Terrorists 'plan attack on Britain with bombs INSIDE their bodies&

[M.Dancer]

Go figure it out yourself.

I did. The fact that Iranians were the flesh and blood of the coupe goes against your anti western myths that you and the plastic shamans hold dear.

[Wilber]

It's parody Wilber, a satirical mimicking of the disingenuously obtuse. Perhaps the mods should do something about that too. What do you think?

You flatter yourself.

[DogOnPorch]

I heard about this long before Wikipedia even existed, story told to me by an Iranian friend. He lived there. Anecdotal, I know.

We can dispute the sources for our knowledge of history, all we want. And get nowhere. Peoples perception is all thats needed to make revolutions happen, not actual facts.

Ah...so you 'don't believe' the Shah came to the throne in 1941. How quaint.

We live in an age where facts have become opinions and opinions have become facts.

[Sir Bandelot]

Ah...so you 'don't believe' the Shah came to the throne in 1941. How quaint.

I have no idea what your on about. Why should I not believe that.

"Reza Shah was deposed in 1941 by an invasion of allied British and Soviet troops who believed him to be sympathetic with the allies' enemy Nazi Germany."

One sentence above the paragraph I pasted from link. Where's the inconsistency in this fact?

Why canst Johnny read?

(thrown in for your amusement)

[DogOnPorch]

Why your dear friend told you it was 1953...

[Sir Bandelot]

Why your dear friend told you it was 1953...

No, he didn't.

I think the timeline of events is clear. From the quote- "Thus foreign powers were involved in both the installation and restoration of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi."

I don't get it pooch. Where did we cross our lines on this. Or are you just blowing smoke (again)

[M.Dancer]

I don't see where Sir B is denying the 1941 event.

Kind of hard to, it's a matter of record.

[DogOnPorch]

I don't see where Sir B is denying the 1941 event.

Kind of hard to, it's a matter of record.

The common anti-western illusion has the Shah popping out of thin air around 1953...if Sir B. wants to actually admit the Shah arrived earlier than that as history records...that's great. One down...more to go...lol.

[Gabriel]

If desperation made suicide bombers, the Siege of Leningrad would have created thousands. As would have hundreds of other battles/conflicts. You need the carrot and stick to have suicide bombers. The reward of endless sex with dozens of willing women who don't mind that you smell like a goat.

Well said. The victims of that siege were more than likely much more desperate than any suicide bomber.

[DogOnPorch]

Well said. The victims of that siege were more than likely much more desperate than any suicide bomber.

It's all part of that "Islam is special. Don't piss it off. Walk on egg-shells when around it" crap.

Here's my favorite: throwing a shoe at a fellow's head is a sign of disrespect in Islam...unlike here in the West where it's what? A sign of praise??

[Michael Hardner]

"Had to" are the wrong words. "Did" is more correct. But, yes...perhaps you're too young to remember the full scope of the Cold War. Perhaps you're just being obtuse.

The scope of the Cold War was the planet. And it was used to rationalize a bunch of things that never should have happened. I even heard American diplomats and military types say that they felt the US overstated the threat of the Soviets, and did their cause more harm than good.

I haven't yet heard from anybody who thought they didn't go far enough.

[Gabriel]

It's all part of that "Islam is special. Don't piss it off. Walk on egg-shells when around it" crap.

Here's my favorite: throwing a shoe at a fellow's head is a sign of disrespect in Islam...unlike here in the West where it's what? A sign of praise??

I'm guessing it's some sort of old-school tribal machismo, thing. :-)

[DogOnPorch]

The scope of the Cold War was the planet. And it was used to rationalize a bunch of things that never should have happened. I even heard American diplomats and military types say that they felt the US overstated the threat of the Soviets, and did their cause more harm than good.

I haven't yet heard from anybody who thought they didn't go far enough.

World War 2 was used to rationalize a bunch of things that should have never happened.

The Soviets were plenty strong. The Russians still are but cut drastically in strength. Their ICBM technology is still a thing to be truely feared to this day. Imagine a terrorist getting his mits on one of these.

Yez don't want one of those visiting your neighborhood.

[DogOnPorch]

I'm guessing it's some sort of old-school tribal machismo, thing. :-)

I'm guessing you're right. It's more the media that grabs something like that and gives it life. Repeat over and over...

[BubberMiley]

It's all part of that "Islam is special. Don't piss it off. Walk on egg-shells when around it" crap.

I agree. Some people on this board seem to think Islam has special powers, the way they fear it. They're still quivering over those 19 nerds with box cutters 10 years later.

[DogOnPorch]

I agree. Some people on this board seem to think Islam has special powers, the way they fear it. They're still quivering over those 19 nerds with box cutters 10 years later.

I see. Just 'some people on this board', eh? Pointless strawman, btw.

[jbg]

I agree. Some people on this board seem to think Islam has special powers, the way they fear it. They're still quivering over those 19 nerds with box cutters 10 years later.

Those 19 nerds managed to kill approximately 2700 people with little or nothing to do with Islam's quarrel with the West.

[eyeball]

Those 19 nerds managed to kill approximately 2700 people with little or nothing to do with Islam's quarrel with the West.

No, those 19 nerds managed to kill approximately 2700 people with little or nothing to do with their government's interference in Muslim countries.

