View Full Version : Iranian Raises Possibility Of An Intrusion Into Iraq
Zaknafien
09-10-2007, 14:01
Interestingly enough, this same kurdish terrorist group is one of several on a protected list by the United States which is allowed to freely operate in Kurdistan. I guess its ok for the US to sponsor terrorism against Iran, but its taboo for Iran to sponsor terrorism in Iraq..:thumbsdown:
*********************
New York Times
September 10, 2007
Pg. 8
Iranian Raises Possibility Of An Intrusion Into Iraq
By James Glanz
BAGHDAD, Sept. 9 — In a sharp escalation of a dispute over border fighting, an official Iranian delegation at a diplomatic conference here warned Sunday that if the Iraqi government could not stop militants from crossing into Iran and carrying out attacks, the Iranian authorities would respond militarily.
The Iranian delegation, led by a deputy foreign minister, Mohammad R. Baqiri, also charged that the United States was supporting groups believed to be mounting attacks from Iraqi territory in the Kurdish north.
Mr. Baqiri did not specifically say that Iran would enter Iraq militarily, but his statements, couched in diplomatic terms, raised the clear possibility that Iranian forces could cross the border in pursuit of the militants. But however carefully phrased his statements, many of those distinctions are likely to be lost on hundreds of families on the Iraqi side who have been driven from their villages by weeks of intermittent shelling from Iran.
Hundreds of Kurds demonstrated Sunday against the shelling in the northern provincial capital of Erbil. They gathered outside the Kurdish Parliament building and asked that the northern government and the United Nations intervene.
Senior Iranian officials have privately acknowledged to their Iraqi counterparts that the shelling is taking place in response to guerrilla attacks by a group opposed to the Iranian government that has bases on the Iraqi side of the border. At the conference on Sunday, at the Iraqi Foreign Ministry, Mr. Baqiri did not directly address the shelling, but he told officials from 16 nations, the Arab League, the Islamic Conference and the United Nations that it was time for Iraq to take action.
“Supporting military and political actions by terrorist elements in Iraq against neighboring countries is considered dangerous behavior that we cannot tolerate, and a major factor in the chaotic security situation and instability in the region,” Mr. Baqiri told the assembled delegates, according to an Arabic translation of his remarks, which were made in Persian. “We are waiting for the Iraqi government to do what it takes to resolve this issue.”
Later, asked at a briefing about the shelling, Mr. Baqiri said that in dealing with “terrorists who want to enter Iranian soil,” the Iranian government “will confront them and stop them.”
“We have a long history in standing against terrorist groups,” Mr. Baqiri said. “We have made many sacrifices because of this, and we know how to confront these groups.”
Mr. Baqiri’s comments are likely to raise tensions against the bloody backdrop of the Iran-Iraq war, which lasted throughout much of the 1980s and began with a border dispute in the south. Perhaps by design, his words seemed especially jarring because they were delivered during a conference organized to promote harmony in the region.
That conference was organized by the Iraqi Foreign Ministry, led by Hoshyar Zebari, a Kurd who fought Saddam Hussein’s government as a guerrilla commander, often operating essentially as an ally of Iran. But in a diplomatic meeting in Tehran last week, Mr. Zebari called the shelling indiscriminate and far out of proportion to the threat to Iran.
On Sunday, Mr. Zebari acknowledged that the cross-border attacks were taking place, but described them as infrequent and more of a nuisance than a real threat. Still, Mr. Zebari agreed that it fell to the Iraqi government to rein in the groups.
“But at the same time we want this shelling to stop or end because it’s causing a great deal of unease, and we don’t want to see the atmosphere of confidence to be compromised by these continuing acts,” Mr. Zebari said.
The group that has claimed responsibility for the attacks, called Pezak or Pejak for its acronym, is believed to be made up mainly of Iranian Kurds seeking autonomy for Kurds in Iran. Asked specifically about that group, Mr. Baqiri stated publicly what Iranian officials have been claiming privately for months: that the United States supports the group.
This support, Mr. Baqiri said, amounted to a “double standard” in American policy, given that the United States has repeatedly accused Iran of exporting deadly roadside bombs to Iraq and supporting armed groups here. Those weapons and support, American officials believe, have led directly to the deaths of American and Iraqi troops and other security forces.
