ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
You cited Columbia is the site for the most terrorist attacks. Are you quite sure there is no Muslim extremist connection there?
SEE THIS

Nonsense!

All your article mentions is that Venezuela might provide somewhat of a safe haven for Middle Eastern extremists, while at the same time providing somewhat of a safe haven for FARC extremists.

However, your article does not talk about Colombia.

And, your article explicitly states that "Currently there are no known terror attacks that can be attributed to these groups."

....

You know, Foxy, if you absolutely don't care about the details and are so eager to find a "Muslim extremist connection", how about considering all the US citizens who financed Sinn Féin who in turn financed the IRA who in turn sent members to training camps in the Middle East so they could learn how to commit terrorist attacks in the United Kingdom?

From the article I linked:

Quote:

The TBA has become a virtual haven for Islamic terror groups and a base for terror operations against South American targets. The large and growing Arab population of these states (in excess of 750,000 by local estimates) provides a community highly conducive to the establishment of Islamic terrorist sleeper cells throughout the area. The attacks in Buenos Aires on the Israeli embassy (3/17/1992) and the Jewish Community Center (7/18/1994) are believed to have originated from terror bases in the TBA. Since the mid-90's, government forces have foiled many more terror attacks against American, Jewish and Israeli targets, arresting some of the perpetrators.

In context, your excerpt is from a paragraph saying no terrorist attacks have yet been identified with the terrorist training cells on the Venezuelan/Columbian border. It does not say that no terrorist attacks have been attached to other South American terrorist cells.

The IRA is a different subject don't you think? And if you would like to discuss that, it might make an interesting separate thread.

You are the one who brought Columbia into the discussion. You said Columbian terrorism probably didn't involve Islamic terrorists but you didn't cite WHO the terrorists were in Columbia nor did I. I asked you a question if you were sure there were no Islamic fundamentalist connections in the attacks in Columbia and posted the link to illustrate why the question is reasonable. This is offensive to you? Why?

And when I did my best to answer your question about what was different about Islamofacist terrorism, you ignored that. Why? And it seems to me that you are the one objecting to dealing with details. Not me.

I don't want this to become another insult spitting match so prevalent on A2K. But that requires us to allow different perceptions and different points of view in the discussion don't you think?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

The IRA is a different subject don't you think?

I agree. Especially for Americans since IRA - from the 1970's until the mid-1990's- received weapons and training from various international sources, most notably American sympathizers, Libya and the PLO, most probably from ETA and Red Brigades, too.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
The IRA is a different subject don't you think?

I agree. Especially for Americans since IRA - from the 1970's until the mid-1990's- received weapons and training from various international sources, most notably American sympathizers, Libya and the PLO, most probably from ETA and Red Brigades, too.

There are probably hundreds if not thousands of situations in which various countries have been involved in this kind of stuff. Some with self-interest motives; some with more altruistic motives. Frequently good intentions produce at least some unintended bad consequences and more often than not, one or more parties will object to the involvement no matter what the outcome.

I appreciate acknowledgment of my country's good intentions and whatever good results come from those. I also accept that my country has been involved in situations producing very bad consequences.

But other than both were involved in terrorist activities, there is little or no comparison between the IRA and Islamofacist (or Whatchamacallit) terrorism. The IRA's objectives were local and obtainable through diplomatic means. The Islamic fundamentalist goals are not.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

You didn't cite WHO the terrorists were in Columbia nor did I. I asked you a question if you were sure there were no Islamic fundamentalist connections in the attacks in Columbia. This is offensive to you? Why?

Because it appeared to me that you implied that there was some kind of connection, and because you're apparently making no distinction between South American countries. The region between Brazil, Argentina, and Paraguay is about 3,000 kilometers and, if you don't want to cross the Amazon Basin, at least 4 borders away from Colombia, yet you're lumping it all up as if there was no distinction between countries.

