US military Operations ongoing in Iran right now (for Israel)

True, but Israel routinely changes governments and directions when their
people desire it. Iranians, like other dysfunctional populations, blame
others for their problem and wait for someone else to make their life
better. That's why Islam and Muslims are continue to slide deeper into the
Dark Ages even as progress becomes more widespread. Some cultures work
harder than others to fail.

--

Scott


Muslims Prove Papal Infallibility -- Alan W. Dowd

http://tinyurl.com/hd6ns
"bar86" wrote in message
ups.com...
The same applies to the Israeli Govrement/Media....

Thanks

Perro Blanco wrote:
"tscottme" wrote in message
. ..
70 million Iranians could overthrow the mullahs today if they valued
their
country. I see no reason to value Iran or Iranians more than the
Iranians
do. 25 years of persistent failure is enough to reach a conclusion.

Few Americans believe CNN or the New Your Times that is why their
ratings
keep declining.

Happy Roshashana

--

Scott


Muslims Prove Papal Infallibility -- Alan W. Dowd

http://tinyurl.com/hd6ns

300 million Americans could overthrow Bush and friends today if they
valued
their country. I see no reason to value America or Americans more than
the
Americans do. 25 years of persistent failure, aleviated only by invading
small, defenceless nations to a fanfare of self-justification, is enough
to
reach a conclusion.

--
When you discover that "they" really are out to get you, you may realise
that you're not quite as paranoid as you thought you were.

"Steve Hix" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Perro Blanco" wrote:

"Robert" wrote in message
...

"bar86" wrote in message
ups.com...
Before US invaded Iraq (upon Saudi, not Israeli request) they had
stable regime that
Israel did not had any trouble with it. Now, Thanks to US, we have a
country without
rule, new cenetr fo Al Qaeda.

Are you stupid or just ignorant?

Before the US invaded Iraq (either time) they were funding terrorist
attacks on Israel.
This IS the proven link to terrorism from Iraq. Their link to Al Qaeda
was nebulas. There link to Hezbollah, PLO, and funding of homicide
bombers is well documented

So, " before the US invaded Iraq they were funding terrorist attacks...".

There are none so dense as those intentionally being stupid.

That's you Blanco.

I would suggest, Hix (or is it Hick?) that you are in the frame. READ the
sentence, boy, none of the words are that long, now are they. What does it
say (regardless of what the writer may, or may not, have WISHED to say)?

"Before the US invaded Iraq (either time) they were funding terrorist
attacks (on Israel)".

It could not be any clearer for anyone but you. It may not have been that
illiterate's intention to say that the US were funding terrorist attacks,
but he did. What he actually says and what he apparently means are two
totally different things. In a court of law, or any legal context, he would
be sowing the seeds of his own destruction. Perhaps you would be up there
with him.

---
When you discover that "they" really are out to get you, you may realise
that you're not quite as paranoid as you thought you were.

In article ,
"Perro Blanco" wrote:

"Steve Hix" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Perro Blanco" wrote:

"Robert" wrote in message
...

"bar86" wrote in message
ups.com...
Before US invaded Iraq (upon Saudi, not Israeli request) they had
stable regime that
Israel did not had any trouble with it. Now, Thanks to US, we have a
country without
rule, new cenetr fo Al Qaeda.

Are you stupid or just ignorant?

Before the US invaded Iraq (either time) they were funding terrorist
attacks on Israel.
This IS the proven link to terrorism from Iraq. Their link to Al Qaeda
was nebulas. There link to Hezbollah, PLO, and funding of homicide
bombers is well documented

So, " before the US invaded Iraq they were funding terrorist attacks...".

There are none so dense as those intentionally being stupid.

That's you Blanco.

I would suggest, Hix (or is it Hick?)

Take the spelling as it is, that shouldn't be too hard for you, right?

that you are in the frame. READ the
sentence, boy, none of the words are that long, now are they. What does it
say (regardless of what the writer may, or may not, have WISHED to say)?


"Before the US invaded Iraq (either time) they were funding terrorist
attacks (on Israel)".

It could not be any clearer for anyone but you. It may not have been that
illiterate's intention to say that the US were funding terrorist attacks,
but he did.

Granted, it was badly written. Taken in context, it's still clear that
the terrorist-funding entity was the Iraqi government under Saddam
Hussein.

It helps if you happen to know certain facts, such as Iraq's documented
propensity to fund, shelter, and otherwise support terrorists and their
activities.

Context; one of those things that adds to the redundancy of languages to
make them more functional.

What he actually says and what he apparently means are two
totally different things. In a court of law, or any legal context, he would
be sowing the seeds of his own destruction. Perhaps you would be up there
with him.

In any fair court, he would have been asked to clarify what he said,
since it clearly stumbled over known background facts.

Perhaps that is what confused you.