Told late Sunday of Mr. Baqiri’s accusations, a Pentagon spokesman, Lt. Col. Jonathan Withington, said, “I am not aware of any support being provided” to Pejak.
While Mr. Baqiri’s comments appeared to be a direct response to the criticisms leveled by Mr. Zebari in Tehran, their precise timing was unlikely to be coincidental, occurring as they did the day before crucial reports on progress in Iraq were to be delivered to Congress by Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, and Ryan C. Crocker, the American ambassador to Iraq. Iran bitterly opposes the American presence in Iraq.
For all the accusations leveled by the Iraqis and the Iranians, the conference, attended by this reporter at the invitation of the Foreign Ministry, offered an extraordinary glimpse into a regional dynamic that generally takes place behind closed doors.
At a gathering in March, Mr. Zebari managed to bring the United States and Iran to the same conference table to discuss issues relating to Iraq. Along with representatives of Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and other nations, the United States and Iran were once again seated at the same table, albeit nearly as far apart as the table’s geometry would allow.
And the chill between the two nations was palpable. “The fact is that because of our great love for Iraq, we agreed to come here and sit at one table with our enemies,” Mr. Baqiri said.
The American delegation, led by Patricia A. Butenis, the chargé d’affaires here while Mr. Crocker is in Washington, did not respond to that statement. But the overall dynamic in the room became starkly visible when Mr. Zebari proposed creating a “secretariat” to keep track of the Iraq issues being considered at the meetings.
When it became apparent that the United States and Britain backed Mr. Zebari’s proposal, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and others quickly took the floor to shoot the proposal down. The conference ended with the issue unresolved.
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
09-10-2007, 15:26
Interestingly enough, this same kurdish terrorist group is one of several on a protected list by the United States which is allowed to freely operate in Kurdistan. I guess its ok for the US to sponsor terrorism against Iran, but its taboo for Iran to sponsor terrorism in Iraq..:thumbsdown:
*********************
New York Times
September 10, 2007
Pg. 8
Iranian Raises Possibility Of An Intrusion Into Iraq
By James Glanz
BAGHDAD, Sept. 9 — In a sharp escalation of a dispute over border fighting, an official Iranian delegation at a diplomatic conference here warned Sunday that if the Iraqi government could not stop militants from crossing into Iran and carrying out attacks, the Iranian authorities would respond militarily.
The Iranian delegation, led by a deputy foreign minister, Mohammad R. Baqiri, also charged that the United States was supporting groups believed to be mounting attacks from Iraqi territory in the Kurdish north.
Mr. Baqiri did not specifically say that Iran would enter Iraq militarily, but his statements, couched in diplomatic terms, raised the clear possibility that Iranian forces could cross the border in pursuit of the militants. But however carefully phrased his statements, many of those distinctions are likely to be lost on hundreds of families on the Iraqi side who have been driven from their villages by weeks of intermittent shelling from Iran.
Hundreds of Kurds demonstrated Sunday against the shelling in the northern provincial capital of Erbil. They gathered outside the Kurdish Parliament building and asked that the northern government and the United Nations intervene.
Senior Iranian officials have privately acknowledged to their Iraqi counterparts that the shelling is taking place in response to guerrilla attacks by a group opposed to the Iranian government that has bases on the Iraqi side of the border. At the conference on Sunday, at the Iraqi Foreign Ministry, Mr. Baqiri did not directly address the shelling, but he told officials from 16 nations, the Arab League, the Islamic Conference and the United Nations that it was time for Iraq to take action.
“Supporting military and political actions by terrorist elements in Iraq against neighboring countries is considered dangerous behavior that we cannot tolerate, and a major factor in the chaotic security situation and instability in the region,” Mr. Baqiri told the assembled delegates, according to an Arabic translation of his remarks, which were made in Persian. “We are waiting for the Iraqi government to do what it takes to resolve this issue.”
Later, asked at a briefing about the shelling, Mr. Baqiri said that in dealing with “terrorists who want to enter Iranian soil,” the Iranian government “will confront them and stop them.”
“We have a long history in standing against terrorist groups,” Mr. Baqiri said. “We have made many sacrifices because of this, and we know how to confront these groups.”
Mr. Baqiri’s comments are likely to raise tensions against the bloody backdrop of the Iran-Iraq war, which lasted throughout much of the 1980s and began with a border dispute in the south. Perhaps by design, his words seemed especially jarring because they were delivered during a conference organized to promote harmony in the region.
