Iran leader denied WTC wreath request

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo
What "attempt"?

The one linked to in post 65. I don't blame you for missing it since it was buried in the mountain of crap that has tried to pass for discussion since then.

[Ramo]

From Juan Cole:

The 9/11 commission maintains, however, according to Time magazine, that Iranian officials had issued specific instructions to facilitate the passage of al-Qaeda members across Iranian borders, beginning in October, 2000. The commission also alleges that Iranian officials came to al-Qaeda after the bombing of the USS Cole and suggested they team up to attack the US, but that Bin Laden turned down the offer for fear of alienating his Wahhabi supporters in Saudi Arabia by associating himself with Shiite Iran.

One problem with all these allegations is that they are sourced only to al-Qaeda detainees, Iranian defectors, and NSA electronic intercepts. It is the same as with Iraq in 2002. For all we know, there is an Iranian Chalabi who is behind these reports, hoping to get the US to overthrow the regime in Iran so that he can take over. As for the al-Qaeda detainees or those under electronic surveillance, the letter of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has already made it clear that some radical Sunni elements that fought in Afghanistan dream of provoking a Shiite-American struggle. Al-Qaeda detainees are notorious for providing the US with disinformation aimed at furthering their plots. Iran is a notorious enemy of Wahhabism and al-Qaeda and the Taliban. How sweet it would be to provoke a war between the US and Iran by hanging 9/11 on Tehran! (It should be remembered that NSA intercepts also showed that Saddam had biological and chemical weapons, presumably because Saddam ordered his officers to talk them up in the vain hope of deterring a US attack).

http://globalpolicy.org/empire//intervention/2004/0721iransights.htm

[DinoDoc]

Given Juan Cole's attempts at playing the part of apoligist for the Iranian regime in the past (most likely stemming from his fear of war with the country), I don't really think he's the disinterested observer you claim him to be in this matter.

Perhaps if something more substantive came up that casted doubt on the commissions findings that might be different. But until then there is enough smoke on this issue to make me extremely doubtful of how detained the AQ leaders in Iran actually are.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Given Juan Cole's attempts at playing the part of apoligist for the Iranian regime in the past (most likely stemming from his fear of war with the country), I don't really think he's the disinterested observer you claim him to be in this matter.
.

QFT.

[Ramo]

Perhaps if you could deal with the actual argument instead of an ad hominen...

The intel puporting attempted collaboration between Iran and AQ after the Cole bombing is the sort of dodgy **** that was purporting collaboration between Saddam and AQ in 2002.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
Perhaps if you could deal with the actual argument instead of an ad hominen...

The intel puporting attempted collaboration between Iran and AQ after the Cole bombing is the sort of dodgy **** that was purporting collaboration between Saddam and AQ in 2002.

Without access to the specifics (like who exactly are the defectors, and how does their credibility compare to the Iraqis - assuming we arent going to dismiss EVERY report from a defector forever) , we dont know that. I also fail to see the analogy on the NSA intercepts (though kudos to Cole for acknowledging there were intercepts that would have led someone to believe Saddam had a program) How would mentioning of a link to AQ, (in contrast to implying possesions of WMDS) deter a US attack?

But I agree, we arent going to attack Iran based on this alone. Not certainly, without stronger proof. But was that what this was about? I thought it was about letting Ahmadinajad go to the WTC?

[DinoDoc]

There is no arguement there or at least nothing of substance, Ramo. The collaberation between Iraq and AQ was shot down pretty quickly IIRC and I've yet to see anyone use these facts to make the case for war with Iran or anyone discredit those findings with anything substantive. Only vague and insubstantial assertions from Agathon, Cole, and yourself that they are wrong simply because they must be.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I thought it was about letting Ahmadinajad go to the WTC?

I want to talk Dion and the Liberals in the other thread but no one will let me.

Poly threads take on a life of their own after the first post.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Wezil


I want to talk Dion and the Liberals in the other thread but no one will let me.

too bad. We were at this Italian restaurant and they had a Karaoke machine, and somebody sang the song from Titanic, and it was just about as good as when Dion sang it.

[Ramo]

Without access to the specifics (like who exactly are the defectors, and how does their credibility compare to the Iraqis - assuming we arent going to dismiss EVERY report from a defector forever) , we dont know that.

