Admin...we have someone codoning terror on this board

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Bush took to TV cameras again to try to sell his Brooklyn Bridge of a war, this time tossing around buzz words like *communism* and *fascism.* (Yawn)

Within a couple hours, during a televised news conference with Mayor Bloomberg, it was announced that evidence of a bomb threat specific to place, time and method had been received and that the source was very credible. (First thought: *But I thought were were fighting them there so we don't have to fight them HERE.* Second thought: *This is bad. We've been warned in advance of this. Look what happened when we were warned in advance about Katrina?!*)

Shortly following that news conference with Mayor Bloomberg, the powers that be in Washington issued a statement that the threat has doubtful credibility.

He wants to make friends with people who have taken the lives of so many Americans without conscience?

I'm not pro-McCain or pro-Bush and I'm not pro-Obama. I'm pro-American. I can't believe this guy thinks we should be trying to "win over" terrorists.

This president has ignored every single thing ever suggested to him, even as it regards terrorism. I wonder what the terrorists will be planning for us in the future and how much information and knowledge they've learned from this about our weak spots. They must see American frustration with Bush's incompetence, and they must really be enjoying that. This is AMERICA. We're supposed to have our act together.

How do you have a war against an emotion. We have a discrete group of enemies we need to contain - not "fight a war on terror." Slogans are for advertising, not world relations.

I think you are confusing The Siege at Wounded Knee beginning in February 1973 with the Reign of Terror as it was called by the indians the following three years. During those 3 years 64 tribal members were unsolved murders, 300 harassed and beaten and 562 arrests made of which only 15 were convicted. The seige ended after 71 days. In 1975 the FBI was following a red pickup truck to the Jumping Bull ranch where many AIM members as well as nonmembers were present..AIM having been asked there by the family for protection. What ensued ended in the death of 2 Federal Agents and 1 indian man. The red pickup truck was never seen nor heard of again. What happened is sketchy at best. Three indian men were tried in the deaths of the Feds. Two were acquitted and Leonard Peltier has been in prison for 27 years, although there is little evidence to support his incarceration...or I guess I should say, there was evidence at the time of the trial but at least 4 of the witnesses have recanted their testimonies. They state they testified out of fear. If nothing else, Peltier deserves a new trial and that has been proven and reproven, yet he does not get it. During the 1973 Wounded Knee, 2 AIM members were killed and 12 others disappeared. There is quite a bit of information on this topic available for your perusal. Aho.

P.S. The reason indians (traditional) would rather be called indians than Native Americans is because the land we lived on was not America until the white man came. Indians called this place Turtle Island. The Native Americans were, in fact, the first Europeans to arrive and name this place America, ergo, they were the first or Native Americans. We are the indigenous peoples, the indians.

U.S. attack on Iran may prompt terror
Experts say strikes on nuclear facilities could spark worldwide retaliation

As tensions increase between the United States and Iran, U.S. intelligence and terrorism experts say they believe Iran would respond to U.S. military strikes on its nuclear sites by deploying its intelligence operatives and Hezbollah teams to carry out terrorist attacks worldwide.

Iran would mount attacks against U.S. targets inside Iraq, where Iranian intelligence agents are already plentiful, predicted these experts. There is also a growing consensus that Iran's agents would target civilians in the United States, Europe and elsewhere, they said.

U.S. officials would not discuss what evidence they have indicating Iran would undertake terrorist action, but the matter is consuming a lot of time throughout the U.S. intelligence apparatus, one senior official said. It's a huge issue, another said.

Citing prohibitions against discussing classified information, U.S. intelligence officials declined to say whether they have detected preparatory measures, such as increased surveillance, counter-surveillance or message traffic, on the part of Iran's foreign-based intelligence operatives.

Bigger threat than al-Qaeda?
But terrorism experts considered Iranian-backed or controlled groups -- namely the country's Ministry of Intelligence and Security operatives, its Revolutionary Guards and the Lebanon-based Hezbollah -- to be better organized, trained and equipped than the al-Qaeda network that carried out the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The Iranian government views the Islamic Jihad, the name of Hezbollah's terrorist organization, as an extension of their state. . . . operational teams could be deployed without a long period of preparation, said Ambassador Henry A. Crumpton, the State Department's coordinator for counterterrorism.

The possibility of a military confrontation has been raised only obliquely in recent months by President Bush and Iran's government. Bush says he is pursuing a diplomatic solution to the crisis, but he has added that all options are on the table for stopping Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons.

Speaking in Vienna last month, Javad Vaeedi, a senior Iranian nuclear negotiator, warned the United States that it may have the power to cause harm and pain, but it is also susceptible to harm and pain. So if the United States wants to pursue that path, let the ball roll, although he did not specify what type of harm he was talking about.