That conference was organized by the Iraqi Foreign Ministry, led by Hoshyar Zebari, a Kurd who fought Saddam Hussein’s government as a guerrilla commander, often operating essentially as an ally of Iran. But in a diplomatic meeting in Tehran last week, Mr. Zebari called the shelling indiscriminate and far out of proportion to the threat to Iran.
On Sunday, Mr. Zebari acknowledged that the cross-border attacks were taking place, but described them as infrequent and more of a nuisance than a real threat. Still, Mr. Zebari agreed that it fell to the Iraqi government to rein in the groups.
“But at the same time we want this shelling to stop or end because it’s causing a great deal of unease, and we don’t want to see the atmosphere of confidence to be compromised by these continuing acts,” Mr. Zebari said.
The group that has claimed responsibility for the attacks, called Pezak or Pejak for its acronym, is believed to be made up mainly of Iranian Kurds seeking autonomy for Kurds in Iran. Asked specifically about that group, Mr. Baqiri stated publicly what Iranian officials have been claiming privately for months: that the United States supports the group.
This support, Mr. Baqiri said, amounted to a “double standard” in American policy, given that the United States has repeatedly accused Iran of exporting deadly roadside bombs to Iraq and supporting armed groups here. Those weapons and support, American officials believe, have led directly to the deaths of American and Iraqi troops and other security forces.
Told late Sunday of Mr. Baqiri’s accusations, a Pentagon spokesman, Lt. Col. Jonathan Withington, said, “I am not aware of any support being provided” to Pejak.
While Mr. Baqiri’s comments appeared to be a direct response to the criticisms leveled by Mr. Zebari in Tehran, their precise timing was unlikely to be coincidental, occurring as they did the day before crucial reports on progress in Iraq were to be delivered to Congress by Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, and Ryan C. Crocker, the American ambassador to Iraq. Iran bitterly opposes the American presence in Iraq.
For all the accusations leveled by the Iraqis and the Iranians, the conference, attended by this reporter at the invitation of the Foreign Ministry, offered an extraordinary glimpse into a regional dynamic that generally takes place behind closed doors.
At a gathering in March, Mr. Zebari managed to bring the United States and Iran to the same conference table to discuss issues relating to Iraq. Along with representatives of Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and other nations, the United States and Iran were once again seated at the same table, albeit nearly as far apart as the table’s geometry would allow.
And the chill between the two nations was palpable. “The fact is that because of our great love for Iraq, we agreed to come here and sit at one table with our enemies,” Mr. Baqiri said.
The American delegation, led by Patricia A. Butenis, the chargé d’affaires here while Mr. Crocker is in Washington, did not respond to that statement. But the overall dynamic in the room became starkly visible when Mr. Zebari proposed creating a “secretariat” to keep track of the Iraq issues being considered at the meetings.
When it became apparent that the United States and Britain backed Mr. Zebari’s proposal, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and others quickly took the floor to shoot the proposal down. The conference ended with the issue unresolved.
So you supporting Iran to sponsor terrorism in Iraq (or in general)?
FactionHeir
09-10-2007, 15:28
Wouldn't be the first time in the "Iraq war" that the US is supporting terrorists in Iraq because they fight "mutual enemies".
I suppose it ends up in which nation has greater credibility worldwide and has the more powerful media influence. So far, I have hardly heard much criticism of said support by the US but much more against Iran in the media. But then, how many people in the Western world understand / listen to Arabic compared to English, eh?
Option one, Bush is one special birthday boy and gets a great present from the beard.
option two, it's bull.
Like Iranian military personell in Iraq would be anything new.... ~:handball:
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
09-10-2007, 16:52
Wouldn't be the first time in the "Iraq war" that the US is supporting terrorists in Iraq because they fight "mutual enemies".
I suppose it ends up in which nation has greater credibility worldwide and has the more powerful media influence. So far, I have hardly heard much criticism of said support by the US but much more against Iran in the media. But then, how many people in the Western world understand / listen to Arabic compared to English, eh?
Yeah,but I have no interest listening to Radcial Muslims preaching hate against the United States.
rory_20_uk
09-10-2007, 16:59
The whole area is a mess. The usual one lot's terrorists is another lot's Freedom Fighters.
