1 Israeli officials says about Syria....

[revelarts]

from the Jewish newspaper algemeiner.com
http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/06/04/israeli-officials-wed-prefer-al-qaeda-run-syria-to-an-assad-victory/

Israeli officials are voicing their concern over Bashar al-Assad’s recent advances in his country’s civil war, Israeli Army Radio reported.
According to Israel Hayom, senior Israeli officials were quoted as saying that “al-Qaeda control over Syria would be preferable to a victory by Assad over the rebels.”
Officials believe that an Assad victory would strengthen Iran, as a weakened Syrian regime would become more reliant on the Islamic Republic. The Iran-Hezbollah-Syria axis would thus become an even greater threat to Israel, the officials said.
“Assad is now Iran,” the officials said, according to Israel Hayom. “Any of these groups would be less problematic for Israel than an Assad regime that is a puppet of Iran,” the officials were quoted as saying.





So here's is one of the factors that i couldn't figure out.
now i see... almost
Israel's perceived interest and our SO-CALL interest are NOT in sink here.
Israel is More concerned about Iran's strength than Alquadas.

Does ANYONE in the middle east Not like Alqaeda? Are they anyone's elses enemy... OH Assad. .
Our 2 "allies" Suadi Arabia and EVEN Israel are supporting or rooting for the same Alqaeda that we say killed 3000+ Americans.

what's wrong with this picture folks?
are we going to twist a good reason out of this obvious conflict of interest.
Is it really "better" that Alqadea run Syria than an Iran allied Assad? Iran, BTW, has never attacked us or EVEN threatened us as Alqaeada has.

[Gaffer]

Let's say AQ defeats assad. What do we end up with? A miss match of various groups that won't get along and can't form any kind of govt. It will look much like libya. This means there will be little pressure on Israel along that border for many years to come. Seems logical for them to root for the lesser of two evils. Should assad win, iran will move more troops into the region and prepare for a war with Israel and likely move their nuclear program forward even faster.

For your information iran has made multiple attacks on the US and others. The bombing in Beirut of the Marine barracks, bombings in Germany. And many more. They are not sitting back minding their own business. Who do you think supplied most of the IED's in iraq used against US troops? Who sent supplies into Afghan for the taliban? Whose agents disguised themselves as Americans and entered a military command center and assassinated the soldiers there?

Take down iran and we can can concentrate on the single brotherhood group of AQ.

[revelarts]

Let's say AQ defeats assad. What do we end up with? A miss match of various groups that won't get along and can't form any kind of govt. It will look much like libya. This means there will be little pressure on Israel along that border for many years to come. Seems logical for them to root for the lesser of two evils. Should assad win, iran will move more troops into the region and prepare for a war with Israel and likely move their nuclear program forward even faster.

For your information iran has made multiple attacks on the US and others. The bombing in Beirut of the Marine barracks, bombings in Germany. And many more. They are not sitting back minding their own business. Who do you think supplied most of the IED's in iraq used against US troops? Who sent supplies into Afghan for the taliban? Whose agents disguised themselves as Americans and entered a military command center and assassinated the soldiers there?

Take down iran and we can can concentrate on the single brotherhood group of AQ.

Gaffer We REALLY DISAGREE on this one.

AQ has been TOP of list for us since 9-11.
NOTHING has been more important.
The TSA is not at the airports because of bombing in Beirut or Iraq tangentially supported by Iran, (neither in the U.S. btw and one was a war zone.)
iran is NOT at war with the U.S. all of this Potential BS you and other keep talking about has been going own sine the SHAW was overthrown. ever since then Iran has taking A LOT more real attacks and assisted attacks from us that what you have to tease out of IED rumors. We Supported Iraw in it's war against Iran where Many more deaths could be counted up.
(Russia was not the only ONLY supporters Gaffer).

But really giving AQ Syraia with all of the WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION shipped from Iraq!!!!???

it's an Isane Idea if you believe that.
and we no Syria has Chemical weapons. do we want them Spread though out the world via the AQ army formed in Syria?

It's ridiculous baldfaced doublespeak to claim this enemy of my enemy crap... AGAIN.
How many times has that bitten us in the A$$? we supported AQ before, it didn't work out to well.