Too me, it appeared as if you wanted to construct a connection between the Revolutionary Armed Forces guerilleros-turned narco-terrorists in Colombia and the islamic extremists in the Middle East. Of course you can construct such a connection, but it is non-existent in reality. That's why I gave the USA-Sinn Féin-Middle East-UK connection as an example. You can find evidence for its existence, yet it would be dishonest to generalize and claim that in reality, the USA in connection with Middle Eastern terrorists were behind the IRA terrorism in the UK.

Another part of why I get mildly irritated by the mere suggestion of an islamist-FARC connection is personal experience. There are a quite a number of problems people in Colombia are facing, but islamic terrorism is not among those, and I kind of see it as a distortion of reality to suggest thus.

So, in summary (and I probably should have merely give this answer in the first place): Yes, I am you quite sure there is no Muslim extremist connection there.

Foxfyre wrote:

And when I did my best to answer your question about what was different about Islamofacist terrorism, you ignored that. Why?

Yes, I saw that. Didn't mean to ignore it, but the Colombia thingy kind of got in the way....

Foxfyre wrote:

I don't want this to become another insult spitting match so prevalent on A2K. But that requires us to allow different perceptions and different points of view in the discussion don't you think?

Yeah, let's try not to...

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

But other than both were involved in terrorist activities, there is little or no comparison between the IRA and Islamofacist (or Whatchamacallit) terrorism. The IRA's objectives were local and obtainable through diplomatic means. The Islamic fundamentalist goals are not.

Hngh.

Could we maybe try not to use such broad brushes? Of course you can't compare "the IRA's objectives" with "the Islamic fundamentalist goals", because "the Islamic fundamentalists" are not an organisation.

If you look at individual organisations like Hamas, Fatah or Hezbollah, you'll find that their goals are local and obtainable through diplomatic means, too. Well, in some cases more, in some cases less.

But if you lump al Qaeda, the Syrian and Iranian regime and the Indonesian Jemaah Islamiyah in with Hamas, Fatah and Hezbollah, and only use such terms as "islamofascists" to describe them all, it gets totally impossible to have a somewhat sophisticated discussion on the topic.

0 Replies

It's similar as if you talk about "Catholicfascists" when referring to the "catholic" terrorism by IRA, ETA, Mafia and the Italian Red Brigades.

0 Replies

I think discussing how Hezbollah, Hamas, et al differ from Al Qaida would be a good discussion to have.

Of interest connected to yesterday and today's discussion, the U.S. government appears to agree with OE that there is not yet an Al Qaida et al connection in Columbia. Apparently Columbia has tried to make a case for one to curry favor with the U.S. however. Smile

LOOK HERE

I gotta split and get to appointments. Later all.

0 Replies

Why stop the Great Satan? He's driving himself to hell

Tehran can sit back and watch its tormentors sweat. But the US and Britain must start from diplomatic ground zero

Simon Jenkins
Wednesday November 15, 2006
The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1948057,00.html

0 Replies

blueflame1 wrote:

Why stop the Great Satan? He's driving himself to hell

Tehran can sit back and watch its tormentors sweat. But the US and Britain must start from diplomatic ground zero

Simon Jenkins
Wednesday November 15, 2006
The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1948057,00.html

Are you going to answer my questions, Blueflame?

0 Replies

Quote:

Israel accused of 'state terrorism'

Since the end of June, more than 450 Palestinians had been killed in the Gaza Strip, "making death, mourning and grief a near-daily ritual for the people of Gaza", Mansour said

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9DB7DCAA-C83A-42CF-A2A8-D77602AD2051.htm

According to form, John Bolton will say that criticism of Israel is unfair and disproportionate. This is obviously untrue, but Bolton will say it anyway, such is America's dependence upon a creaking propaganda system which the Internet has overtaken and shamed.

Unfortunately, American State Department rules prevent elected governments from being classified as 'terrorist'. The hypocrisy of this rule shines forth in America's classification of the elected government of Palestine as a 'terrorist' government.
One rule for us, another rule for them, a hallmark of a crumbling power.

