Iran terrorism

Mjolnir

Registered User
Forum Member
May 15, 2003
3,747
11
0
S. CAL.
to bad we didn't know about this ahead of time. could a dropped one and turned this whole area into supermans dads apartment on krypton. to quote Dennis Miller

w120250.html
 
Last edited:

Mjolnir

Registered User
Forum Member
May 15, 2003
3,747
11
0
S. CAL.
screwed up trying to paste cbc news article re: 200 men & women pledging to carry out suicide bombings against israel & america. its on drudge
 

danmurphy jr

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 14, 2004
2,966
5
0
Someone who needs to quote Dennis Miller is in desperates. The Zionists are the largest terrorist organization on the planet.
 

danmurphy jr

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 14, 2004
2,966
5
0
big trouble, when one needs 150,000 troops to deal with 3,000 insurgents who have no technology other than RPGs and car bombs. I'd be worried too. They estimate an occupationa. US force for another 7 years. Your 11 year olds will be ducking car bombs unless WW3 starting in July 05 does us all in.
 

spibble spab

NEOCON
Forum Member
Apr 16, 2004
657
0
0
47
Concord, Michigan
danmurphy jr said:
big trouble, when one needs 150,000 troops to deal with 3,000 insurgents who have no technology other than RPGs and car bombs. I'd be worried too. They estimate an occupationa. US force for another 7 years. Your 11 year olds will be ducking car bombs unless WW3 starting in July 05 does us all in.



Again. This above comment is a fine example of how one can talk out their anus. Spew out some numbers and the lemmings will jive with it. RPGs KILL PEOPLE AND TROOPS. CAR BOMBS KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE AND TROOPS. DO you think the Muslim extremists give a flying phuck about Geneva? Bad show man. go back to common sense school. Don't be reckless. :nono:
 

RAYMOND

Registered
Forum Member
Jul 31, 2000
45,601
912
113
usa
New Missiles

By BARRY SCHWEID
WASHINGTON (AP) - Interception of several technology shipments to Iran has bolstered U.S. suspicions that Iran is secretly developing an intercontinental ballistic missile that could threaten Europe and possibly the United States.

An intelligence report this week to Congress said North Korea, China and parts of the former Soviet Union provided Iran through the end of last year with ballistic-missile equipment, technology and expertise.

The report said Iran, in trying to improve existing missiles, was ``also pursuing longer-range ballistic missiles.''

A well-placed Bush administration official told The Associated Press on Thursday that U.S. interceptions had strengthened U.S. suspicions that Iran was trying to develop an intercontinental missile that could reach Europe and possibly the United States.

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, declined to specify what material was intercepted and to identify the countries that sought to help Iran.

But he said North Korea, China and Russia all have contributed technology to Iran for its existing Shahab-3 missile, which has a range of about 600 miles and is believed capable of carrying nuclear weapons.

An Iranian spokesman at the United Nations in New York has been quoted as denying that Iran was developing a ballistic missile with a range beyond 1,250 miles.

The U.S. official said the project was being cloaked in terms of work on a space-launched booster missile.

The official said Iran was trying to expand the range of the Shahab-3 missile, which is a replica of a North Korean missile, so it could travel 1,250 miles.

Both newer missiles would be capable of carrying nuclear warheads as well as chemical and biological weapons, he said.

Secretary of State Colin Powell last month said Iran was trying to adapt missiles to deliver nuclear weapons.

``I have seen some information that would agree that they have been actively working on delivery systems,'' Powell said.

This week's intelligence report to Congress said, ``Iran continued to vigorously pursue indigenous programs to produce nuclear, chemical and biological weapons'' and that Iran ``is also working to improve delivery systems.''

Daryl Kimball, president of the private Arms Control Association, said, ``It would not be surprising that Iranian engineers may be conducting paper studies of longer-range missiles.''

But, he added, there was a great difference between a paper study and a proven missile capability.

Kimball said there were substantial technical difficulties in building a longer-range missile that also could carry nuclear warheads.