America does exactly the same thing in regions in the present and in the past (Afghanistan in Soviet times). Why should Iran be Bad when it does it?
And shelling across borders? Sounds like Israel to me. Or possibly India / Pakistan. But there must be a difference as the World doesn't like Iran - that's what CNN said...
~:smoking:
Geoffrey S
09-10-2007, 18:45
I can't quite see what you're getting at Zaknafien. Are you saying Iran is allowed to sponsor Iraqi terrorists since the US apparently does the same, or do you disagree with both sides doing this?
HoreTore
09-10-2007, 18:46
Yeah,but I have no interest listening to Radcial Muslims preaching hate against the United States.
Yes, and fortunately for us all, the world is that simple.
[/sarcasm]
Del Arroyo
09-10-2007, 19:36
**** the ******* Iranians, they're already in Iraq, if they want to make an excursion into a remote area of eastern Iraqi Kurdistan that's kind of a side issue.
But to address the main thrust of the OP, yes the "War on Terror" is a misnomer. And, what? It doesn't change the facts. It's like pointing out that Bush is an idiot. Surely he is, but even if he was a genius it wouldn't change the facts.
Tribesman
09-10-2007, 19:36
Should Iran or Turkey get a UN mandate to invade Iraq in the worldwide war on terror or should they just go ahead and invade ?
Del Arroyo
09-10-2007, 19:37
Should Iran or Turkey get a UN mandate to invade Iraq in the worldwide war on terror or should they just go ahead and invade ?
more the merrier
HoreTore
09-10-2007, 19:43
Should Iran or Turkey get a UN mandate to invade Iraq in the worldwide war on terror or should they just go ahead and invade ?
It would be the funniest moment in history if Iran invaded and the US then attacked them because they defied international law and the UN security counsel...
ajaxfetish
09-11-2007, 02:38
Should Iran or Turkey get a UN mandate to invade Iraq in the worldwide war on terror or should they just go ahead and invade ?
The irony of Iran and Turkey invading Iraq under a UN mandate would be breathtakingly beautiful.
Ajax
I think that Zaknafien isn't in support of terrorism, but is simply annoyed at the hypocrisy of the situation?
Seems like brinkmanship on the behalf of Iran really. I doubt they have the true ability to take on Iraq if the US is implicitly involved in one way or another.
But whatever happens Iraq will never be stable nor supportive of the USA, if they wanted that the US should have proceeded with the reconstruction in the same manner as they did in Europe after WWII.
So all in all the Middle East is a mess really.
Zaknafien
09-11-2007, 11:23
Of course I'm not supporting terrorism. But has been stated here prior, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Seamus Fermanagh
09-12-2007, 16:45
The article does not provide evidence of active US support for this group, merely the emphatic statement of one Iranian diplomat. Nevertheless, it is distinctly possible that the USA is not exerting any effort to stop incidents being fomented by this group and the "I'm not aware of" denial by a DoD spokesperson does not preclude some measure of active support.
In terms of moral and ethical consistency, (and assuming that this group is actually conducting terror attacks in Iran) the highest value would be for the USA to expend effort to crush this group if they are taking their cause across the border and using terrorist violence to pursue it. However, given the state of affairs in Iraq and the tenor of Iran's relationship with the United States, it is easy to see where "focusing on other issues" becomes an understandable, though not laudable, choice.
Let us assume, however, that US forces are directed to counter this group. Let us further assume that this group is rapidly degraded and forced to stop any cross-border activity. Let us further assume that, despite some strain, US-Kurdish relations are still largely positive after such an anti-terror offensive. Even if all of this were to come to pass....
Does anyone here think that Iran would then change its efforts and support for anti-US forces in Iraq? :inquisitive:
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
09-12-2007, 18:30
It would be the funniest moment in history if Iran invaded and the US then attacked them because they defied international law and the UN security counsel...
But the Whole United Nations is a joke,period....
HoreTore
09-12-2007, 18:48
But the Whole United Nations is a joke,period....
Only because one of the founding nations are making fun of it...
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
09-12-2007, 19:41
Only because one of the founding nations are making fun of it...
No, Because it's a joke period Tore.
No, Because it's a joke period Tore.
I would disagree.
Care to explain why it's a joke? Horetore's comment also has some merit.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-13-2007, 00:54
No, Because it's a joke period Tore.
