance, just on Tuesday Raw Story covered a paper by two British academics arguing that the US has the capability and perhaps the intention of launching an aerial assault on Iran's enrichment facilities. Earlier, McClatchy reported on Aug. 9 that Cheney has been urging bombing of Iranian trails to Iraq. This position struck me as eerily reminiscent of Nixon-Kissinger's treatment of Cambodia (which is what really caused the Khmer Rouge horrors, not, as Bush said the other day, US withdrawal from Vietnam; we dropped enormous amounts of ordnance on that country and severely disrupted it). Theo I agree that blogs are often very unreliable. However, Juan Cole, being a prof at the U of Mich of Middle Eastern Affairs, I believe his site to be credible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CALIgula Posted September 3, 2007 Share Posted September 3, 2007 Israel might just do it first... http://youtube.com/watch?v=p9W7hoSDuDU Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mn1_fuckos Posted September 3, 2007 Share Posted September 3, 2007 i dont think that theyll invade iran for the fact that most of the voters in iran are a new generation that could careless about nuclear weapons and that protest against there current leaders thoughts on the nuclear program so i doubt there nuclear program will go very far in this short time that he has left in office. i think the ones we should watch out for is the north koreans because that kim jong ill the 2nd is one crazy mutha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WORDISM45 Posted September 3, 2007 Share Posted September 3, 2007 there's no such person as Kim Jong Il the second, his father was kim Il Sung. it'll be interesting to see how this thing pans out in the US, you think the people will take to the streets and protest their government attacking yet another sovereign state with no valid pretense of defense or you think everyone will just sit there and let it happen as per usual? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theo Huxtable. Posted September 3, 2007 Share Posted September 3, 2007 i think the most likely scenario if an attack were to occur, would be concerted strikes against nuclear infrastructure, either by the u.s. or israel... most likely won't be a joint attack as to not further envoke further allegations of "zionist-crusader conspiracy" by the muslim population. and at most it would include targeted assasinations with bombs/missles against top leaders either of the iranian revolutionary guard and/or ahmedinjad himself and his cabinet. but there most likely won't be any kind of invasion to the likes of afghanistan or iraq. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted September 3, 2007 Share Posted September 3, 2007 Can we really blaim iran for raising up? I mean, we are in countries on the left and right of them. What would we do if another country was in Mexico and Canada? I seriously doubt we will go into or bomb iran at all, unless they do something like invade another country or bomb some place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mn1_fuckos Posted September 3, 2007 Share Posted September 3, 2007 i agree with you on that ^^^^^ theyll probably do it lik the way the war started when kuwait was invaded by iraq Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Fuentes Posted September 3, 2007 Share Posted September 3, 2007 I seriously doubt we will go into or bomb iran at all, unless they do something like invade another country or bomb some place. possible "false flag". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawood Posted September 3, 2007 Share Posted September 3, 2007 Didn't I just see in the news that Iran was lobbing missles into Northern Isreal recently? (not that I recognise Isreal as a real state) It's still Palestine as far as I'm concerned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torquemada Posted September 3, 2007 Share Posted September 3, 2007 if you have a map of the world, do you just cut that part out? or just cross the name off with a sharpie? OR do you just leave it alone because you can't even see it in the first place? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Fuentes Posted September 3, 2007 Share Posted September 3, 2007 look what i found it's like a print of some isreal praising art, yiddish writtings in the center and mad symbolism around it we have some red shields (ROTHSCHILD)...you see the one with the pyramids and the eye of horus in the top? some macabre Skulls and Bones, and a tree's root like feeding off the dead? benefiting from the massacre? and some zionist soldier with a submachine gun, conquering, sticking the flag on foreing land, taking over... there was more, i thought that was the most obscure part of the print to flick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
serum Posted September 3, 2007 Share Posted September 3, 2007 instead of iran i think we should invade mexico. it would solve our immigration problem. also like no one saw the middle east sandwich coming. iran definitely has its problems but i feel that the younger generations have slowly been changing whats been going on there. i say let the people themselves change their own country. something that our children or our childrens children will eventually have to do with america. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted September 3, 2007 Author Share Posted September 3, 2007 the best way to solve this is to let us have access to their women. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
serum Posted September 3, 2007 Share Posted September 3, 2007 the persians or the mexicans? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MayorMeanBeans Posted September 3, 2007 Share Posted September 3, 2007 both Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted September 3, 2007 Author Share Posted September 3, 2007 both good answer. relative of ken jennings? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russell jones Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 Didn't I just see in the news that Iran was lobbing missles into Northern Isreal recently? (not that I recognise Isreal as a real state) It's still Palestine as far as I'm concerned. Why wouldn't you recognize Israel as a real state? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delv Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 Search You can control who can find you in searches and what appears in your search listing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 Why wouldn't you recognize Israel as a real state? Is this a real question? All I know is that for the past year or so, I've been "counting down" this attack, and it hasn't happened yet. I'm hoping for the fact that it stays that way for a long time to come. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russell jones Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 Yes, that is a real question. Indulge me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawood Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 the best way to solve this is to let us have access to their women. May Allah guide you or destroy you. Just because all of the American women have lost all their modesty and are peices of rotten meat for all the dogs to feast on doesn't mean you can suggest that the muslim women should become the object of your perversions as well. Within the religion of Islam we have something called gheera , which means jealosy for our women, but more than that. Not just jealosy, but protectiveness. I'd beat a nigga down in the street for disrespecting a muslim woman in front of me. That's my word! Nothing personal Casek. It's just that some doors are not open for everyone and that's one of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
serum Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 my first love was a iraqi girl named flora. i was in 5th grade and i gave her a valentines. probably garfield or something but i do remember it was the best one of the pack we dated for 5 months and during the summer her parents locked her in the house. she wrote me a card saying she loved me but didnt put proper postage and it got sent back her parents beat her and said that she could never see me again. i was pissed and used to sit outside near her house. her dad chased me and i never spoke to her again. i was quite heartbroken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.