[Gaffer]

So do we take them both on at once? One at a time? Whose first?

I didn't say we should support anyone. I'm all for letting them fight it out. My main argument with you is this business that iran has never attacked anyone. And that is simply not factual.

While AQ, aka muslim brotherhood, is a major threat they are not in full control of any single country. Best to knockout the one big threat and then concentrate on the smaller threat.

Most of what we are discussing is purely academic, because we have no commander in chief to do anything. All we can do is watch what happens and wait for the incompetent in charge to screw things up again. After all he supports AQ.

[revelarts]

So do we take them both on at once? One at a time? Whose first?

I didn't say we should support anyone. I'm all for letting them fight it out. My main argument with you is this business that iran has never attacked anyone. And that is simply not factual.

While AQ, aka muslim brotherhood, is a major threat they are not in full control of any single country. Best to knockout the one big threat and then concentrate on the smaller threat.

Most of what we are discussing is purely academic, because we have no commander in chief to do anything. All we can do is watch what happens and wait for the incompetent in charge to screw things up again. After all he supports AQ.

Well Iran has not done anything that would justify declaring war on them.
Even making a ONE NUKE is not a a reason to declare war.
that's my issue with everyone that that thinks we should attack countries that DON'T kiss our backsides on command and don't talk to us while holding their lips strait.

making alliances with terrorist groups makes zero sense.Especially If we are sooo powerful that we can fight wars in 10 countries at a times.
i'm not sure why we'd have to ally with ANY terrorist let alone those that claim to want to kill us anyday of the week.

recently
more republicans and democrats are publicly aligning with the MEK terrorist group against Iran.
<dl><dt>Mujahidin-e Khalq Organization, MKO, MEK, People's Mujahidin of Iran(noun)
</dt><dd>a terrorist organization formed in the 1960s by children of Iranian merchants; sought to counter the Shah of Iran's pro-western policies of modernization and opposition to communism; following a philosophy that mixes Marxism and Islam it now attacks the Islamic fundamentalists who deposed the Shah
</dd></dl>
mm

Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, who is reportedly considering another run at the presidency (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20027770-503544.html), has co-written an op-ed denying he provided material support to a terrorist organization (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/256689/mek-not-terrorist-group-michael-b-mukasey-tom-ridge-and-frances-fragos-townsend?page=1).

Here's the backstory: Last week, Georgetown University Law Professor David Cole penned an op-ed in the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/03/opinion/03cole.html?_r=1&ref=contributors)asking whether Giuliani - as well as former homeland security secretary Tom Ridge, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey and former national security adviser Frances Townsend - committed a federal crime when they spoke in support of a group called the Mujahedin-e Khalq at a conference in Paris.

As Cole noted, the United States considers the Mujahedin-e Khalq a "foreign terrorist organization" - and it's a crime to provide material support to such organizations. Cole argues that since Mukasey's own Justice Department (as well as the current one) says speech coordinated with a terrorist organization constitutes material support - a position backed by the Supreme Court - Giuliani and the others are at risk of criminal charges. (Cole, it should be noted, was arguing that he does not believe such speech should be a crime and calling for the law to be changed. He was also using the MEK situation to suggest the Supreme Court had erred in ruling against him in a separate case.)
Mujaheddin-e Khalq, or MEK, is an Iranian exile group that the Washington Post reports (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/22/AR2010122205180.html)was "added to the [terrorist] list in 1997 as part of an effort by President Bill Clinton's administration to reach out to Tehran." Giuliani and his colleagues are pushing for the group to be removed from that list. At the conference, Giuliani reportedly told MEK members that the United States "should not just be on your side, it should be enthusiastically on your side. You want the same things we want."
In the op-ed (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/256689/mek-not-terrorist-group-michael-b-mukasey-tom-ridge-and-frances-fragos-townsend?page=1) released today in National Review Online, Giuliani and the others argue MEK isn't a terrorist organization. They write that it is only on the terrorism list for political reasons, and note that the European Union and the United Kingdom have removed the group from their terrorism lists.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20028081-503544.html

If people want to justify butchering people for the glory and propserity of the U.S. using any evil smuck available or any means we care to, at least just say so.
don't claim the terrorist are going to kill us all so we we have dig in your paints and track your phone etc etc.
Let's Just be a full on imperialist monster. take off the mask.

we support terrist when we want to.
Not becuase we are are going to die. But becuase we want to run the show.