I would also like to disagree. Why don't you explain your reasoning, instead of using single sentences, and keeping us guessing?
No, Because it's a joke period Tore.
Have an example, because I sure don't get the what the punchline would be.
HoreTore's comment holds water when you consider events such as Somalia 1991-94.
CountArach
09-14-2007, 11:02
Yeah,but I have no interest listening to Radcial Muslims preaching hate against the United States.
And they have no interest in listening to you preach your Anti-Radical Muslim views. Its a reciprocal cycle. Each one of you is equally to blame.
Only because one of the founding nations are making fun of it...
An excellent quote HoreTore :bow:
Papewaio
09-14-2007, 14:05
Of course I'm not supporting terrorism. But has been stated here prior, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
They might have the same political objective and powerbase but the methodology is starkly different.
A terrorist targets civilians.
A freedom fighter targets the military (paramilitary police, militia and security consultants aka mercs included).
Tribesman
09-14-2007, 19:43
A terrorist targets civilians.
A freedom fighter targets the military (paramilitary police, militia and security consultants aka mercs included).
So if the Iranian backed people are killing military personel , militias they don't like or some of the mercenaries they are freedom fighters ...if PEJAC is planting bombs in markets they are terrorists .
But if they are doing both what are they ?
Anyhow , 6 people commenting on this line
No, Because it's a joke period Tore.
why not go for this one instead....
So you supporting Iran to sponsor terrorism in Iraq (or in general)?.....
It makes even less sense .
Where this one ....
Yeah,but I have no interest listening to Radcial Muslims preaching hate against the United States.....is just too funny for words .
I would also like to disagree. Why don't you explain your reasoning, instead of using single sentences, and keeping us guessing?
item 1(IE Arms inspection). (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/798612/posts)
Item 2 (IE: pure bureaucracy) (http://diplomadic.blogspot.com/2004/11/seeing-un-plain-corruption-as-way-of.html)
Item 3(food for oil). (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20041206/gordon)
Item 4 (israels defiance=no action). (http://www.thefairandbalancednews.com/Israel%20Resolutions.htm)
Item 5. (Rwanda) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/714025.stm)
I dont think I will explain any reasoning just site valid example from multiple sources, and what was that little war that a security council member took part in late 70,s early 80's without a resolution ? :idea2:
Oh Yeah ! (http://www.soviethistory.org/index.php?action=L2&SubjectID=1980afghanistan&Year=1980)
Boy they covered themselves in glory on that one, heck at least the U.S. had a worthless resolution authorizing force, but sshhhhhh dont tell anyone you'll ruin the gag.
We could also chit chat about yugoslavia too, but hey my time is limited, ive got some new napkins with the UN flag emblom and a greasy cheese burger.
:thumbsdown:
Only because one of the founding nations are making fun of it...
More then one of the founding nations are involved in that. You might want to check into the history of the United Nations a bit more.
Incongruous
09-15-2007, 06:15
More then one of the founding nations are involved in that. You might want to check into the history of the United Nations a bit more.
Indeed, almost everyone deflates the bloated rhetoric of the UN.
But that's not the UN's fault. Rather than the UN being the joke, I rather think the UN breakers are the joke.
Tribesman
09-15-2007, 09:17
what was that little war that a security council member took part in late 70,s early 80's without a resolution ?
Which member Britian , America , Russia , France , China.......?
Rodion Romanovich
09-15-2007, 12:32
Interesting! Iran are IMO worse than Bush from a moral standpoint, but you gotta admit that Ahmadinejad (sp?) must be considered one of the most skilled political leaders and diplomats of this century, for managing to outsmart the former (?) alcoholic Bush who has superior resources in terms of technology, diplomatic position, moral position, economy and supply of educated and (at least on the paper) smart men for advisors, and to make Bush commit more offenses of the kind that are damaging to strength and credibility, than he commits himself, by often pointing out the double moral standards and deceitful propaganda of the Bush administration (which actually succeeds in reaching the immensely difficult to attain result of turning an immenesly strong starting moral position into a near villain's position).
It's an amazing achievement to actually be able to, when not immensely morally better than the opponent, manage to win many supporters in the country that that opponent rules. Generally, for a population to dislike its leader (assuming that leader is of the same ethnicity/nationality as the people of the country) more than an outside leader in a conflict, the outside ruler must be at least tenfold morally stronger to the opponent.
