Act of War?

[CT9]

I think u all are full of it. Assasinating the Saudi rep is not an act of war against the US, it would be an act of war against Saudi Arabia.
Obama has never tried to make freinds with Iran.
Bush and compnay had alot of pressure put on them to attack Iran, which would have been a mistake. We already have more on our plate than we can handle.

Look I don't know the legitimacy and depth of connections the guy has to the government... However, assassinating a foreign diplomat of an ally as well as two allies embassies on U.S. soil is a violation of US sovereignty and an act of war. If those are indeed the facts and he has solid connections to the Iranian government that drove him to act, I don't know how you could interpret it any other way. You must have some kind of crazy bias that distorts your views.

With that said, we won't go to war with Iran. We don't have the will nor the ability, my only hope is that we don't forget this... I'm getting really sick of those punk bitches.

The land that the embassy occupies is soveriegn land of the foreign nation. We do subversive activities on Iran, do u wat to complain about that?

Yea who we planning on assassinating? What did we blow up? Did I miss the memo? I know all about how we botched Iran, but that doesn't mean you just let people blow shit up on your land.

If this is really your thought process... just let embassies and political assassinations happen in America you really are out of it.

So this isn't an act of war? attacking American allies in Iran's region on American Land? I don't care how you try to paint it you come off clueless and trying to do some thinking that is way over your head. You realize they hate the Saudi's and Israel because those are the only two powers who can counterbalance them in the region.... this isn't some righteous cause Iran is on, and it's inexcusable. Iran wants to control the middle east... and that would be disastrous.

 

[EriktheRed]

I think u all are full of it. Assasinating the Saudi rep is not an act of war against the US, it would be an act of war against Saudi Arabia.
Obama has never tried to make freinds with Iran.
Bush and compnay had alot of pressure put on them to attack Iran, which would have been a mistake. We already have more on our plate than we can handle.

Look I don't know the legitimacy and depth of connections the guy has to the government... However, assassinating a foreign diplomat of an ally as well as two allies embassies on U.S. soil is a violation of US sovereignty and an act of war. If those are indeed the facts and he has solid connections to the Iranian government that drove him to act, I don't know how you could interpret it any other way. You must have some kind of crazy bias that distorts your views.

With that said, we won't go to war with Iran. We don't have the will nor the ability, my only hope is that we don't forget this... I'm getting really sick of those punk bitches.

The land that the embassy occupies is soveriegn land of the foreign nation. We do subversive activities on Iran, do u wat to complain about that?

Yeah, but to get to said embassy would require doing certain acts on OUR soil. It's not really anything new, as was pointed out earlier, but I believe it qualifies as an act of war.

 

[Moonglow]

Look I don't know the legitimacy and depth of connections the guy has to the government... However, assassinating a foreign diplomat of an ally as well as two allies embassies on U.S. soil is a violation of US sovereignty and an act of war. If those are indeed the facts and he has solid connections to the Iranian government that drove him to act, I don't know how you could interpret it any other way. You must have some kind of crazy bias that distorts your views.

With that said, we won't go to war with Iran. We don't have the will nor the ability, my only hope is that we don't forget this... I'm getting really sick of those punk bitches.

The land that the embassy occupies is soveriegn land of the foreign nation. We do subversive activities on Iran, do u wat to complain about that?

Yea who we planning on assassinating? What did we blow up? Did I miss the memo? I know all about how we botched Iran, but that doesn't mean you just let people blow shit up on your land.

If this is really your thought process... just let embassies and political assassinations happen in America you really are out of it.

So this isn't an act of war? attacking American allies in Iran's region on American Land? I don't care how you try to paint it you come off clueless and trying to do some thinking that is way over your head. You realize they hate the Saudi's and Israel because those are the only two powers who can counterbalance them in the region.... this isn't some righteous cause Iran is on, and it's inexcusable. Iran wants to control the middle east... and that would be disastrous.

we infected their computers that gring uranium with a virus, aka worm that ruined their ability to make fine grade uranium, as far as assasinations,Iam sure we still do it. Iiran is too weak to control anything but their own nation, they could not beat Iraq.
An as far as u claiming that they attacked our allies on US soil, their was no attack it was foiled.

 

[Moonglow]

Look I don't know the legitimacy and depth of connections the guy has to the government... However, assassinating a foreign diplomat of an ally as well as two allies embassies on U.S. soil is a violation of US sovereignty and an act of war. If those are indeed the facts and he has solid connections to the Iranian government that drove him to act, I don't know how you could interpret it any other way. You must have some kind of crazy bias that distorts your views.