[Drummond]

I see, Revelarts, that you're taking a pro-Iranian line ?

Let me take a different tack here.

Hitler had Holocaustal plans for the Jews in Europe.

Ahmadinejad repeatedly threatened Israel with his version of a Holocaust.

America did fight Hitler -- eventually. On the one hand I don't in any way want to diminish the sacrifices America made in entering that war and fighting alongside its allies, and at significant cost. Nonetheless .. certainly from a British perspective .. you DID enter the war late. Our WWII started in 1939. Yours only started at the end of 1941, and then because you were attacked first, by the Japanese.

Iran is forging ahead with its nuclear programme, Revelarts, one widely suspected to be the means by which Iran will make good on its threat to Israel. Now, maybe Ahmadinejad has been replaced, but he is nonetheless NOT Iran's Supreme Ruler. The REAL power is in the hands of the SAME person.

So, Revelarts. Do you persist in being reluctant to take on a power which threatens genocide ? Just as there was reluctance, all those decades ago, to take on Hitler ?

SHOULD THE HITLERS OF THIS WORLD NOT BE OPPOSED ?

Iran has a track record, albeit a part-hidden one, of aggression. I've seen articles claiming that it is THE biggest supporter of terrorism in the world today.

But you still want to see Iran left alone ??

[revelarts]

I see, Revelarts, that you're taking a pro-Iranian line ?
....

I see, Drummond, that you're taking a pro-terrorist line ?....

[jafar00]

America did fight Hitler -- eventually.

Only after Pearl Harbour.

[Gaffer]

I see, Drummond, that you're taking a pro-terrorist line ?....

No one here has said anything about taking a pro-terrorist line. Except you with your support of iran. iran is the head of the snake.

Do you actually believe iran is only building one nuke? They are also building ICBM's to deliver the nukes. The actual head of the country is an end of the world fanatic that doesn't care what happens to his country. You really need to read up on the 12th imam and what the shites believe.

As for the MEK you need to research them a little more too. They gave up the terrorist route a while back and have been working with the US by supplying intelligence and information about what's happening in iran. Without them we would have even less info from that country.

In WW2 we fought on two fronts. The nazis were considered the bigger threat so the main concentration was given to the war in Europe. The Japanese weren't forgotten, they just weren't considered the bigger threat.

We have a similar two front type of war going on now, with the biggest threat being iran. Unfortunately instead of a FDR or Churchill to deal with the threats we have a Chamberlain running the country who can't decide if he wants to take action or play golf.

It's not America or those of us on the right that are siding with terrorists, it's the buffoon in the white house. You want to get into conspiracies, look at the current administration and what they are doing to this country.

[Drummond]

I see, Drummond, that you're taking a pro-terrorist line ?....

I am not the one taking a pro-Iranian line, Revelarts.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/30/iran-support-for-global-terror-surged-in-2012-administration-report-says/


Iran last year boosted its support for global terrorism to levels not seen for two decades, the Obama administration said Thursday as it released its annual report on international trends in extremist violence. The report said the core elements of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan are headed for defeat but stressed that the network's various affiliates remain severe threats to the U.S.

The State Department's "Country Reports on Terrorism" for 2012 left unchanged the U.S. list of "state sponsors of terrorism." Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria remain on that blacklist, although Iran was singled out as the worst offender and Syria was taken to task for the ongoing brutal crackdown on opponents of President Bashar Assad's regime.

Even the arch-Leftie and golf player Obama takes that point about Iran, Revelarts. You should be proud ...

[Drummond]

Only after Pearl Harbour.

... but they DID fight, Jafar, and in doing so, paid quite a price in killed and wounded soldiers. This needs to be remembered and appreciated.

I will give praise where it's due.

