|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:47 pm Post subject: Iran grooming new AQ leaders |
 |
|
This is quite interesting.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/14/wiran14.xml
| Quote: |
Iran is trying to form an unholy alliance with al-Qa'eda by grooming a new generation of leaders to take over from Osama bin Laden, The Daily Telegraph can reveal.
Western intelligence officials say the Iranians are determined to take advantage of bin Laden's declining health to promote senior officials who are known to be friendly to Teheran.
The revelation will deal a major blow to Tony Blair's hopes of establishing a "new partnership" with Teheran. |
I dunno. If they control AQ does that mean that the West should talk more or less with them. I can't decide.
| Quote: |
Alarm over al-Qa'eda deepened yesterday with a Foreign Office warning that the group was determined to acquire the technology to carry out a nuclear attack on the West.
A senior Foreign Office official said that the terrorists were trawling the world for the materials and know-how to mount an attack using nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. |
If Iran controls AQ, and Iran gets a nuke, then I suppose our worst fears have come true.
With the Americans focused on Iraq, and the Europeans good for nothing more than appeasement, anti-American/anti-Semitic rantings and "health care", I guess it is up to the Israelis to deal with this... Go Benji! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If true, it means those in the gov't involved in this decision should be hunted down and killed like those in Al Qaeda are.
But how can we be certain of that? You don't want to make a mistake here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| But how can we be certain of that? You don't want to make a mistake here. |
I share your caution.
But this caution probably means that, if this information is accurate, someone will have to take some kind of a hit before people give reports like these any credibility. (And even then it might be denounced as a lie, a U.S.-perpetrated conspiracy.)
Hard to see where all of this might be going... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've been a moderate pacifist all of my adult life. I've opposed every war that America, Canada and our cultural allies have participated in while I've been an adult. But, if this proves true, and negotiations fail, for the sake of my own life, I think Iran needs to get BushWacked. And hard. And not this pansy "nation building" stuff, but really hard. They must not acquire nuclear weapons.
The intersection of global terrorism, WMD and Iran is far too real to leave to negotiations alone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oh my god! Aren't all you guys so full of conspiracy theory? What next, the U.S. has secretly been paying off Kim Jeong Il , so he won't abandon North Korea? And BWJM pretending to take the pacifist stand and then saying, "But if, blow em all to hell!"................I'm shaking my head.
Did you read the article? No evidence just one mention of "a report". And then its the Foreign office off to the races.......
This is pure skull duggery, jabberwocky, planted report, pure and simple. Conjecture and mis if not dis information. I hate when anything gets in the news (ie. like Blair's preported new found enthusiasm for direct talks with Iran [and Bush's too], the old "gophers" in the State Dept. or foreign Office rear their heads and cry , cry , cry.......bringing up skull duggery and jabberwocky.
I prefer to believe what's infront of my eyes.
You guys are already aiming nukes on the basis of a "report" of unamed and undeclared destination. My god, hope you guys never get to make any decisions....
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ddeubel wrote: |
Oh my god! Aren't all you guys so full of conspiracy theory? What next, the U.S. has secretly been paying off Kim Jeong Il , so he won't abandon North Korea? And BWJM pretending to take the pacifist stand and then saying, "But if, blow em all to hell!"................I'm shaking my head.
Did you read the article? No evidence just one mention of "a report". And then its the Foreign office off to the races.......
This is pure skull duggery, jabberwocky, planted report, pure and simple. Conjecture and mis if not dis information. I hate when anything gets in the news (ie. like Blair's preported new found enthusiasm for direct talks with Iran [and Bush's too], the old "gophers" in the State Dept. or foreign Office rear their heads and cry , cry , cry.......bringing up skull duggery and jabberwocky.
I prefer to believe what's infront of my eyes.
You guys are already aiming nukes on the basis of a "report" of unamed and undeclared destination. My god, hope you guys never get to make any decisions....
DD |
I don't know. I wouldn't make up my mind based entirely on that article, but it doesn't mean I have to ignore it either. It would be good if they could now try to find a bit more about it, and while no "nukes" should be pointed at Iran just for that, it doesn't mean we can't watch it more closely  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| But how can we be certain of that? You don't want to make a mistake here. |
I share your caution.
|
ddeubel. Re-read our responses and refrain from giving us lectures on reading comprehension. Yours apparently sucks.
Edit: nukes? who mentioned nukes? I said if this is true, then they should be hunted down like Al Qaeda is. I'm not aware we use nuclear devices to hunt them down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Edit: nukes? who mentioned nukes? I said if this is true, then they should be hunted down like Al Qaeda is. I'm not aware we use nuclear devices to hunt them down. |
I believe the OP said, "Go Benji"???? Your post was atleast balanced on the part of "evidence" can't say that for the other two...