With that said, we won't go to war with Iran. We don't have the will nor the ability, my only hope is that we don't forget this... I'm getting really sick of those punk bitches.

The land that the embassy occupies is soveriegn land of the foreign nation. We do subversive activities on Iran, do u wat to complain about that?

Yeah, but to get to said embassy would require doing certain acts on OUR soil. It's not really anything new, as was pointed out earlier, but I believe it qualifies as an act of war.

if it constitutes an act of war then it does, but nothing happened.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Iranians are always plotting shit like this, they have been at war with us since 1979 when the Shah was over thrown.

Actually..they've been pissed since the CIA coup that installed the Shah in the first place.

But it's a spookie war. And should remain that way.

As it is so different from my way of doing things....it continues to amaze me how lack of any knowledge never prevents you from foisting off some Left-wing anti-American bumper sticker as though it was actually true!

"...the CIA coup that installed the Shah in the first place."

In the first place?
You have no clue that the Pahlavi dynasty began in 1925

Finding truth in your posts is as rare as finding a reference to cats in the Bible.

Dr. Abbas Milani is he Director of the Iranian Studies Program at Stanford University. His recent book is “The Shah,”and is based on ten years studying the archives of the United States and of Britain. From his book: The Shah was in power between 1941 and 1979. The true explanation of the Mossadeq unseating is neither that of the Royalists who claimed it was due to a national uprising, nor was it, as Mossadeq’s followers claimed, a CIA plot.

a. Mossedeq was the nationalist leader of the Iranian Parliament, becoming so via democratic process, (elected by the Parliament rather than by a popular vote) and the first thing he did was nationalize the oil industry. Britain wanted to attack Iran, but Truman wouldn’t allow it. Then the Brits tried to get the Shah to use the army to throw Mossadeq out…but the Shah refused to do anything illegal.

b. But by November of ’52, try as they may, the US could not make a deal with Mossadeq, who demanded 100% control of oil, which would never be accepted by Britain. Due to the unrest and criticisms, Mossadeq decided to dismiss the parliament; without any constitutional or legal basis. His supporters warned him that this would allow the Shah to make recess appointments, including the Prime Ministers. He didn’t believe that the Shah would do it….he was wrong. On August 13th, 1953 the Shah signed the decree which removed Mossadeq with General Fazollah Zehedi. “When pro-Shah soldiers went to arrest Mossadegh, they instead were captured.” http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/issue51/articles/51_14-15.pdf

c. Prosperity at the price of democracy: no political opposition was allowed. Ignoring the letter and spirit of the Constitution, the Shah banned all the existing parties and crafted a one-party system. Calling the party Rastakhiz (meaning “resurgence” or “rebirth”), he decreed that every Iranian must join it. This was 1975.

4. In October ’78, both the US and Britain decided that the Shah was not capable of ruling during a crisis, he was not brave as was seen in his behavior during the crisis of ’53, and he was likely to flee in the face of the rise of the revolutionary movement. They were, therefore, looking for a way to, as they said, “re-insure” their stake in Iran. The agreed on the only network extant in Iran: the clergy.

 

[Sallow]

Look I don't know the legitimacy and depth of connections the guy has to the government... However, assassinating a foreign diplomat of an ally as well as two allies embassies on U.S. soil is a violation of US sovereignty and an act of war. If those are indeed the facts and he has solid connections to the Iranian government that drove him to act, I don't know how you could interpret it any other way. You must have some kind of crazy bias that distorts your views.

With that said, we won't go to war with Iran. We don't have the will nor the ability, my only hope is that we don't forget this... I'm getting really sick of those punk bitches.

The land that the embassy occupies is soveriegn land of the foreign nation. We do subversive activities on Iran, do u wat to complain about that?

Yea who we planning on assassinating? What did we blow up? Did I miss the memo? I know all about how we botched Iran, but that doesn't mean you just let people blow shit up on your land.

If this is really your thought process... just let embassies and political assassinations happen in America you really are out of it.

So this isn't an act of war? attacking American allies in Iran's region on American Land? I don't care how you try to paint it you come off clueless and trying to do some thinking that is way over your head. You realize they hate the Saudi's and Israel because those are the only two powers who can counterbalance them in the region.... this isn't some righteous cause Iran is on, and it's inexcusable. Iran wants to control the middle east... and that would be disastrous.

One history lesson..coming up.

1953 Iranian coup d'état - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Additionally the US sicced Iraq on Iran..and probably backed the PKK for a short time through Blackwater.