Quote:

The United Nations Security Council will discuss on Saturday a softened version of a proposed resolution calling for a condemnation of Israel for killing 19 Palestinian civilians in Beit Hanun on Wednesday as a result of Israel Defense Forces artillery shelling.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/786473.html

According to Army Radio, the United States may veto the resolution during Saturday's vote.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Of interest connected to yesterday and today's discussion, the U.S. government appears to agree with OE that there is not yet an Al Qaida et al connection in Columbia. Apparently Columbia has tried to make a case for one to curry favor with the U.S. however.

He! These guys have funny ideas, no kidding...

I'm glad that the US gov agrees with my analysis, however!

Very Happy

Foxfyre wrote:

I think discussing how Hezbollah, Hamas, et al differ from Al Qaida would be a good discussion to have.

Yeah, let's do that. That'd be interesting...

0 Replies

It would help in any such discussion to acknowledge the existence of Fatah, which lost the election to Hamas--and to recognize that Hamas is a Sunni Islamist party, while Fatah is a secular, pan-Palestinian party. Then one can consider that Hezbollah is (or claims to represent in the Lebanon) a Shi'ite party.

Right away, one is obliged to recognize that there is no monolithic group of identical "islamo-fascists" to whom one can refer when examining this very complex situation.

Of course, one would have to be well-educated and well-informed to know those things. Oh yeah . . . i forgot . . . we are supposed to listen to Fox because of how well-educated and well-informed she is.

0 Replies

Iran declaring 'economic warfare'
Announces intent to move away from U.S. dollar

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

Iran may have signed a virtual "death warrant" by openly declaring a governmental decision to move away from the dollar in the country's foreign-exchange transactions, says WND columnist Jerome Corsi.
"The Bush administration will see Iran's decision as economic warfare, a move calculated to weaken the dollar in retaliation for the U.S. seeking U.N. Security Council sanctions against Iran's continued uranium enrichment," Corsi told WND.

Speaking to reporters at an e-commerce conference in Tehran Tuesday, Iran's Minister of Economy and Finance Davood Danesh Jaafari presented the policy as a defensive move aimed at blocking Washington's ability to monitor and interfere with Iran's conduct of international business.

"Some U.S. banks have been disrupting our dollar transactions for a long time and Iran, in return, has been decreasing its dependence on the dollar," Jaafari explained.

The U.S. Treasury in September barred Iran's state-run Bank Saderat from having any links with U.S.-owned banks because of Iran's support of terrorism.

As a result of the increasing pressure from the Bush administration, Iranian banking authorities have complained European banks are increasingly reluctant to transact Iranian import and export sales in dollars and to extend open lines of credit for Iranians in dollars, fearing U.S. penalties. Iran also is concerned the U.S. government might soon be forced to devaluate the dollar.

Corsi previously has argued Saddam Hussein "signed his death warrant" by getting the U.N. to agree Iraq could hold foreign exchange currency in Euros resulting from "oil for food" transactions.

Iran's announcement this week will be seen by Washington as a follow-up to its intention to create an oil bourse pricing oil in Euros, Corsi believes.

"With our continuing budget and trade deficits, the Bush administration has to react strongly to any suggestion that world international markets might move away from dollar transactions or dollar holdings of foreign exchange currency," he said.

The risk also includes China, Corsi noted.

"With China now holding $1 trillion in their foreign exchange currency, the recent decision that China intends to diversify their holdings more into Euros threatens the ability of the U.S. Treasury to float our budget deficits by selling U.S. government debt into the foreign exchange currency holdings market," Corsi explained.

Corsi is concerned the Bush administration has been "de-industrializing the United States" by pursuing a free trade policy that allows China to replace U.S. manufacturers with what Corsi describes as "under-market slave labor or near slave labor."

"Now with Iran on the verge of announcing the capacity to produce highly enriched and possibly weapons-grade uranium," Corsi comments, "we are increasingly vulnerable to Iran spearheading an anti-American attack on the dollar."

