Iranian Prez Wanna-be Planned Beirut Marine Bombings

[tim huntzinger]

http://www.[REDACTED]com/neo-cons-are-cheerleading-for-a-terrorist-who-helped-kill-hundreds-of-us-marines.html

'The horrible irony to arise out of the riots and protests in Iran is that many Neo-Cons and phony conservatives, in their unified effort to enthusiastically embrace the Anglo-American establishment's agenda for regime change, are cheerleading for a brutal thug who directed a terrorist campaign that killed hundreds of U.S. Marines in the 1980's.

'This once again proves that slack-jawed Neo-Con twits, ditto-heads for phony conservative media whores like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, have no loyalty whatsoever to America, but only to the corrupt power structure which they like to believe they are a part of.

'Apparently, the new form of 'patriotism', the new incarnation of 'support the troops' - is to support someone who helped massacre hundreds of U.S. troops just two decades ago.

'We are referring of course to Mir-Hossein Mousavi, the former Prime Minister of Iran who directed the bloody attacks on the U.S. embassy and Marine Corps barracks in Beirut in 1983. Sold by the media and hailed by Neo-Cons as the avatar of Iranian democracy, Mousavi was also "fingered for the 1988 truck bombing of the U.S. Navy's Fleet Center in Naples, Italy, that killed five persons, including the first Navy woman to die in a terrorist attack.'

Woo-hoo, go 'Green revolution!'  The purge worked excellently!  Every mole, dissident, discordant voice of opposition has now been identified and eliminated.  Not only has Mahmood and the death cult running Iran consolidated their power, they did both without risking any real change.

[FOTD]

http://www.[REDACTED]com/neo-cons-are-cheerleading-for-a-terrorist-who-helped-kill-hundreds-of-us-marines.html

'The horrible irony to arise out of the riots and protests in Iran is that many Neo-Cons and phony conservatives, in their unified effort to enthusiastically embrace the Anglo-American establishment's agenda for regime change, are cheerleading for a brutal thug who directed a terrorist campaign that killed hundreds of U.S. Marines in the 1980's.

'This once again proves that slack-jawed Neo-Con twits, ditto-heads for phony conservative media whores like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, have no loyalty whatsoever to America, but only to the corrupt power structure which they like to believe they are a part of.

'Apparently, the new form of 'patriotism', the new incarnation of 'support the troops' - is to support someone who helped massacre hundreds of U.S. troops just two decades ago.

'We are referring of course to Mir-Hossein Mousavi, the former Prime Minister of Iran who directed the bloody attacks on the U.S. embassy and Marine Corps barracks in Beirut in 1983. Sold by the media and hailed by Neo-Cons as the avatar of Iranian democracy, Mousavi was also "fingered for the 1988 truck bombing of the U.S. Navy's Fleet Center in Naples, Italy, that killed five persons, including the first Navy woman to die in a terrorist attack.'

Woo-hoo, go 'Green revolution!'  The purge worked excellently!  Every mole, dissident, discordant voice of opposition has now been identified and eliminated.  Not only has Mahmood and the death cult running Iran consolidated their power, they did both without risking any real change.

You must have FOTD on ignore or don't look at my posts....old newz

[tim huntzinger]

You must have FOTD on ignore or don't look at my posts....old newz

Too much BS to really weed through.  This is fascinating in its own right.  Not one person I have told this to has any idea that this is the case.  Everyone knows 'Iran' but this is a critical nugget of information.  After your 'c*ntry' remark you really deserve to be ignored or have some woman just plow a hammer into your nads, but I do not ignore you straight-out.

[cannon_fodder]

Why do you redact your sources?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/neo-cons-are-cheerleading-for-a-terrorist-who-helped-kill-hundreds-of-us-marines.html

Either stand by your sources or don't use them.  In this instance, I would suggest not using it.  I notice the article continuously says things are "a proven fact and not even open for debate" but never cites a single verifiable source.  I can't say if it is true or not, because the article is so worthless it can not be verified.


Either find a source you are willing to stand behind, or don't bother posting it.

(as a side note: it wouldn't surprise me a bit if it is true and certain conservative elements turn a blind eye.  Politics and hypocrisy are almost synonyms.)

[tim huntzinger]

Why do you redact your sources?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/neo-cons-are-cheerleading-for-a-terrorist-who-helped-kill-hundreds-of-us-marines.html

Either stand by your sources or don't use them.  In this instance, I would suggest not using it.  I notice the article continuously says things are "a proven fact and not even open for debate" but never cites a single verifiable source.  I can't say if it is true or not, because the article is so worthless it can not be verified.


Either find a source you are willing to stand behind, or don't bother posting it.