In any case..it would be enormously stupid to knock over another middle eastern country.

 

[Sallow]

The Iranians are always plotting shit like this, they have been at war with us since 1979 when the Shah was over thrown.

Actually..they've been pissed since the CIA coup that installed the Shah in the first place.

But it's a spookie war. And should remain that way.

As it is so different from my way of doing things....it continues to amaze me how lack of any knowledge never prevents you from foisting off some Left-wing anti-American bumper sticker as though it was actually true!

"...the CIA coup that installed the Shah in the first place."

In the first place?
You have no clue that the Pahlavi dynasty began in 1925

Finding truth in your posts is as rare as finding a reference to cats in the Bible.

Dr. Abbas Milani is he Director of the Iranian Studies Program at Stanford University. His recent book is “The Shah,”and is based on ten years studying the archives of the United States and of Britain. From his book: The Shah was in power between 1941 and 1979. The true explanation of the Mossadeq unseating is neither that of the Royalists who claimed it was due to a national uprising, nor was it, as Mossadeq’s followers claimed, a CIA plot.

a. Mossedeq was the nationalist leader of the Iranian Parliament, becoming so via democratic process, (elected by the Parliament rather than by a popular vote) and the first thing he did was nationalize the oil industry. Britain wanted to attack Iran, but Truman wouldn’t allow it. Then the Brits tried to get the Shah to use the army to throw Mossadeq out…but the Shah refused to do anything illegal.

b. But by November of ’52, try as they may, the US could not make a deal with Mossadeq, who demanded 100% control of oil, which would never be accepted by Britain. Due to the unrest and criticisms, Mossadeq decided to dismiss the parliament; without any constitutional or legal basis. His supporters warned him that this would allow the Shah to make recess appointments, including the Prime Ministers. He didn’t believe that the Shah would do it….he was wrong. On August 13th, 1953 the Shah signed the decree which removed Mossadeq with General Fazollah Zehedi. “When pro-Shah soldiers went to arrest Mossadegh, they instead were captured.” http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/issue51/articles/51_14-15.pdf

c. Prosperity at the price of democracy: no political opposition was allowed. Ignoring the letter and spirit of the Constitution, the Shah banned all the existing parties and crafted a one-party system. Calling the party Rastakhiz (meaning “resurgence” or “rebirth”), he decreed that every Iranian must join it. This was 1975.

4. In October ’78, both the US and Britain decided that the Shah was not capable of ruling during a crisis, he was not brave as was seen in his behavior during the crisis of ’53, and he was likely to flee in the face of the rise of the revolutionary movement. They were, therefore, looking for a way to, as they said, “re-insure” their stake in Iran. The agreed on the only network extant in Iran: the clergy.

 

[CT9]

The land that the embassy occupies is soveriegn land of the foreign nation. We do subversive activities on Iran, do u wat to complain about that?

Yea who we planning on assassinating? What did we blow up? Did I miss the memo? I know all about how we botched Iran, but that doesn't mean you just let people blow shit up on your land.

If this is really your thought process... just let embassies and political assassinations happen in America you really are out of it.

So this isn't an act of war? attacking American allies in Iran's region on American Land? I don't care how you try to paint it you come off clueless and trying to do some thinking that is way over your head. You realize they hate the Saudi's and Israel because those are the only two powers who can counterbalance them in the region.... this isn't some righteous cause Iran is on, and it's inexcusable. Iran wants to control the middle east... and that would be disastrous.

One history lesson..coming up.

1953 Iranian coup d'état - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Additionally the US sicced Iraq on Iran..and probably backed the PKK for a short time through Blackwater.

In any case..it would be enormously stupid to knock over another middle eastern country.

I was waiting for you to talk about the plane we shot down....

But yea bring up something I already know and referenced too

You guys make incredible assumptions in that you know more than everyone else

 

[CT9]

The land that the embassy occupies is soveriegn land of the foreign nation. We do subversive activities on Iran, do u wat to complain about that?

Yea who we planning on assassinating? What did we blow up? Did I miss the memo? I know all about how we botched Iran, but that doesn't mean you just let people blow shit up on your land.

If this is really your thought process... just let embassies and political assassinations happen in America you really are out of it.