``So we must be cautious in these estimates and understand that Iran is still years off from a proven capability for intercontinental ballistic missiles,'' he said.

Iran has promised to temporarily suspend all programs, including enrichment of uranium, that could be involved in developing nuclear weapons.

President Bush has called the promise a positive first step. But he also insisted on international verification and on a permanent halt of the programs.

Diplomats told The Associated Press in Vienna, the headquarters of the International Atomic Energy Agency, that Iran may be hiding equipment bought by its military that could be used in a nuclear weapons program despite the promised freeze.

Iran also has not responded to or denied IAEA requests for inspections at or complete lists of components used at suspect military sites, the diplomats said.

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Thursday, ``We would expect Iran to comply with all requests.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,485
161
63
Bowling Green Ky
"big trouble, when one needs 150,000 troops to deal with 3,000 insurgents who have no technology other than RPGs and car bombs. I'd be worried too. They estimate an occupationa. US force for another 7 years. Your 11 year olds will be ducking car bombs unless WW3 starting in July 05 does us all in."

It doesn't take 150,000 to fight 3,000 witnessed by about 25 to 1 kill ratio--it takes that many troops to finds cowards that run and hide like rats. Amusing thing is while they look down on women they would not and could not fight a unit of U.S. women in direct combat. They would crawl off and hide--and same goes for Bin Laden. Now take innocent unarmed civilians and they get a little courage. Ever notice that U.S. troops are equiped with gogles around their neck--they use them to keep dust out of their eyes from retreating terrorist.

Ironic that Spain liberals turn election on fear of these jackels then get rewarded by being hit 4 times today and still counting.
 

TonyTT

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2002
353
1
0
71
Ohio
danmurphy,

I'm just curious as to why you believe ww3 starts next summer. I believe I've seen you post this before. What makes you think that?

TT
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
Dogs, they fight like that because it works. Many knew that going in. But guys like Franks and the rest of the Bush Crime Family chose to ignore those facts. During Shock and Awe what were they supposed to do? The retreated and hid to fight another day. They simply outsmarted Bush and Rumsfeld and Franks.
They do not chose to fight us weapon for weapon because they cant. Don't forget the Soviet Union iimploded. The same is happening here. This country is going broke. The dollar is falling like a stone as the deficit gets bigger and bigger and we keep sending more and more money and men over to Iraq and for what? Saddam is gone and there were no WMD's. So you tell me why we are there? Why have we not found Bin Laden?
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,910
135
63
16
L.A.
I wish the country would actually face those questions, Steve.

We can call people cowards and talk about defending freedom all we want. All is fair in love and war - it always has been and always will be. That we invade a country, topple it's government (however tyranical), and then bitch about the tactics of the insurgents is embarrassing proof that we didn't know what we were getting into. Were we expecting the enemy to fight fair? What is fair? Did we fight the British fairly in the Revolution when we hid behind trees instead of lining up in the open like them?

We are in deep now. How will we handle Iran if military action is needed? Should we draft? Should we nuke? How will we win from this point on?
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,485
161
63
Bowling Green Ky
1st guestion is why the obsession with Bin Laden--he has done squat in last two years because most his top dogs are dead or imprisoned. Its Islamic fanatics in general that are world wide threat and if you think bringing democracy and setting up bases in their heartland getting new allies as Pakistan-Suadi's-Turkey-Yemin-Lybia ect aiding is this fight is not effective in this fight I don't know what to tell you.

On national debt---if compared to GNP it is almost identicle to that in Clintons 1st years till the dot.com bubble exposion--and taking into consideration of of the bubble burst--wars--catastrophes to pay for (911 and hurricanes) I would say we are in unbelievable shape. Here is good read--if too boring skip to chart at bottom.
http://www.nutri.com/wn/nd.html

--declining dollar??is that bad--if your looking at adjusting trade deficeit it sure isn't.
If you don't believe me take a look at stock market since fall--there are certainly a lot of people in the know that expect corporate profits to continue--granted fall in price of oil was another contributing factor.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"I wish the country would actually face those questions, Steve.