(as a side note: it wouldn't surprise me a bit if it is true and certain conservative elements turn a blind eye.  Politics and hypocrisy are almost synonyms.)

Ha ha ha! You fell for it!  THIS IS WHY: 1) to waste your time 2) to demonstrate that all you do is a surface level web search to develop your theses.  In this case the article cites the whacky CONGRESSIONAL POLITICS! (http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/spytalk/2009/06/mousavi-celebrated-in-iranian.html) Their source? Former CIA station chief Robert Baer! AND some dude name Lyons who was the deputy chief of Naval Operations in 1983!

But noooooo you are more intent on trying to lord your infinite wisdom over anyone and everyone that you are too dense to even see the truth.  WAKE UP!

[cannon_fodder]

Ha ha ha! You fell for it!  THIS IS WHY: 1) to waste your time 2) to demonstrate that all you do is a surface level web search to develop your theses.  . . . But noooooo you are more intent on trying to lord your infinite wisdom over anyone and everyone that you are too dense to even see the truth.  WAKE UP!

I reviewed the article again, I still saw no citations to verifiable sources.

But your plan was brilliant.  Steal an article from a fringe source, obscure the source itself, and then post the entire article.  That way, when people with credibility read it they will disclaim it.  Then, you can jump in with the REAL source after everyone has discounted the intent of your post.  Brilliant!

And why would I do more than surface research on a cut and paste with no citation?  You're lucky I did that much.

[tim huntzinger]

I reviewed the article again, I still saw no citations to verifiable sources.

But your plan was brilliant.  Steal an article from a fringe source, obscure the source itself, and then post the entire article.  That way, when people with credibility read it they will disclaim it.  Then, you can jump in with the REAL source after everyone has discounted the intent of your post.  Brilliant!

And why would I do more than surface research on a cut and paste with no citation?  You're lucky I did that much.

Let us be sure we are staying on topic.  The wanna-be prez is complicit with the Beirut bombings - according to a former Naval Ops deputy director and former CIA station chief.  Those comments were reported by Congressional Quarterly.  Swake wants to take the word of an Iranian who probably shares complicity in any number of crimes.  And who is credible here?

This is like the swine flu thread where I was accused of making up the fact that there will be a rebound outbreak six months after the initial one.  Forget who disputed that but it was in the article that someone had posted in that thread from the NYT!  But somehow my 'credibility' became the issue! Amazing.

So you agree that I should be called vile names and harassed?  That is suitable and proper conversation?

EDIT: look closely and you will see a 'link' to the original source material.  Amazing.

[cannon_fodder]

Great, lets stay on topic.

What's your point?

That politicians are hypocrites?  Agreed.  On both sides of the aisle.

That this Iranian president wanna-be has probably done things Americans are not fond of?  Sure.  If not the bombings you are accusing him of, he has been a prominent head in Iran for a long while.  I'm sure he isn't on our favorite person list.

So what?  Are you arguing we should not support the protests?  We should be OK with a government shooting people who peaceably assemble?  What's your point here?

And finally, you admit that you obscured your source in an effort to frustrate peoples ability to verify the information in an attempt to belittle them.  So why would I now go back over that material in an attempt to verify your new claims?  I won't.  By attempting to review your source material I was mocked:  lesson learned, don't bother reviewing the material.

Which is a fantastic lesson to teach and then preach about trying to hold a meaningful dialogue.   I haven't harassed you in any way.  I haven't called you any vile names.  So stay on the topic you created.

[Admin]

Stay on topic boys.

[FOTD]

Let us be sure we are staying on topic.  The wanna-be prez is complicit with the Beirut bombings - according to a former Naval Ops deputy director and former CIA station chief.  Those comments were reported by Congressional Quarterly.  Swake wants to take the word of an Iranian who probably shares complicity in any number of crimes.  And who is credible here?

This is like the swine flu thread where I was accused of making up the fact that there will be a rebound outbreak six months after the initial one.  Forget who disputed that but it was in the article that someone had posted in that thread from the NYT!  But somehow my 'credibility' became the issue! Amazing.

So you agree that I should be called vile names and harassed?  That is suitable and proper conversation?

EDIT: look closely and you will see a 'link' to the original source material.  Amazing.

Knowa thing,

With regard to whining about name calling. This can be solved by you ignoring it. FOTD has been there and done that. You just can't take things personally. The devil instructs me and he sez let it go. He added that the vile name calling is a reflection on the giver. Receive and repel...

Our intelligence apparatus may indeed be using this guy as a prop.

And who is credible here? Is a good question. But are you talking about TNF or Iran or CIA or just what?

When this story was posted earlier this week on another thread, it went without comment because the source has not been validated. Or maybe it's a manipulation in the great chess game being conducted inside the White House. The question of being a terrorist is secondary to the main objective. POTUS OBAMA has done a tremendous job staying in the background.