So this isn't an act of war? attacking American allies in Iran's region on American Land? I don't care how you try to paint it you come off clueless and trying to do some thinking that is way over your head. You realize they hate the Saudi's and Israel because those are the only two powers who can counterbalance them in the region.... this isn't some righteous cause Iran is on, and it's inexcusable. Iran wants to control the middle east... and that would be disastrous.

we infected their computers that gring uranium with a virus, aka worm that ruined their ability to make fine grade uranium, as far as assasinations,Iam sure we still do it. Iiran is too weak to control anything but their own nation, they could not beat Iraq.
An as far as u claiming that they attacked our allies on US soil, their was no attack it was foiled.

Old news, and well known and understandable. I go back and forth but I'm not sure I want Iran to have nukes and this plot confirms it.

But split hairs on terminology, you know I know their was no attack carried out. When did intent mean anything I guess... I'd also say you are making a mistake in Iraq's strength and Iran's strength. Jordan, Syria, Hezbollah, Muslim Brotherhood... How do you think these countries and organizations have been supported for all these years? But you are right, Iran is just attacking out of necessity for their own security even though all evidence and statements they have point to they have been and are consistently on the offensive for the last 20 something years.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Actually..they've been pissed since the CIA coup that installed the Shah in the first place.

But it's a spookie war. And should remain that way.

As it is so different from my way of doing things....it continues to amaze me how lack of any knowledge never prevents you from foisting off some Left-wing anti-American bumper sticker as though it was actually true!

"...the CIA coup that installed the Shah in the first place."

In the first place?
You have no clue that the Pahlavi dynasty began in 1925

Finding truth in your posts is as rare as finding a reference to cats in the Bible.

Dr. Abbas Milani is he Director of the Iranian Studies Program at Stanford University. His recent book is “The Shah,”and is based on ten years studying the archives of the United States and of Britain. From his book: The Shah was in power between 1941 and 1979. The true explanation of the Mossadeq unseating is neither that of the Royalists who claimed it was due to a national uprising, nor was it, as Mossadeq’s followers claimed, a CIA plot.

a. Mossedeq was the nationalist leader of the Iranian Parliament, becoming so via democratic process, (elected by the Parliament rather than by a popular vote) and the first thing he did was nationalize the oil industry. Britain wanted to attack Iran, but Truman wouldn’t allow it. Then the Brits tried to get the Shah to use the army to throw Mossadeq out…but the Shah refused to do anything illegal.

b. But by November of ’52, try as they may, the US could not make a deal with Mossadeq, who demanded 100% control of oil, which would never be accepted by Britain. Due to the unrest and criticisms, Mossadeq decided to dismiss the parliament; without any constitutional or legal basis. His supporters warned him that this would allow the Shah to make recess appointments, including the Prime Ministers. He didn’t believe that the Shah would do it….he was wrong. On August 13th, 1953 the Shah signed the decree which removed Mossadeq with General Fazollah Zehedi. “When pro-Shah soldiers went to arrest Mossadegh, they instead were captured.” http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/issue51/articles/51_14-15.pdf

c. Prosperity at the price of democracy: no political opposition was allowed. Ignoring the letter and spirit of the Constitution, the Shah banned all the existing parties and crafted a one-party system. Calling the party Rastakhiz (meaning “resurgence” or “rebirth”), he decreed that every Iranian must join it. This was 1975.

4. In October ’78, both the US and Britain decided that the Shah was not capable of ruling during a crisis, he was not brave as was seen in his behavior during the crisis of ’53, and he was likely to flee in the face of the rise of the revolutionary movement. They were, therefore, looking for a way to, as they said, “re-insure” their stake in Iran. The agreed on the only network extant in Iran: the clergy.

So, your response to education is ....the emoticon?
Well, it certainly has a lot more substance than your original post.


The gates are down, the lights are flashing, but the train just isn't coming.

 

[freedombecki]

The Iranians are always plotting shit like this, they have been at war with us since 1979 when the Shah was over thrown.

But this is the first time they've been caught red handed.

No it isn't. several of the hostages taken in Iran under the Carter Administration complained when Ahmadinejad was made president in 2005. They said he treated them rough.

This RUssian photo (and others I've seen) back them up:

source

From the article: Perhaps the most damning evidence against Ahmadinejad with regard to the hostage-taking came from Bani-Sadr, Iran's president during the early days of the Khomeini revolution. He has adamantly affirmed Ahmadinejad was one of the kidnappers who held 52 Americans for 444 days. He said the former student leader was in the embassy throughout the hostage crisis.
"Ayatollah Khomeini's deputy, Ayatollah Khamenei, demanded of him a constant report on what is happening in the embassy," he said.
When told Ahmadinejad denied the accusation, Bani-Sadr laughed.
"What do you want?" he said. "That he should not deny it? I was president, and I know the details, and I am telling you for sure that he was there, though his role was not organizational. He was the chief reporter to Khamenei."
Sadr added that Ahmadinejad initially opposed the hostage-taking but changed his mind once Khomeini gave his support.
At least six former American hostages agree the president of Iran played a key role in interrogating and abusing them.