Corsi points out China recently signed a multi-billion dollar deal "guaranteed to make Iran one of the major suppliers of oil and natural gas to China for decades to come."

"If China joins Iran in pressuring the dollar, we face dollar devaluation much faster that the Bush administration has allowed the U.S. public to know," Corsi said.

0 Replies

foxfyre, "Are you going to answer my questions, Blueflame?" You have questions? I thought Bushies already had all the answers.

0 Replies

Euro may well replace US dollar

blueflame1 wrote:

Iran declaring 'economic warfare'
Announces intent to move away from U.S. dollar

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

Iran may have signed a virtual "death warrant" by openly declaring a governmental decision to move away from the dollar in the country's foreign-exchange transactions, says WND columnist Jerome Corsi.
"The Bush administration will see Iran's decision as economic warfare, a move calculated to weaken the dollar in retaliation for the U.S. seeking U.N. Security Council sanctions against Iran's continued uranium enrichment," Corsi told WND.

Speaking to reporters at an e-commerce conference in Tehran Tuesday, Iran's Minister of Economy and Finance Davood Danesh Jaafari presented the policy as a defensive move aimed at blocking Washington's ability to monitor and interfere with Iran's conduct of international business.

"Some U.S. banks have been disrupting our dollar transactions for a long time and Iran, in return, has been decreasing its dependence on the dollar," Jaafari explained.

The U.S. Treasury in September barred Iran's state-run Bank Saderat from having any links with U.S.-owned banks because of Iran's support of terrorism.

As a result of the increasing pressure from the Bush administration, Iranian banking authorities have complained European banks are increasingly reluctant to transact Iranian import and export sales in dollars and to extend open lines of credit for Iranians in dollars, fearing U.S. penalties. Iran also is concerned the U.S. government might soon be forced to devaluate the dollar.

Corsi previously has argued Saddam Hussein "signed his death warrant" by getting the U.N. to agree Iraq could hold foreign exchange currency in Euros resulting from "oil for food" transactions.

Iran's announcement this week will be seen by Washington as a follow-up to its intention to create an oil bourse pricing oil in Euros, Corsi believes.

"With our continuing budget and trade deficits, the Bush administration has to react strongly to any suggestion that world international markets might move away from dollar transactions or dollar holdings of foreign exchange currency," he said.

The risk also includes China, Corsi noted.

"With China now holding $1 trillion in their foreign exchange currency, the recent decision that China intends to diversify their holdings more into Euros threatens the ability of the U.S. Treasury to float our budget deficits by selling U.S. government debt into the foreign exchange currency holdings market," Corsi explained.

Corsi is concerned the Bush administration has been "de-industrializing the United States" by pursuing a free trade policy that allows China to replace U.S. manufacturers with what Corsi describes as "under-market slave labor or near slave labor."

"Now with Iran on the verge of announcing the capacity to produce highly enriched and possibly weapons-grade uranium," Corsi comments, "we are increasingly vulnerable to Iran spearheading an anti-American attack on the dollar."

Corsi points out China recently signed a multi-billion dollar deal "guaranteed to make Iran one of the major suppliers of oil and natural gas to China for decades to come."

"If China joins Iran in pressuring the dollar, we face dollar devaluation much faster that the Bush administration has allowed the U.S. public to know," Corsi said.

Good article, blueflame. This is what the Bushies have been afraid of and what the 'war' in Iraq was/is about. China has the US by the cojones. The prediction of all this coming down is a bit off - the article below says July....but with the US government in such chaos it's very possible. I have a thread on this issue - here's a copy of the article I posted in October 06.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Some time back I did a post about Iran's methodology in bringing the west to its knees. Iran has opened its Iranian Oil Bursary the IOB to European trading. The thing about that is this. Iran is offering Europe cheaper fuel, and now according to the Middle East News report, and many others I might add, the Euro is set to replace the dollar as oil currency, this will happen in July. This will send the stock market into a tail spin, because the American dollar is over inflated and needs OPEC to continue to trade with the American Dollar.