[revelarts]

Gaffer your saying that you want to fight on 2 fronts. I have no problem logically with that , at least your somewhat consistent. though i think your facts are skewed.
But Obama is not saying that, McCain and L Ghram aren't saying that. Israels not saying that they want to SUPPLY AQ Gaffer.

your upset with me because i don't want to attack or BOMB Iran.
But these guys want to FUND, ARM and give air support TO our AQ enemies. that is NOT fighting a 2 front war.

that's SUPPLYING JAPAN. the one's who attacked pearl harbor.

As far as Iran being the biggest support of "terror" Ok. what terror might that be specifically, sounds like more WMD talk to me. "trust us".

And again what about all of the known Saudi Royals supplying AQ all over the world. are they even counted in this assessment of who's funding terror. There's more and more info coming out that points to the former long time ambassador of Saudi Arabi to the U.S. Prince Bandar as being an AQ and terror organizer and supplier. Also a supplier to the CHenchen terror fronts in Russia.
But how many 911 hijackers were Saudi again? what was OBinLaden's nationality? the 2nd in command was Egyptian.

How many Iranian 911 hijacker? ZERO.
How many U.S. terror attacks by Iran? ZERO.
How many countries taken over militarily by Iran? ZERO.

all this HYPE about the Iran being the biggest threat since Hitler is BS.
Hitler invaded Multiple countries and Chamberlain and crew did nothing.
Iran has invaded NO ONE.

They've supported Hezbollah yes, that true, but if you can forgive the MEK, i'm not sure why you can't forgive Hezbolahh, they've given up their old terrorist ways and are now just a respectable political party too right?

But I can't get this Gaffer, the MEK combines Communism and ISLAM into one cult like ideology. How could you EVER give that group a pass, much less gloss over past terrorist attacks. Will you forgive AQ members who've killed Americans if they say they've "change their ways"?
honestly it's kinda disturbing to me that you'd even step out and defend them.

it's like i'm watching Orwell in real life.

one day AQ and all terrorist are are sworn enemies with the required 2-minute HATE daily
then, the AQ and some terrorist are our "friends" against the bigger enemy ... and it's always been this way.
gives me the shivers.

[revelarts]

Drummond,
not wanting to ATTACK a country does not mean you are in support of it.
I don't agree with China or Russia or Maritania and Ubekistan on various serious issues but it doesn't mean i should BOMB them 1sy chance i get.

You need to get a realistic definition of "support".
I don not SUPPORT ANY terrorist
And I do not SUPPORT attacking countries that have not attack any other nations.

And unlike some politicians I'm not willing to make up stuff to justify and invasion of someone I'm afraid of. or who isn't kissing my gluts.

[Drummond]

Drummond,
not wanting to ATTACK a country does not mean you are in support of it.
I don't agree with China or Russia or Maritania and Ubekistan on various serious issues but it doesn't mean i should BOMB them 1sy chance i get.

You need to get a realistic definition of "support".
I don not SUPPORT ANY terrorist
And I do not SUPPORT attacking countries that have not attack any other nations.

And unlike some politicians I'm not willing to make up stuff to justify and invasion of someone I'm afraid of. or who isn't kissing my gluts.

There are different ways of attacking, taking both direct and indirect forms.

Iran chooses to be less than direct. But this doesn't absolve them of culpability for other actions taken, other measures of support supplied.

Tell me, Revelarts. Does this following link tell the truth, or NOT ? If you think it doesn't, can you offer evidence to show us it's wrong ?

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/iranian-support-for-terrorism-and-violations-of-human-rights


The director of the Institute's Stein Program on Counterterrorism and Intelligence addressed the Canadian parliament regarding Iranian-sponsored violence at home and abroad. The following is an excerpt from his prepared remarks; download the PDF to read the full testimony.

In 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article Three of this document states that "everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." This week, marked here in the Canadian Parliament as "Iran Accountability Week," it is appropriate to consider Iran's long record of supporting and carrying out terrorist attacks in express violation of this right to "security of person."


