US funds terror groups to sow chaos in Iran

By William Lowther in Washington DC and Colin Freeman, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:30am GMT 25/02/2007

America is secretly funding militant ethnic separatist groups in Iran in an attempt to pile pressure on the Islamic regime to give up its nuclear programme.

In a move that reflects Washington's growing concern with the failure of diplomatic initiatives, CIA officials are understood to be helping opposition militias among the numerous ethnic minority groups clustered in Iran's border regions.

The operations are controversial because they involve dealing with movements that resort to terrorist methods in pursuit of their grievances against the Iranian regime.

In the past year there has been a wave of unrest in ethnic minority border areas of Iran, with bombing and assassination campaigns against soldiers and government officials.

Such incidents have been carried out by the Kurds in the west, the Azeris in the north-west, the Ahwazi Arabs in the south-west, and the Baluchis in the south-east. Non-Persians make up nearly 40 per cent of Iran's 69 million population, with around 16 million Azeris, seven million Kurds, five million Ahwazis and one million Baluchis. Most Baluchis live over the border in Pakistan.
advertisement

Funding for their separatist causes comes directly from the CIA's classified budget but is now "no great secret", according to one former high-ranking CIA official in Washington who spoke anonymously to The Sunday Telegraph.

His claims were backed by Fred Burton, a former US state department counter-terrorism agent, who said: "The latest attacks inside Iran fall in line with US efforts to supply and train Iran's ethnic minorities to destabilise the Iranian regime."

Although Washington officially denies involvement in such activity, Teheran has long claimed to detect the hand of both America and Britain in attacks by guerrilla groups on its internal security forces. Last Monday, Iran publicly hanged a man, Nasrollah Shanbe Zehi, for his involvement in a bomb attack that killed 11 Revolutionary Guards in the city of Zahedan in Sistan-Baluchistan. An unnamed local official told the semi-official Fars news agency that weapons used in the attack were British and US-made.

Yesterday, Iranian forces also claimed to have killed 17 rebels described as "mercenary elements" in clashes near the Turkish border, which is a stronghold of the Pejak, a Kurdish militant party linked to Turkey's outlawed PKK Kurdistan Workers' Party.

John Pike, the head of the influential Global Security think tank in Washington, said: "The activities of the ethnic groups have hotted up over the last two years and it would be a scandal if that was not at least in part the result of CIA activity."

rest of article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/25/wiran25.xml).

Is Bush really insane enough to try and fight on three fronts?

Divide and conquor...because it worked so well with Hamas...

Divide who? America? If so, it seems to be working.

Certainly the both of you can't be so naive as to believe the U.S. is the only country to engage in the behavior outlined above.

Certainly the both of you can't be so naive as to believe the U.S. is the only country to engage in the behavior outlined above.

To try and start fights on three fronts?

To try and start fights on three fronts?

No, this one: US funds terror groups to sow chaos in Iran.

No, this one: US funds terror groups to sow chaos in Iran.

Do you know of any country that does that kind of thing as often as America?

No, this one: US funds terror groups to sow chaos in Iran.When Iran provides support for Shia militias in Iraq it is called an act of war against the US.

Do you know of any country that does that kind of thing as often as America?
We spend so much more on our military. I don't think any other country is capable of doing this.

When Iran provides support for Shia militias in Iraq it is called an act of war against the US.

Quite true.

Do you know of any country that does that kind of thing as often as America?

Dang. Sounds like you are ashamed.
Me, I am proud.
Special Ops, deep cover, dirty deals done dirt cheap. Those guys are studs.
:thumbs: :thumbs:

Special Ops, deep cover, dirty deals done dirt cheap. Those guys are studs. sounds like we need a 'smiley' sporting a woody...

Me, I am proud.
Special Ops, deep cover, dirty deals done dirt cheap. Those guys are studs.
:thumbs: :thumbs:

If they were used judiciously by men of wisdom I wouldn't be so skeptical.

Unfortunately that does not seem to be the case and they have only made us less safe as a result.

"sounds like we need a 'smiley' sporting a woody..."

Or basking in the afterglow.
http://www.vpsingles.com/pics/afterglow.gif

If they were used judiciously by men of wisdom I wouldn't be so skeptical.

Unfortunately that does not seem to be the case and they have only made us less safe as a result.

Everybody's entitled to their own opinion, I guess.
Thank God we live in a country where you are allowed to express it all you want.

Me, I'm proud of that too.

Everybody's entitled to their own opinion, I guess.
Thank God we live in a country where you are allowed to express it all you want.

Me, I'm proud of that too.
unless of course someone in control of 'special ops' decides that you are a threat to their power, then they murder you.