We can call people cowards and talk about defending freedom all we want. All is fair in love and war - it always has been and always will be. That we invade a country, topple it's government (however tyranical), and then bitch about the tactics of the insurgents is embarrassing proof that we didn't know what we were getting into. Were we expecting the enemy to fight fair? What is fair? Did we fight the British fairly in the Revolution when we hid behind trees instead of lining up in the open like them?"

Brilliant--if all is fair in love and war-- than I can assume you have no prob with us leveling the middle east to a parking lot--would be more cost efficient anf think of the kill ratio.

---and did we fight the British fairly--how does even the left come up with this comparison??????--because we shot from behind trees--that equates to targeting civilians and beheading same??
I think your having post election anxiety ;)
 

Chanman

:-?PipeSmokin'
Forum Member
Thomas Sowell, Stanford University

WHen liberals in the media or in politics start being alarmed about the national debt, it means just one thing: They want higher taxes. The thought of reducing spending would never cross their minds.

As we are endlessly reminded, the federal government's debt has reached record levels during the Bush administration. That enables the liberal media to use their favourite word -- "crisis" -- and adds urgency to doing their favourite thing, raising taxes.

Since we have a larger population than ever and a larger national income than ever, it should hardly be surprising that we also have a larger national debt than ever. But what does it mean?

Donald Trump probably has a bigger debt than I do -- and less reason to worry about it. Debt means nothing unless you compare it to your income or wealth.

How does our national debt today compare to our national income? It is lower than it was a decade ago, during the Clinton administration, when liberals did not seem nearly as panicked as they seem today.

As a percentage of the national income, the national debt today is less than half of what it was in 1950 and about where it was in 1940 -- back in those "earlier and simpler times."

If someone were to produce a political dictionary, "crisis" would be defined as a desire to pass a law and "national debt" would be defined as a desire to raise taxes. And the two in combination would mean a desire to discredit the existing administration.

If it seems that raising taxes is the only way to reduce the national debt, at least when so much spending is mandated by "entitlement" programs, that only shows the need for an economic dictionary. "Taxes" is one of those treacherous words with more than one meaning, enabling politicians to shift back and forth between meanings when they talk.

Unless spending is reduced, then of course more tax revenues are necessary in order to reduce a deficit or bring down a debt. But tax revenues and tax rates are two different things, even though the same word -- "taxes" -- is used to refer to both.

What "tax cuts" cut is the tax rate. But tax revenues can rise, fall, or stay the same when tax rates are cut. Everything depends on what happens to income.

Tax revenues rose after the Kennedy tax cuts of the 1960s and the Reagan tax cuts of the 1980s because incomes rose. Incomes are likewise rising during the Bush administration today.

If Congress can just reduce the rate of increase in spending, rising tax revenues can reduce the deficit and eventually eliminate it. But of course that will not give liberals an excuse to raise tax rates or even to denounce "tax cuts for the rich."

There was a time when the purpose of taxes was to pay for the inevitable costs of government. To the political left, however, taxes have long been seen as a way to redistribute income and finance other social experiments based on liberal ideology.

Given that agenda, it is hardly surprising that some of the biggest spending liberals can go into hysterics over the national debt, especially when that debt exists under a conservative administration of the opposite party.

This does not mean that nothing needs to be done about the national debt or about our tax system. A lot could be done about both -- but it would not be what liberals want done.

Promoting the growth of the national economy would be one of the fastest and best ways of reducing national debt. We could, for example, stop letting little bands of self-righteous activists stifle the building of homes or businesses under "open space" laws or stop the drilling of oil off-shore, on shore, or anywhere else.

As for taxes, we could stop taxing productivity and start taxing consumption. After all, productivity is what makes a society more prosperous.

Someone who is adding to the total wealth of this country is not depriving you of anything. But someone who is consuming the nation's wealth, without contributing anything to it, is. Yet our tax system penalizes those who are producing wealth in order to subsidize those who are only consuming it.

Tax reform is overdue, national debt or no national debt.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top