Ok, assuming that the quality of intel about this is similar to the quality of intel on the causi belli regarding Iraq, the information is just not credible. We don't have the specifics (making it rather hard to refute, it would seem), but let's not pretend that the Admin is an unbiased observer who has never used dodgy evidence to fan the flames of war.

I also fail to see the analogy on the NSA intercepts (though kudos to Cole for acknowledging there were intercepts that would have led someone to believe Saddam had a program) How would mentioning of a link to AQ, (in contrast to implying possesions of WMDS) deter a US attack?

NSA intercepts between suspected AQ talking about an Iran link could be counter-intelligence. As Cole pointed out, Zarqawi would like to provoke an Iran-US war.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



too bad. We were at this Italian restaurant and they had a Karaoke machine, and somebody sang the song from Titanic, and it was just about as good as when Dion sang it.

That shouldn't have been too hard. Tell me something impressive.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ramo

Ok, assuming that the quality of intel about this is similar to the quality of intel on the causi belli regarding Iraq, the information is just not credible. We don't have the specifics (making it rather hard to refute, it would seem), but let's not pretend that the Admin is an unbiased observer who has never used dodgy evidence to fan the flames of war.

One of many reasons I look forward to a Dem admin. Lets get a fresh set of eyes on the evidence.

I also fail to see the analogy on the NSA intercepts (though kudos to Cole for acknowledging there were intercepts that would have led someone to believe Saddam had a program) How would mentioning of a link to AQ, (in contrast to implying possesions of WMDS) deter a US attack?

NSA intercepts between suspected AQ talking about an Iran link could be counter-intelligence. As Cole pointed out, Zarqawi would like to provoke an Iran-US war.

Are they NSA intercepts of AQ convos, or do they also included NSA intercepts of Iranian govt convos? And if they are AQ convos, how do they map to what we know from other sources about the Iranian govt?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
There is no arguement there or at least nothing of substance, Ramo. The collaberation between Iraq and AQ was shot down pretty quickly IIRC and I've yet to see anyone use these facts to make the case for war with Iran or anyone discredit those findings with anything substantive. Only vague and insubstantial assertions from Agathon, Cole, and yourself that they are wrong simply because they must be.

So asking for better evidence from sources that have been proven liars in the past, on a topic that one suspects they would indeed wish to lie about, is not prudent?

The only thing that is vague and insubstantial is the supposed evidence.

[Shrapnel12]

So many posts I want to respond to. Forgive me if I double or triple post.

Wezil win at what? Forget polotics for a moment. We're talking about showing respect for the dead and their surviving family not winning at anything.

Aggie,
Then we have a fundamental disagreement about the leader of Iran, but not the people of Iran (or at least I believe they have as many different opinions as we do). Getting back to the leader of Iran, he has shown your atypical jihadist attitude. I don't have to repeat, it's been said enough. He hasn't even denied any of this. Sure he backtracked and tried to refine his statement but that's a typical political ploy, one that's common in the US. This is a man who thinks it's his personal destiny to start Armageddon. We won't reach a consensus on his kind heart.

Believe me, the Iranians do not have the same mindset as Al Qaeda or the Taliban. Iran is an attempt to create a modern Islamic Republic. In many ways it is quite a modern society. Most Iranians have no interest in the medieval lifestyle that people like Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden want for them.

That's true of many Muslims, yet the problem is they are held down by the jihadists and most likely killed if they don't keep their mouths shut. And why would they risk that when it's only the infidels and Jews being killed?

Ramos,

One thing about which I do know my feelings are analogies that make absolutely no sense. They're not favorable...

Since it's so difficult to understand, let me spell it out. I am saying that the insincere gesture of laying a wreath at the WTC is the same as desecrating a grave of a loved one. That's why the first question is important. If you think he's sincere, the rest of the post was a moot point. If you think he's insincere, you should be able to understand the anger. Are liberals really born without empathy?

[Shrapnel12]

Also, Hizbollah is not "dedicated" to bombing civilians; its bombings are in response to Israel occupying Arab land, defying international law and denying Arabs their civil rights.

Yes schools, hospitals, community centers, cafes are all important military targets. Now your down to defending terrorist Aggie? As for the rest of your statement, there is no consensus there either, but if I go too deep into it, I might be threadjacking.