This will have a major impact on the market because when word gets out that the American dollar is no longer stable and starts to slide then share holders will be pulling out of American company stocks. Crash!!! Investors will lose faith in the American Stock Market, and will sell their stocks before they fall to much further. There are signs that this is already happening because the American dollar is losing ground against the Euro. You have to ask what will happen in July when the Euro is in full swing in trading with the IOB???

We have already seen that the dollar is sliding, and the thing to watch is if Gold starts to rise, then it will become obvious that the American dollars is not stable at all.

Here is my post that you really should read which gives you a basic background and understanding about the IOB and the American dollar. It will give you the answers to why is the dollar inflated, and why is the gold important? Trust me it is easy reading, if I can understand it then anyone can! Then come back to read the quotes that have been posted around the net from a number of different resources all saying the same thing.

Middle East News:

Iran: Euro to replace dollar as oil currency In July Iran will ditch the dollar in favour of the euro as the currency in which it will accept payments for its oil and natural gas exports, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced Friday. The switch, first mooted months ago, was expected but Ahmadinejad's decision comes just as Washington is stepping up pressure on other United Nations Security Council members to act against Tehran for flouting agreements taken with the UN's nuclear watchdog. Ahmadinejad's announcement, made in Baku, Azerbaijan where the Iranian leader is attending a regional economics conference, appears aimed at weakening the United States' resolve to seek sanctions against Iran if it does not comply with the UN International Agency for Atomic Energy's demands. Some observers beleive the Iranian move could deal a severe blow the the American currency as many central banks from oil importing nations could choose to stock up their currency reserves with euros rather than dollars- AKI.

0 Replies

Iran = OPEC now?

0 Replies

blueflame1 wrote:

foxfyre, "Are you going to answer my questions, Blueflame?" You have questions? I thought Bushies already had all the answers.

Gee, and I thought Sorosies alleged they already had all the answers.

Quote:

Iran declaring 'economic warfare'
Announces intent to move away from U.S. dollar

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

...

Speaking to reporters at an e-commerce conference in Tehran Tuesday, Iran's Minister of Economy and Finance Davood Danesh Jaafari presented the policy as a defensive move aimed at blocking Washington's ability to monitor and interfere with Iran's conduct of international business.

"Some U.S. banks have been disrupting our dollar transactions for a long time and Iran, in return, has been decreasing its dependence on the dollar," Jaafari explained.

The U.S. Treasury in September barred Iran's state-run Bank Saderat from having any links with U.S.-owned banks because of Iran's support of terrorism.
...

0 Replies

This is hilarious--the neo-cons are already shittin' in their pants because Iran has lead the movement to euros from dollars for pricing petroleum on the international market. There is nothing the American oil companies fear more than that the dollar-pricing era in petroleum will end to be replaced by euro-pricing.

That's why Iran is the big boogeyman for the Shrub and his Forty Theives of Baghdad--they don't give a rat's ass about Israel.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

This is hilarious--the neo-cons are already shittin' in their pants because Iran has lead the movement to euros from dollars for pricing petroleum on the international market. There is nothing the American oil companies fear more than that the dollar-pricing era in petroleum will end to be replaced by euro-pricing.

That's why Iran is the big boogeyman for the Shrub and his Forty Theives of Baghdad--they don't give a rat's ass about Israel.

Not just the big oil companies, either. This would have very serious repercussions on the dollar and the US economy, I believe.

Still it would make my US holidays cheaper, so it's an ill wind.... :wink:

0 Replies

I hope you enjoyed your recent sojourn, McT--did you enjoy a good exchange rate then?

I doubt that i personally would suffer much if oil were valued in euros rather than US dollars, so i am amused by it all. How typical of the neo-cons to threaten war over such an issue. Of course, the wouldn't themselves, nor would their family members, go in harm's way if there were a war.

0 Replies

ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know