[tim huntzinger]

Great, lets stay on topic.

What's your point?

That politicians are hypocrites?  Agreed.  On both sides of the aisle.

That this Iranian president wanna-be has probably done things Americans are not fond of?  Sure.  If not the bombings you are accusing him of, he has been a prominent head in Iran for a long while.  I'm sure he isn't on our favorite person list.

So what?  Are you arguing we should not support the protests?  We should be OK with a government shooting people who peaceably assemble?  What's your point here?

And finally, you admit that you obscured your source in an effort to frustrate peoples ability to verify the information in an attempt to belittle them.  So why would I now go back over that material in an attempt to verify your new claims?  I won't.  By attempting to review your source material I was mocked:  lesson learned, don't bother reviewing the material.

Which is a fantastic lesson to teach and then preach about trying to hold a meaningful dialogue.   I haven't harassed you in any way.  I haven't called you any vile names.  So stay on the topic you created.

CF: I redacted the source so you would react the way you did.  YOU specifically.  Thank you!  Sorry that I have been called bigoted names, harassed, ridiculed, the whole nine yards and am sick of it.  If this is happening to me and this topic how many times has it happened to other threads and posters? This is important because on these large issues our back and forth do not make much difference.  But in the more local issues we have people who have vested interests in confusing issues, demeaning opposition, and shutting down any kind of truth-telling. Remember it is allllll about credibility.  And silence when bad things are done to people is complicity in the injustice.  I do not need or want your kind of 'dialogue.'  The time for talking and negotiating is long gone.  You have your closed mind and I do not appreciate your attempts to discredit me for whatever your reasons are.  Just keep your distance here and we should get along just fine.

SWAKE: Let us be clear, you believe a former high-ranking flunky of the Islamic Republic over a CIA station chief and deputy director of Naval Operations because you heard it on NPR.  Do I got that right?

FOTD: If you think objecting to being the subject of discrimatory hate speech is 'whining' well then you are entitled to your opinion.

[swake]

I don't know that I believe the former deputy prime minister but I also don't think you should immediately assume that every one in Iran's government is guilty of something, which is what you are doing and seems to be what the former station chief and rear admiral are doing. If the recent events have taught you anything it's that the government is not in charge in Iran and military and revolutionary guard in Iran answer only to the Clerics.


My thinking is in line with Cannon's, this is Iran, there's nobody in charge we are going to really like. The only people even allowed to appear on the ballots are people that for the most part were revolutionaries that helped overthrow our puppet government in Iran 30 years ago. This is not a group of people with a lot of love for the United States. We need to accept the lesser of two evils here. Painting everything in black and white terms sounds great on stupid conspiracy web sites but it doesn't work in the real world.  Iran is dangerous and regime change is in our best interests because even if the new potential rulers are bad, the current ones are actually the worst case scenario and are much worse than "bad".

[Townsend]

Remember it is allllll about credibility.  And silence when bad things are done to people is complicity in the injustice.  I do not need or want your kind of 'dialogue.'  The time for talking and negotiating is long gone.  You have your closed mind and I do not appreciate your attempts to discredit me for whatever your reasons are.  Just keep your distance here and we should get along just fine.

Credibility?  You talk to yourself on the Forum you tootsie roll.

Know Nothing
City Father

Offline

Posts: 1608



        World War 3? What the funk?
« Reply #25 on: October 19, 2007, 09:26:51 am » Quote 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by tim huntzinger

Here is one to chew on: if the liberal left needs to keep the poor and downtrodden 'down' in order for the liberal left to maintain power, what state of affairs does the right need to maintain its power?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



What an interesting question, Tim.  Why, the military industrial complex needs a constant state of war to sustain itself.

Iran does not need to be bombed into the stone age, as this would only reinforce and galvanize the Shia's desire for martydom.

[tim huntzinger]

Credibility?  You talk to yourself on the Forum you tootsie roll.

And you go back two and a half years to make your point! I can go back days and demonstrate that you are a hateful, discriminatory poster with nothing more to do than harass me.  What is significant about that post is that it is when I started my progression from Chicken Hawk to whatever I am now.

Swake you are certainly entitled to prioritize whom you will believe over another for whatever reasons you choose.  I choose the naval ops and CIA station chief over a former top leader of the Iranian Republic. I know I know it is pretty close in terms of whom is worse between our military and the IRNA civilian leadership but I will choose to hold my nose and believe OUR people over THEIR people.

[rwarn17588]

And you go back two and a half years to make your point! I can go back days and demonstrate that you are a hateful, discriminatory poster with nothing more to do than harass me. 

No, it's not harassment. It's called holding you accountable.