[jbg]

No, those 19 nerds managed to kill approximately 2700 people with little or nothing to do with their government's interference in Muslim countries.

Soemthing I'm not getting. Muslims can live in Western lands. Westerners can't live in Muslim lands. Muslim lands can interfere with non-Muslim lands by constantly fomenting wars and terror on countries bordering the Ummah, or countries who are perceived to be interfering in their affairs. They can, indeed, kill innocent civilians with impunity. And yet somehow it's not O.K. for their to be collateral civilian casualties when the West attempts to stop the madness, or protect their own safety?

Something I'm not getting.

[Peter F]

Something I'm not getting.

Indeed.

They can, indeed, kill innocent civilians with impunity.

What leads you to that conclusion?

yet somehow it's not O.K. for their to be collateral civilian casualties when the West attempts to stop the madness, or protect their own safety?

First off, you assume killing terrorists stops the madness. You accept that killing civilians in the process is ok as long as you get the terrorists too. Im sure you would say that civilians killed getting terrorists is a regrettable yet necessary evil.

The USofA amongst others, has been killing terrorists for at least eight years now, and they have been killing quite a few civilians in the process. Yet the madness continues.

You, and many others, seem to believe that killing civilians has no effect on the surviving civilians.

Do you not think its possible that the relatives of dead collateral damage will perhaps, maybe, develop a resentment against western do-gooders in F-16's? Particularly in a tribal society?

Everytime a civilian is killed - accidently or as part of an acceptable level of collateral damage - killing a terrorist, basically renders the killing of the terrorist moot. In fact, I think the west would be better off leaving the terrorist alive rather than risk dead civilians in the process of getting him. There will be another opportunity.

The above applies to the terrorist too. Every time they kill civilians they burn thier own bridges in exactly the same manner.

Seems to me, all this killin over the last 7-8 years hasnt really changed the terrorist threat level any.

Lord knows how many 'High-level' al-queda or taliban guys have been smoked by raids and predator drones.

Yet the madness continues.

Edited February 8, 2010 by Peter F

[bush_cheney2004]

...Yet the madness continues.

You post this as if there was any expectation for "the madness" to stop. More significantly, you have created an arbitrary beginning for the entire process. What do you propose instead...a Truth Commission?

[Peter F]

You post this as if there was any expectation for "the madness" to stop. More significantly, you have created an arbitrary beginning for the entire process. What do you propose instead...a Truth Commission?

Hmmm. Good point. I really did have the expectation that the madness would stop. Foolish of me, now that you mention it.

Since not-killing civilians will have no effect, we may as well keep killing civilians.

A Truth Commission is a great idea!

[bush_cheney2004]

Hmmm. Good point. I really did have the expectation that the madness would stop. Foolish of me, now that you mention it.

Since not-killing civilians will have no effect, we may as well keep killing civilians.

Why did you have such an expectation? And why is your time horizon so limited in both directions? Clearly, "not killing civilians" will not eradicate "terrorism".

A Truth Commission is a great idea!

I just knew you would like that.

[Peter F]

Why did you have such an expectation?

Optimism, I think. Perhaps wishfull thinking. Mixed in with some actual sympathy for those whose near & dear get killed by idiotic action. Those things along with other boring emotional reactions to others undergoing needless pain and suffering.

And why is your time horizon so limited in both directions?

Limited timeline? What are you talking about? I expected an end to terrorism within 20 minutes as opposed to 10+ years with the 'collateral damage is acceptable' scenario we see cranking out its day-by-day progress. Perhaps you mean I am foolish to expect a timeline? Perhaps you are right. Perhaps 'as long as it takes' would be sufficient.

That is to say; Method A - kill terrorists and civilians until terrorism eradicated (as long as it takes)

Method B - kill terrorists but not civilians until terrorism eradicated (as long as it takes)

Method B appeals to me.

Clearly, "not killing civilians" will not eradicate "terrorism".

I agree that that is very likely true. But it wasn't my point. My point was that killing civilians does not eradicate terrorism.

[bush_cheney2004]

Optimism, I think. Perhaps wishfull thinking. Mixed in with some actual sympathy for those whose near & dear get killed by idiotic action. Those things along with other boring emotional reactions to others undergoing needless pain and suffering.

"Near and dear" are killed for a myriad of reasons far too numerous for your limited supply of sympathy, many you are completely unaware of. So it becomes some abstract notion for you to champion, regardless of the circumstances....from WW2 fire bombings to Haitian eathquakes. You can't save all the "civilians".

Limited timeline? What are you talking about? I expected an end to terrorism within 20 minutes as opposed to 10+ years with the 'collateral damage is acceptable' scenario we see cranking out its day-by-day progress. Perhaps you mean I am foolish to expect a timeline? Perhaps you are right. Perhaps 'as long as it takes' would be sufficient.

I was specifically referring to your fixation on the past 8 - 10 years, as if your narrow awareness defines the total terrorism domain.

That is to say; Method A - kill terrorists and civilians until terrorism eradicated (as long as it takes)

Method B - kill terrorists but not civilians until terrorism eradicated (as long as it takes)

Method B appeals to me.

Method B is not technically possible, if only because its effects that ultimately become Method A.

I agree that that is very likely true. But it wasn't my point. My point was that killing civilians does not eradicate terrorism.

That's OK.....because in the end there is no such thing as a "civilian".