Want to find part of the Iranian nuke program? Try Google Earth. It's
quite visible.
Walt BJ

BBC english is better then mine:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5375064.stm

US report says Iraq fuels terror

The violence in Iraq shows little sign of abating
The New York Times newspaper has published what it says are the
findings of a classified US intelligence paper on the effects of the
Iraq war.
The document reportedly blames the conflict for increasing the threat
of terrorism and helping fuel Islamic radicalism worldwide.

Such a conclusion is at odds with the White House's persistent claim
that going to war was the right thing to do.

The paper has not seen the report, but spoke to people familiar with
it.

Changing al-Qaeda

The BBC's Andre Vornic in New York says the National Intelligence
Estimate, as the document is known, is all the more significant for
reflecting the views of no fewer than 16 US spy agencies.

According to the New York Times, it says the Iraq war has triggered
more, not less, terrorism, and helped spread jihadist ideology.

It also reportedly concludes that al-Qaeda has now mutated into a
global franchise of semi-autonomous cells.

The estimate is the first US assessment of international terrorism
since the Iraq war began.

The New York Times has spoken to officials who have either read it, or
been involved in drafting it.

If what they say is true, our correspondent says, the document appears
to undermine US President George W Bush's insistence that for all the
flaws of the Iraq war, the world is now a safer place.

"Steve Hix" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Perro Blanco" wrote:

"Steve Hix" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Perro Blanco" wrote:

"Robert" wrote in message
...

"bar86" wrote in message
ups.com...
Before US invaded Iraq (upon Saudi, not Israeli request) they had
stable regime that
Israel did not had any trouble with it. Now, Thanks to US, we have
a
country without
rule, new cenetr fo Al Qaeda.

Are you stupid or just ignorant?

Before the US invaded Iraq (either time) they were funding terrorist
attacks on Israel.
This IS the proven link to terrorism from Iraq. Their link to Al
Qaeda
was nebulas. There link to Hezbollah, PLO, and funding of homicide
bombers is well documented

So, " before the US invaded Iraq they were funding terrorist
attacks...".

There are none so dense as those intentionally being stupid.

That's you Blanco.

I would suggest, Hix (or is it Hick?)

Take the spelling as it is, that shouldn't be too hard for you, right?

that you are in the frame. READ the
sentence, boy, none of the words are that long, now are they. What does
it
say (regardless of what the writer may, or may not, have WISHED to say)?


"Before the US invaded Iraq (either time) they were funding terrorist
attacks (on Israel)".

It could not be any clearer for anyone but you. It may not have been that
illiterate's intention to say that the US were funding terrorist attacks,
but he did.

Granted, it was badly written. Taken in context, it's still clear that
the terrorist-funding entity was the Iraqi government under Saddam
Hussein.

It helps if you happen to know certain facts, such as Iraq's documented
propensity to fund, shelter, and otherwise support terrorists and their
activities.

Context; one of those things that adds to the redundancy of languages to
make them more functional.

Your defence of an illiterate's nonsensical ramblings shows, perhaps, a kind
heart but does nothing to promote the redundancy of languages to make them
more functional. The guy is talking scribble and making wild statements in
that Iraq was not funding ANY of the groups mentioned. The one note of truth
that stood out, however, was where he said "Before the US invaded Iraq
(either time) they were funding terrorist attacks...", although he did add
the words "of Israel". I stand by my interpretation of what he said, which
was why I added the bit about the US's turning a blind eye to many of its
people funding of terrorism against an ally, which confirmed his statement,
as given - one could even substitute "Britain" for "Israel". CONTEXT! I
could have added a bit about, say, the many plots against Castro or - well,
I could go on but there are too many examples, of which the world is fully
aware.

You then make a statement regarding "Iraq's documented propensity to fund,
shelter, and otherwise support terrorists and their activities.". Semantics
be my friend, eh?

Bearing in mind that the invasion of Iraq was based upon a total a tissue of
lies there are many who would take issue with your words. Iraqis, having
seen their country invaded by a foreign aggressor with a propensity to
invade weaker nations, have decided to hit back in the only way they can.
They are merely defending their way of life - "freedom" at the end of a gun
is as much use to them as a chocolate fireguard.

It seems nothing will ever change, except that in this case it has turned
out to be a bit more difficult for the United Sates of North America than
"Operation Just Cause" which tried to justify Panama, and I dread to think
what they called the invasion of Grenada where America was "threatened" by a
population of about 100,000 people. Again, there are many more examples.

I suppose, when you people were busy going down the genocide trail with your
own indigenous population, they qualified as "terrorists" as well. "The only
good injun is a dead one" was the line in those days, despite the fact they
were merely defending their lands and their way of life.

What he actually says and what he apparently means are two
totally different things. In a court of law, or any legal context, he
would
be sowing the seeds of his own destruction. Perhaps you would be up there
with him.

In any fair court, he would have been asked to clarify what he said,
since it clearly stumbled over known background facts.

Perhaps that is what confused you.