|
Iran 'behind attacks on British' (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Reverend_Trance |
Iran is the number-one state-sponsor of terrorism in the world
| quote: | Iran
Since the inauguration of moderate President Mohammad Khatami in 1997, Iran has taken steps towards liberalization and made conciliatory gestures towards the United States—including public condemnations of terrorist attacks by Algerian and Egyptian groups. It remains, however, one of the most active state sponsors of international terrorism. It continues to support terrorist groups. In the trial of an Iranian and four Lebanese for the 1992 killing of Iranian Kurdish dissidents in a Berlin restaurant, a German court in 1997 found the Government of Iran to have implemented a policy of assassinating dissidents abroad. Iran conducted at least 13 such assassinations in 1997.
Affiliated Groups: Lebanese Hezbollah, Hamas, PIJ, PKK
Sanctions: The Iran & Libya Sanctions Act of 1996 deprives foreign companies of certain economic benefits for investing in Iran's energy sectors. |
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/terrorism4.html |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
I thought that WE were the #1 state-sponsor of terrorism. :conf:
Ahhhh nevermind, for a moment I forgot that we're calling that the "War on Terror." :p
Hopefully this one doesn't end up turning out as badly as our "Drug War!"
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030818/abramsky |
|
|
| kush paintings |
| Trancer-S, if I ever got caught trying to source as slanted of an article as the Bermuda Sun one, let alone that its from Bermuda Sun, I would probably be laughed out of school. Can we just start sourcing blogs now or what? |
|
|
| metalgearsolid |
| Kush if you bothered to look at the other more "realible" sources you would see that they are all saying the same thing. Surely you must now believe that what he uses as sources is good. |
|
|
| kush paintings |
| Ok... so he is talking about following the trail of drug money that is funding the terrorists activities, however he is implying that this money trail leads to places we couldn't imagine. Ok. Very typical of trancer as he is probably one of the biggest conspiracy theorists on this board next to harcoretrancer of course, who must surely be helping out Afghanastans opium trade. According to the San Fransisco Chronicle article, Afghanastan has become the biggest exporter of drugs... but nowhere is there even a hint at conspiracy theory. And if trancer-x's post was to merely point out the obvious, which was reported well over a year ago, then its simply a waste of space. |
|
|
| metalgearsolid |
| Oh know TX might be right. All that drug money is going to DC or somewhere close to thier. Imagine what the government can do with the 300billion dollar business of trafficking and selling. Its big business and I wouldn't be surprised to find out the Gov is really in control of the trafficking. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by kush paintings
And if trancer-x's post was to merely point out the obvious, which was reported well over a year ago, then its simply a waste of space. |
As are most of your uninformative and naively insubstantial posts on this board - but we're all still allowed to post, right? :p |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by metalgearsolid
Oh know TX might be right. All that drug money is going to DC or somewhere close to thier. Imagine what the government can do with the 300billion dollar business of trafficking and selling. Its big business and I wouldn't be surprised to find out the Gov is really in control of the trafficking. |
Well, for starters, the CIA has had a long history of drug running - so why wouldn't one endeavor to go as far and say that there are definitely pockets of corrupt individuals within our government who are making money off both sides of the drug war and are thence fully complicit in the drug trade.
And look at this logically, do you actually think that corrupt politicians are going to put this money back into our government or our country? Of course not, you doof! That money is being siphoned off into a tangled web of offshore bank accounts, business ventures and other such instruments of laundering which are too numerous to list here.
I guess you've never heard of Mike Ruppert before?
http://www.dailylobo.com/media/pape...ar-558315.shtml
http://www.whale.to/b/ruppert1.html |
|
|
| metalgearsolid |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
Well, for starters, the CIA has had a long history of drug running - so why wouldn't one endeavor to go as far and say that there are definitely pockets of corrupt individuals within our government who are making money off both sides of the drug war and are thence fully complicit in the drug trade.
And look at this logically, do you actually think that corrupt politicians are going to put this money back into our government or our country? Of course not, you doof! That money is being siphoned off into a tangled web of offshore bank accounts, business ventures and other such instruments of laundering which are too numerous to list here.
I guess you've never heard of Mike Ruppert before?
|
Not until you posted the sources, you stud! You know the CIA wanted my dad to work in SA during the 70's they didn't say why but he said they were strange fellows. They asked him at O'hare airport when he was about to go to Columbia. O O I feel a conspiracy is coming...so this drug money is going to back to the US politicians? Well not all of it because every government has, its share of corrupt politicians. to take its share. But do you think the Gov can compete with the all the mafias and gangs I mean what you are saying is that some OC work with the gov or are being controled by the gov? btw I have read some info so you won't need to provide any sources about the US gov working with drug cartels..not unless you want to. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by kush paintings
Trancer-S, if I ever got caught trying to source as slanted of an article as the Bermuda Sun one, let alone that its from Bermuda Sun, I would probably be laughed out of school. Can we just start sourcing blogs now or what? |
Maybe you should start attacking the information itself rather than the vessel that it was carried in. That would make for a much more substantial argument, don't you think? Oh wait, you don't really seem to have an argument. Nevermind. |
|
|
|
|