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Can you read dd?
I said "IF" the REPORT was true and even put "IF" in BOLD and UNDERLINED it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:13 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| but how can we be certain of that? You don't want to make a mistake here. |
Interesting Kuros.
I thought Iran already "had it coming". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Woland
Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ummmm.... The Iranians are Shiites. Al Qaeda is a fundamentalist Sunni organization which views the Shiites as anathema.
While politics may make strange bedfellows, I put this argument up there with the claim for links between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, whose Baathism was a philosophy of pan-Arab socialism, rejecting religion in passing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Woland wrote: |
| Ummmm.... The Iranians are Shiites. Al Qaeda is a fundamentalist Sunni organization which views the Shiites as anathema. |
This assumes the Iranian govt is a rational actor, consistently following its own best interests on each and every issue that comes its way. But I do not think that is the case, not with any govt., and certainly not with Tehran.
| Woland wrote: |
| ...I put this argument up there with the claim for links between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, whose Baathism was a philosophy of pan-Arab socialism, rejecting religion in passing. |
Sounds like you are not even open to any evidence that may come our way. Case closed, huh? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Octavius Hite
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have to say, I think Iran is a rational actor. We like to think of the Persians as mindless zombies a la the NORKs but that's just not true. The Iranian Revolution was a clear political rejection of the Shah and American/British bad behaviour in Persia. They didn't just go off the deep end and lose their minds. It was very clear during the Iraq/Iran war (where the US betrayed both sides and fomented the use of chemical weapons) that Iranians were very tired of the war and the Mullahs were in some trouble and feared of another revolution. Its pretty clear to me that Iran is playing the Crazy Kim card and just trying to get back into the international community. When you have Nukes you get respect and money from America see Israel, India, Pakistan etc.
This report, btw, smells to high even. I don't believe in coincidence and this is just a little to timely. What better excuse for Bush to keep the troops in the Middle East than to declare war on Iran. Makes you think. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Slep
Joined: 14 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 6:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Octavius Hite wrote: |
I have to say, I think Iran is a rational actor. We like to think of the Persians as mindless zombies a la the NORKs but that's just not true. The Iranian Revolution was a clear political rejection of the Shah and American/British bad behaviour in Persia. They didn't just go off the deep end and lose their minds. It was very clear during the Iraq/Iran war (where the US betrayed both sides and fomented the use of chemical weapons) that Iranians were very tired of the war and the Mullahs were in some trouble and feared of another revolution. Its pretty clear to me that Iran is playing the Crazy Kim card and just trying to get back into the international community. When you have Nukes you get respect and money from America see Israel, India, Pakistan etc.
This report, btw, smells to high even. I don't believe in coincidence and this is just a little to timely. What better excuse for Bush to keep the troops in the Middle East than to declare war on Iran. Makes you think. |
Excellent post, i was just about to post something similar.
Even the embassy kidnapping had a rational base. The shah was invited to the US to get 'medical care', Iranians freaked out, fearing that the US would again overthrow their leaders and sacked the embassy. That part is always left out of the history. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Slep wrote: |
| The shah was invited to the US to get 'medical care', Iranians freaked out, fearing that the US would again overthrow their leaders and sacked the embassy. That part is always left out of the history. |
The Shah suffered from cancer. He died from cancer. He had friends in the United States. No one else who could treat him would allow him entry, anywhere else in the world. Khomeini wanted him shipped to Iran in order to kill him. Why do you place "medical care" in quotations as if there was something else "really going on" under the surface?
Also, since time immemorial, ambassadors and their embassies have been inviolable ground. What the Iranians did to the U.S. embassy was nothing less than an act of barbarism. That part is always left out of the critics' history. And I cannot grasp at all how you and Octavius add up all of the numbers here and try to tell us that two wrongs make a right.
Finally, the Reagan Admin. attempted to improve relations with Tehran in the 1980s, on multiple tracks. Think of Nixon in China and you understand what Reagan's motives were. One thing Washington could do was pass information to the Iranian govt, obtained via Soviet defectors, on a Soviet intelligence-gathering net embedded in the regime.
What the United States hoped to accomplish through this was the following: it was assumed that your "rational actor" would act rationally with this information -- that is, find the agents, watch them, perhaps feed them misinformation, or better yet, turn them. This would lead to increasing trust and perhaps improved relations and even cooperation in the future.
Yet the Iranian regime simply uncovered the Soviet net and killed them all -- dozens, perhaps hundreds of Iranians who had been collaborating with Soviet Intelligence. Washington could not figure out how to communicate with them after this. Rationally, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," simply did not register with them. And by this time the United States Navy was escorting Japanese oil freighters in and out of the Gulf, and de facto involved in the war... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