Rise in tension raises stakes
Government officials said their interest in Iran's intelligence services is not an indication that a military confrontation is imminent or likely, but rather a reflection of a decades-long adversarial relationship in which Iran's agents have worked secretly against U.S. interests, most recently in Iraq and Pakistan. As confrontation over Iran's nuclear program has escalated, so has the effort to assess the threat from Iran's covert operatives.

U.N. Security Council members continue to debate how best to pressure Iran to prove that its nuclear program is not meant for weapons. The United States, Britain and France want the Security Council to threaten Iran with economic sanctions if it does not end its uranium enrichment activities. Russia and China, however, have declined to endorse such action and insist on continued negotiations. Security Council diplomats are meeting this weekend to try to break the impasse. Iran says it seeks nuclear power but not nuclear weapons.

Former CIA terrorism analyst Paul R. Pillar said that any U.S. or Israeli airstrike on Iranian territory would be regarded as an act of war by Tehran, and that Iran would strike back with its terrorist groups. There's no doubt in my mind about that. . . . Whether it's overseas at the hands of Hezbollah, in Iraq or possibly Europe, within the regime there would be pressure to take violent action.

History of reprisals
Before Sept. 11, the armed wing of Hezbollah, often working on behalf of Iran, was responsible for more American deaths than in any other terrorist attacks. In 1983 Hezbollah truck-bombed the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241, and in 1996 truck-bombed Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 U.S. service members.

Iran's intelligence service, operating out of its embassies around the world, assassinated dozens of monarchists and political dissidents in Europe, Pakistan, Turkey and the Middle East in the two decades after the 1979 Iranian revolution, which brought to power a religious Shiite government. Argentine officials also believe Iranian agents bombed a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires in 1994, killing 86 people. Iran has denied involvement in that attack.

Iran's intelligence services are well trained, fairly sophisticated and have been doing this for decades, said Crumpton, a former deputy of operations at the CIA's Counterterrorist Center. They are still very capable. I don't see their capabilities as having diminished.

Both sides have increased their activities against the other. The Bush administration is spending $75 million to step up pressure on the Iranian government, including funding non-governmental organizations and alternative media broadcasts. Iran's parliament then approved $13.6 million to counter what it calls plots and acts of meddling by the United States.

Given the uptick in interest in Iran on the part of the United States, it would be a very logical assumption that we have both ratcheted up [intelligence] collection, absolutely, said Fred Barton, a former counterterrorism official who is now vice president of counterterrorism for Stratfor, a security consulting and forecasting firm. It would be a more fevered pitch on the Iranian side because they have fewer options.

Agencies mum on true threat
The office of the director of national intelligence, which recently began to manage the U.S. intelligence agencies, declined to allow its analysts to discuss their assessment of Iran's intelligence services and Hezbollah and their capabilities to retaliate against U.S. interests.

We are unable to address your questions in an unclassified manner, a spokesman for the office, Carl Kropf, wrote in response to a Washington Post query.

The current state of Iran's intelligence apparatus is the subject of debate among experts. Some experts who spent their careers tracking the intelligence ministry's operatives describe them as deployed worldwide and easier to monitor than Hezbollah cells because they operate out of embassies and behave more like a traditional spy service such as the Soviet KGB.

Other experts believe the Iranian service has become bogged down in intense, regional concerns: attacks on Shiites in Pakistan, the Iraq war and efforts to combat drug trafficking in Iran.

As a result, said Bahman Baktiari, an Iran expert at the University of Maine, the intelligence service has downsized its operations in Europe and the United States. But, said Baktiari, I think the U.S. government doesn't have a handle on this.

Facilities make difficult targets
Because Iran's nuclear facilities are scattered around the country, some military specialists doubt a strike could effectively end the program and would require hundreds of strikes beforehand to disable Iran's vast air defenses. They say airstrikes would most likely inflame the Muslim world, alienate reformers within Iran and could serve to unite Hezbollah and al-Qaeda, which have only limited contact currently.

A report by the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks cited al-Qaeda's long-standing cooperation with the Iranian-back Hezbollah on certain operations and said Osama bin Laden may have had a previously undisclosed role in the Khobar attack. Several al-Qaeda figures are reportedly under house arrest in Iran.

Others in the law enforcement and intelligence circles have been more dubious about cooperation between al-Qaeda and Hezbollah, largely because of the rivalries between Shiite and Sunni Muslims. Al-Qaeda adherents are Sunni Muslims; Hezbollah's are Shiites.

Iran certainly wants to remind governments that they can create a lot of difficulty if strikes were to occur, said a senior European counterterrorism official interviewed recently. That they might react with all means, Hezbollah inside Lebanon and outside Lebanon, this is certain. Al-Qaeda could become a tactical alliance.

Researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.

You publicly post on the other board that you *try not to visit the bog of eternal stench.*

Well, doesn't look like you are trying all that hard. Or is that another example of Conservative honesty, like your buddy on the other board lies 3 times before suddenly deciding to be *up front* (in her own words) about the whole bogus line of crap she was spouting.

You and your 2 friends don't respect anyone unless they're a member of your little club, think exactly as you think, belong to the same political party as you belong, and believe in the very same little narrow SUBsection of one particular religion.

That's what I interpret from YOUR WRITTEN WORDS. Your posts don't show respect. They only show twisted *facts*, ignorance, anger and hatred.

You can't be *respectful* on your own board but suddenly, when you come here - HERE - the place YOU call *the bog of eternal stench* you suddenly discover some respectability during your mouse click from there to here?

You're becoming quite a bore. You and your friends stated you don't want us on your board, but you're not happy unless you're picking a fight. You and your *gang* told us to leave and not to post on *your* board. Maybe that should work both ways.

Out of ALL the problems with radical Conservatives, maybe the most annoying thing is that you don't believe in equality at all. You believe in SUPERIORITY. Somewhere along the line, someone made you think you were special and above everyone else. Sheesh! You're not happy unless you're dictating to everyone else in the country what they're allowed to do in their own personal lives regarding life, death, science, etc. You even think YOUR GOD IS BETTER than everyone else's.

You want to make the rules, censor people and tell them which boards they can and cannot post on, but YOU want to invade them all and spew your ignorance and hatred.

In my heart, I believe there are sincere, honest, intelligent Conservatives out there who are capable of a sensible debate. I've seen them. (I hope you don't chase them away, too.) But and your crew don't fall in that category, and this will be the last of your inane posts I will subject myself to.

Can we get the political board back to the true purpose of this board � to share opinions of why we like our candidate. Not bash and cut down others because they don�t agree with you.

I stayed away from this board for the past couple days because anyone who had anything positive to say about Sarah Palin got slammed, bashed, kicked down, etc. After awhile I found it all too draining, and was not seeing any reason to come. Yes, I did see some of it towards people who favored Barack Obama, but if you read the posts again it is mostly towards anyone who favored Sarah Palin/John McCain.

I thought the political board was for posting information regarding politics and candidates. What I have seen for the past few days is that it has been an attack board. Especially if you have anything positive you want to share about Sarah Palin. You say something good about her and you get attacked, you answer back, and you get attacked more, and then when you get mad and pretty much say stop attacking me, they come back with this �Geez, I�m allowed to have an opinion�.

Another thing I am tired of seeing is the slanderous, hate filled, really off the wall comments about Sarah Palin. The latest was something about her daughter actually had her baby. Talk about just bizarre comments. I thought what�s next, she�s an alien from another planet? The more I kept reading the more the comments were getting just really weird and bizarre. Of course nobody ever having any proof of any of these allegations. I then came to realize that the posters were just trying to get a fight going.

I also saw posts that had nothing to do with politics but attacking a poster named Sam. Again, probably trying to get another fight going for no good reason and on things that have nothing to do whatsoever with politics. I�ve read �Sam is like an annoying nat that you sway away�, �Sam, please let me know where you work� or �she must have her quota� or �sam is to the politics board as oracle is to the� This childish rhetoric is getting old. I�m not defending sam she is a big girl and I can see by her posts she can take care of herself, but my point is that this has nothing to do with politics. If you want a fight maybe you could request that the administrator create a separate �fight and degrade� section.

I�ve read the administrators post a couple different times called Beware of Flaming. She/he said as long as we realize that not everyone is going to agree we shouldn�t wear our feelings on our sleeves and a little more oversight on here would be good. Let people express his or her opinion and move on. If you don�t like someone just ignore that person. �It�s not rocket science, you know� (I liked that statement)

I consider posting on this board a privilege and not a right. If you don�t agree with something and you post that you don�t agree and state the facts why (and are civilized about it) that�s one thing, but when you bash and degrade others without showing proof and just want to start fights and belittle others it just seems a bit juvenile to me.

I come to the politics board to hear ideas and stuff (facts) about the candidates. That is how I�m learning about each one, but I don�t want to read people attack other posters for no good reason. I'd like to hear about Obama/Biden & McCain/Palin, but I want to hear facts.

If you like to fight so much why don�t you pick on people that you can fight to face to face.

Please keep all religious/faith topics and discussions on the Faith board. This would involve your beliefs, whether Christian or atheist, etc.

no other comments will be made by me other than to straighten out the fact that I'm not posting here anymore.