a few thoughts

[DKSuddeth]

As I was driving home from work today and listening to sean hannity, some things were said that I had not heard recently. Sean had the author of 'End Game' on his show and they were talking about the 8 states that sponsor terrorism. They placed Iran at the center of these 8 states. One of the things that this general said was that Iran had publicly stated that they would nuke Israel if given the chance. Now, I remember YEARS ago that this had been said by them, but I had thought that since the end of the cold war and the iranian leadership had somewhat changed that this was no longer a stance that Iran had taken.

Am I wrong and just have been out of the loop? If so, someone point some links out that has this kind of information please.

thanks.

 

[acludem]

Yes, since the revolution that put Ayatollah Khomeni in power, Iran has been a major source of terrorism. Iran is an absolutist theocracy, now run by successors to Khomeni who is long-since dead, and is a major state sponsor of terrorism. That's one of the reasons why the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s.

acludem

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by acludem
Yes, since the revolution that put Ayatollah Khomeni in power, Iran has been a major source of terrorism. Iran is an absolutist theocracy, now run by successors to Khomeni who is long-since dead, and is a major state sponsor of terrorism. That's one of the reasons why the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s.

While I thank you for that information Aclu, I wasn't THAT out of the loop. I was active duty marine corps during that iran/iraq thing. I was hoping to get more up to date information.

 

[Comrade]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
As I was driving home from work today and listening to sean hannity, some things were said that I had not heard recently. Sean had the author of 'End Game' on his show and they were talking about the 8 states that sponsor terrorism. They placed Iran at the center of these 8 states. One of the things that this general said was that Iran had publicly stated that they would nuke Israel if given the chance. Now, I remember YEARS ago that this had been said by them, but I had thought that since the end of the cold war and the iranian leadership had somewhat changed that this was no longer a stance that Iran had taken.

Am I wrong and just have been out of the loop? If so, someone point some links out that has this kind of information please.
thanks.

Not too out of the loop, it's just one of those news items that doesn't hit the liberal airwaves:


RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAEL

http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2001/dec_2001/rafsanjani_nuke_threats_141201.htm

Note the date is AFTER 9-11! That's very ballsy! It's also one of many good reasons why Iran was part of the Axis of Evil in the 2002 STOU Speech under Bush.


But words alone do not a terrorist nation make, what's more dangerous from Iran is it's actions.



A Secret Iran-Arafat Connection Is Seen Fueling the Mideast Fire
http://www.hvk.org/articles/0302/101.html

Iran Implicated by Captain In Seized Weapons Shipment
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A16637-2002Jan8?language=printer

And many links to their role in nuclear proliferation, and development of their own weapon program.



All Mullahs in Iran support terror. It is what keeps them in power.

 

[DKSuddeth]

thanks comrade, very helpful to me.

 

[Comrade]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
thanks comrade, very helpful to me.

Since Moscow helped arrange the contacts between Palestine and Iran, is the cold war really over?



Also it's just my impression, but since Iran found itself surrounded by US forces, they've seemed awfully quite with the fatwas, haven't they?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Comrade
Since Moscow helped arrange the contacts between Palestine and Iran, is the cold war really over?

looks iffy now

Also it's just my impression, but since Iran found itself surrounded by US forces, they've seemed awfully quite with the fatwas, haven't they?

would seem to be the case.

I've got more looking to do when I've got time, this all got very interesting to me now.

 

[kimforw]

I don't know if you ever listen to "Glenn Beck" (AM Radio) but he has been pounding on this issue and the fact that Iran is "the head of the snake" so to speak. There is probably an article or two on his website www.glennbeck.com I haven't checked yet.

 

[preemptingyou03]

When Jimmy Carter turned his back on the Shah, Iran became a terrorist haven, and we were then forced to side with the lesser of two evils... Iraq.

To this day, Iran sponsors Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and is sheltering al-Qaeda operatives such as Saif al-Adel and Saad bin Laden, Osama's son.

They also probably have chemical and biological agents, or will have them soon, and they will be a nuclear power by 2008. Out of those eight sponsors of terrorism you listed, five of them no longer sponsor terrorism, and North Korea, doesn't really fund Islamic terrorists, mainly because they aren't Islamic.

Iran and Syria are our big problems. But a nuclear Kim Jong Il can't be overlooked.

 

[Annie]

http://www.spiritofamerica.net/req_12/request.html

This is a good idea, one that should probably be paid for by the CIA but since the Navy is doing it, what the heck.


fixed your link for you kathianne

 

[Zhukov]

I believe it continues to be the position of the ruling Mullahs that as soon as they are capable they will launch nuclear missiles at Israel, which is why I believe we may see an attack against any Iranian nuclear interests by the Israelis in that not too distant future. Like they did with Iraq.

Israel must be wiped off the map.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-09/23/content_266771.htm

 

[Annie]

Thanks DK.

fixed your link for you kathianne

 

[acludem]

Actually terrorism exploded in Iran when we granted asylum to the Shah. That was the reason why the embassy was taken over.

Iran is a major sponsor of terror, which is why it would have made much more sense to invade them instead of Iraq. Iran doesn't just sponsor terrorism against Israel, though. Iran is a Shi'ite Muslim country and also supports terrorism against Sunni countries (i.e. Iraq). Iran is sort of the pariah of the Muslim middle east. There are two reasons for this, one is that most Iranians are not Arabs, they are of Persian decent, and two is that they are the only Shi'ite majority country.

acludem

 

[Annie]

Iran is a major sponsor of terrorism. You are correct. They should be near the top of the list.

 

[insein]

Originally posted by acludem
Actually terrorism exploded in Iran when we granted asylum to the Shah. That was the reason why the embassy was taken over.

Iran is a major sponsor of terror, which is why it would have made much more sense to invade them instead of Iraq. Iran doesn't just sponsor terrorism against Israel, though. Iran is a Shi'ite Muslim country and also supports terrorism against Sunni countries (i.e. Iraq). Iran is sort of the pariah of the Muslim middle east. There are two reasons for this, one is that most Iranians are not Arabs, they are of Persian decent, and two is that they are the only Shi'ite majority country.

acludem

http://www.eduplace.com/ss/maps/pdf/cent_swasia.pdf

Simple Geography will show you that iraq has access to both Syria and Iran on the ground. In a War on terror, eliminating the current government and establishing a base in Iraq is a good strategic plan.