===
It's not difficult to guess where this whole thing is going, and neither side has anything to benefit from it... The Bushites will when losing power by next election leave a mess that even the Democrats may not be able to resolve diplomatically, leaving only a war with Iran as an option, because so much hostility has been caused. Alternatively, a war with Iran may be started already before the end of his term... This articles is of course yet another argument for leaving Iraq, instead of pushing further. To stay is the old "just push a little further and we'll gain the final victory" when in an attrition situation where you lose more strength per time unit than the opponent, but keep pushing because you know that if you retreat, you won't be back in a long time, or ever. A bit of the German mentality at El Alamein and Stalingrad, to give a few well-known military examples.
A good general not only sees the way to victory, he also know when he cannot fight. Strategy without tactics is the slowest way to victory; tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat. A good general does not seek battle, but victory.
Zaknafien
09-15-2007, 13:46
I dont think you can credit Iran's president just because Bush is a moron. There won't be a war with Iran while shrub is in office; the military won't allow it. THe chiefs have already refused to deploy more troops to Iraq or to extend deployments again because our military is nearly broken as is. We simply dont have the resources to invade Iran, a country whose insurgency would kick our ass much more than Iraq's is.
Geoffrey S
09-15-2007, 18:49
I also must acknowledge Ahmadinejad's skills in the international arena, although perhaps for a slightly different reason: he has recognised perfectly that a lot of people in the West distrust their own political leaders enough that a lot of the time they're more than willing to swallow his side of the story or at the least go far enough in relativist ideas to support policies directly counterproductive to their own well-being (at the risk of sounding hypocritcal, policies on either side of the fence). It's something politicians in the West struggle to comprehend.
Tribesman
09-15-2007, 19:05
Geoffrey , do you not think that a lot of people look at both sides , see which is talking most crap , seperate the rubbish spouted from both and then weigh the crap/non crap elements to see which is talking rubbish about each issue .Then take their stance from that instead of just swallowing blindly on the sole basis of who said it and where they come from ?
Do you think most people fall into either the Bush said it so its rubbish or the dinnerjacket said it so its rubbish fold ?
Blodrast
09-15-2007, 19:29
Do you think most people fall into either the Bush said it so its rubbish or the dinnerjacket said it so its rubbish fold ?
I am firmly convinced of the opposite: that most people fall into "Bush said it so it's true" or "Ahmadinejad said it so it's true". I see and hear that every day when I talk to people.
Boyar Son
09-15-2007, 20:48
I hope Iran doesnt interfere, I mean "help" when it comes to politics and military translates into "self gain" in todays world.
Iran does not wish the best for U.S. or Iraq
Zaknafien
09-15-2007, 21:07
Well the U.S. doesnt wish the best for Iraq or Iran, so they're equals there.
Boyar Son
09-15-2007, 21:18
You know I'm speaking from a pro U.S. perspective, unless this place is called Earth instead of U.S. or England, france....
Do you think most people fall into either the Bush said it so its rubbish or the dinnerjacket said it so its rubbish fold ?
The problem is not even that - most people fall into the catergory if it doesn't have a direct effect on their immediate life, they normally allow others to do the thinking for them.
Hince many nations have had poor leaders that have lead the nation astray or worse.
So in the United States we are stuck with a primary two party system where one hopes he votes for the individual that could do the best for the nation, but often we are stuck voting for the one we think will do the least damage to it.
At least we seem to have that advantage over the Iranians - on the surface anyway - I am sure its different from an Iranian perspective.
Geoffrey S
09-16-2007, 10:47
Geoffrey , do you not think that a lot of people look at both sides , see which is talking most crap , seperate the rubbish spouted from both and then weigh the crap/non crap elements to see which is talking rubbish about each issue .Then take their stance from that instead of just swallowing blindly on the sole basis of who said it and where they come from ?
I think the majority doesn't even bother to sort through the crap but in fact lets the media do it for them while presenting that as its own opinion; all that really does is move things down another level, believing a particular media source over all other options (ie. Fox, Al-Jazeera, whatever).
Do you think most people fall into either the Bush said it so its rubbish or the dinnerjacket said it so its rubbish fold ?
Ultimately, yes, and the same goes for a number of other subjects.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.