Iran has a long history of violating human rights at home, but some of its more recent violations are taking place in Syria (where Tehran is actively supporting the Assad government's targeting of the civilian population) and around the world (where Iranian agents and proxy groups like Hezbollah are targeting diplomats and civilians alike for assassination). In fact, these violations are now more interconnected than ever: the people who direct and oversee the regime's human rights abuses at home and abroad are frequently the same people who direct and oversee the regime's foreign terrorist activities and its nuclear and missile programs...

Right, or wrong ? True, or false ?

Does this 'counterterrorism' expert not know what he's talking about ?

While you're at it, would you care to observe the contrast between this, from a post of yours ...


... why you can't forgive Hezbolahh, they've given up their old terrorist ways and are now just a respectable political party too right?

(it's HEZBOLLAH, by the way ..)

... against this ...


and proxy groups like Hezbollah are targeting diplomats and civilians alike for assassination

The date of the article that came from was 30TH MAY 2013 ...

Please advise us, Revelarts ....

[Gaffer]

Gaffer your saying that you want to fight on 2 fronts. I have no problem logically with that , at least your somewhat consistent. though i think your facts are skewed.
But Obama is not saying that, McCain and L Ghram aren't saying that. Israels not saying that they want to SUPPLY AQ Gaffer.

your upset with me because i don't want to attack or BOMB Iran.
But these guys want to FUND, ARM and give air support TO our AQ enemies. that is NOT fighting a 2 front war.

that's SUPPLYING JAPAN. the one's who attacked pearl harbor.

As far as Iran being the biggest support of "terror" Ok. what terror might that be specifically, sounds like more WMD talk to me. "trust us".

And again what about all of the known Saudi Royals supplying AQ all over the world. are they even counted in this assessment of who's funding terror. There's more and more info coming out that points to the former long time ambassador of Saudi Arabi to the U.S. Prince Bandar as being an AQ and terror organizer and supplier. Also a supplier to the CHenchen terror fronts in Russia.
But how many 911 hijackers were Saudi again? what was OBinLaden's nationality? the 2nd in command was Egyptian.

How many Iranian 911 hijacker? ZERO.
How many U.S. terror attacks by Iran? ZERO.
How many countries taken over militarily by Iran? ZERO.

all this HYPE about the Iran being the biggest threat since Hitler is BS.
Hitler invaded Multiple countries and Chamberlain and crew did nothing.
Iran has invaded NO ONE.

They've supported Hezbollah yes, that true, but if you can forgive the MEK, i'm not sure why you can't forgive Hezbolahh, they've given up their old terrorist ways and are now just a respectable political party too right?

But I can't get this Gaffer, the MEK combines Communism and ISLAM into one cult like ideology. How could you EVER give that group a pass, much less gloss over past terrorist attacks. Will you forgive AQ members who've killed Americans if they say they've "change their ways"?
honestly it's kinda disturbing to me that you'd even step out and defend them.

it's like i'm watching Orwell in real life.

one day AQ and all terrorist are are sworn enemies with the required 2-minute HATE daily
then, the AQ and some terrorist are our "friends" against the bigger enemy ... and it's always been this way.
gives me the shivers.

Rev you seem to have a problem comprehending what I write. You seem to think I support AQ while wanting to go after iran. That's not the case. I'm saying we redirect our efforts to take down iran and then finish off AQ.

And finally, you really, really need to study up on iran and the shite version of islam. Learn about Quds force, the revolutionary guard and hezbollah. assad is a puppet of iran, and iraq is almost completely under their influence. Gee iran didn't invade those countries. They just sent agents in to subvert the govt's and prop up the leaders they wanted.

They are building their nukes right now. Those are WMD's by the way.

As for the saudi's, you need to read more of my posts. I've said for quite a while that the saudi's are secretly and quietly backing the brotherhood with funds. The brotherhood in turn funds AQ and the other terror organizations. The saud's are the real power behind all the AQ types, while at the same time presenting a smiling face to the rest of the world.

And I've also said before that nothing is going to get done by this administration. we're marching toward WW3 and this administration is leading the march. It's a matter of which comes first, the total collapse of the economy or a world war starting in the ME.

[revelarts]

Gaffer, Drummond
http://plimages.blob.core.windows.net/article-images/cartoons/20130828_DavidFitzsimmons.jpg

[fj1200]

^Because terrorist.