​

 

[Moonglow]

Yea who we planning on assassinating? What did we blow up? Did I miss the memo? I know all about how we botched Iran, but that doesn't mean you just let people blow shit up on your land.

If this is really your thought process... just let embassies and political assassinations happen in America you really are out of it.

So this isn't an act of war? attacking American allies in Iran's region on American Land? I don't care how you try to paint it you come off clueless and trying to do some thinking that is way over your head. You realize they hate the Saudi's and Israel because those are the only two powers who can counterbalance them in the region.... this isn't some righteous cause Iran is on, and it's inexcusable. Iran wants to control the middle east... and that would be disastrous.

we infected their computers that gring uranium with a virus, aka worm that ruined their ability to make fine grade uranium, as far as assasinations,Iam sure we still do it. Iiran is too weak to control anything but their own nation, they could not beat Iraq.
An as far as u claiming that they attacked our allies on US soil, their was no attack it was foiled.

Old news, and well known and understandable. I go back and forth but I'm not sure I want Iran to have nukes and this plot confirms it.

But split hairs on terminology, you know I know their was no attack carried out. When did intent mean anything I guess... I'd also say you are making a mistake in Iraq's strength and Iran's strength. Jordan, Syria, Hezbollah, Muslim Brotherhood... How do you think these countries and organizations have been supported for all these years? But you are right, Iran is just attacking out of necessity for their own security even though all evidence and statements they have point to they have been and are consistently on the offensive for the last 20 something years.

then the offensive has failed as usual for Iran.

 

[CT9]

^^We can agree on that... I just hope they continue to epitomize failure

 

[Moonglow]

I don't think Iran could beat itself

 

[freedombecki]

I don't think Iran could beat itself

Tell that to thousands of GIs who don't have a leg because a super Iranian IED, developed to screw Americans who reinforced our kids' hummers over there developed a bigger, nastier IED that killed and maimed as many innocent children in Iraq and Afghanistan as our men.

Iran has caused us a lot of lingering diminishment of our troops in Iraq.

They had to let American hostages go due to mounting world pressure, but they don't have to play nice with our troops anywhere in the world we go, and they stop at nothing to target and take out Americans every last waking moment of their days.

It's time to turn the tables on Iran. They're not learning much from polite treatment.

 

[Moonglow]

I don't think Iran could beat itself

Tell that to thousands of GIs who don't have a leg because a super Iranian IED, developed to screw Americans who reinforced our kids' hummers over there developed a bigger, nastier IED that killed and maimed as many innocent children in Iraq and Afghanistan as our men.

Iran has caused us a lot of lingering diminishment of our troops in Iraq.

They had to let American hostages go due to mounting world pressure, but they don't have to play nice with our troops anywhere in the world we go, and they stop at nothing to target and take out Americans every last waking moment of their days.

It's time to turn the tables on Iran. They're not learning much from polite treatment.

so u r saying we do nothing to Iran? IED's well just think of all US munitions which kill and maime innocent peoples,we are no better.

 

[The T]

Obama is too scared of Iran to do anything. Remember he tried to be friends with them

And apparently, they're not very worried about Obama.

Why should they be when on his World Apology Tour '09 he apologized for the US at Cairo University? We are seeing the effects.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In any case..it would be enormously stupid to knock over another middle eastern country.

True.

It is illustrative, however, of the fact that if we were to have gone to war with a given country in the ME or South Asia, Iran should be that country – rather than mucking about in Iraq or Afghanistan, seriously limiting our options with Iran.

Iran is clearly the source of much of the strife in the ME, its neutralization would have had a calming effect throughout the ME and South Asia.

And unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran has competent leaders ready to assume power, as well as a population devoted to democracy.

In this context, then, the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan were clearly the greatest foreign policy failures of the GWB administration.

 

[The T]

I don't think Iran could beat itself

You must have quite an affinity for the weird-beard Islamics over there and the Terrorists they have unleashed against us.

Wake the HELL up.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I have become very distrusting of this create a crisis government to get what you want. obama needs help for re-election what better way to join the right and the left together and raise his percentage points then say Iran has attacked us..
The left will support any aggression aginst Iran because it's obama, the right because the govenment told them we were under attack.
Just my opinion