That's the breaks.

That's why, in my 26 years of service in the US Army, I made my motives and my willingness to defend and/or retaliate perfectly clear.

I own weapons, I guess that's what I am saying.
Luckily, I won't have to use them.
I am the darling of the current administration, and have very little to fear from the Special Ops community.

Sucks to be everyone else though.

Another U.S. Military Assault on Media
Dahr Jamail and Ali al-Fadhily

BAGHDAD, Feb 23 (IPS) - Iraqi journalists are outraged over yet another U.S. military raid on the media.

U.S. soldiers raided and ransacked the offices of the Iraq Syndicate of Journalists (ISJ) in central Baghdad Tuesday this week. Ten armed guards were arrested, and 10 computers and 15 small electricity generators kept for donation to families of killed journalists were seized.

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=36694

Guess freedom of press/speech is too good for the Iraqis we boss around at the moment...

Is Bourne-identity style infighting something the US really has to worry about?

I like how you seamlessly jump from this
Thank God we live in a country where you are allowed to express it all you want. to this That's the breaks.

That's why, in my 26 years of service in the US Army, I made my motives and my willingness to defend and/or retaliate perfectly clear.

I own weapons, I guess that's what I am saying.
Luckily, I won't have to use them.
I am the darling of the current administration, and have very little to fear from the Special Ops community.

Sucks to be everyone else though.
and don't even acknowledge the contradictory nature

I like how you seamlessly jump from this
to this and don't even acknowledge the contradictory nature
You take Sparky WAY too seriously.

Odd way of fighting "The War on Terror" by supporting terror groups.

Everybody's entitled to their own opinion, I guess.
Thank God we live in a country where you are allowed to express it all you want.

If by "free", you mean subject to repercussions such as threats of violence, violence, slander, boycotts, etc if you say something unpopular.

Of if by "free" you mean herded into a barb-wire pen, Orwelleanly named a "free speech zone" so you can "express" yourself out of sight and out of mind of those you are trying to communicate to.

Or do you mean by "free" that we have no habeus corpus rights anymore, so if I say something they don't like they can slap a label on me that strips me of ALL my rights and they can disappear me like an uppity Jew in Nazi Germany.

They don't advertise the disclaimer that comes with American "freedom".

That's the breaks.

Nice reaction to the recinding of our freedoms.

I guess your 26 years in the military were wasted because you don't seem to care much about the "freedoms" you were supposedly defending.


I am the darling of the current administration,

one of the remaining 20% who still support them?

I don't care to debate you, 500 lb gorilla, nor you dharmabum.
If you and I don't see the world exactly the same, I certainly won't lose any sleep over that fact. I have enough friends.

I was just being glib.
The topic in my mind was whether you are an apologist (who sleeps comfortably at night under the blanket of security afforded you by the US military, complaining the whole time) or a veteran who actually served and went to war to weave the fabric of that very blanket.

I am out of the game now, so I can neither defend nor deny the existence of waste, fraud, & abuse in the current theater of operations.

I just rankle at the seemingly non-stop criticizing of our military, the second-guessing of our duly-elected strategic leaders, and the attitude of "America is a shameful country, and we should all be ashamed of our policies abroad".

Screw that.
I am proud to be an American citizen.
And if Iran is finally poised to take their due medicine, then I guess I will be glad to see that happen too.
Shoot, I may go back on Active Duty to be a part of that.
(Give me some new glasses, and I reckon I can still hit the target.)

This is the kind of shit (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/25/iraq.main/index.html) the others are funding. Is that what you want to see continued?

What kind of veteran of 25 years (supposedly) thinks opening a third front when we are already stretched is a good thing?

Someone who didn't learn much in 25 years.

*sigh*

I defer to your superior intellect, dharmabum.

You have the strategic reach, military mind, and global wisdom that I have somehow failed to grasp in all my years on this earth.

I will from here on out apologize to everyone I meet for being an American.
And if some French guys or San Francisco city council men ever show up and get tough with me, I'll be sure to roll over and let them piss on me.

Shame on me for serving in the Army all those years, and shame on this horrible, morally-bankrupt country.

Thank you for opening up my eyes, sir.
This has been quite an epiphany.
Really, thanks.
(Damn America, and damn GW Bush. Shame, shame, shame on all of us. Poor Iranians, too. What did they ever do to deserve such a bums rush?)

You have the strategic reach, military mind, and global wisdom that I have somehow failed to grasp in all my years on this earth.

If you think opening a third front is a good idea than you are correct.



I will from here on out apologize to everyone I meet for being an American.

Melodrama anyone? YAWN!!!




Shame on me for serving in the Army all those years, and shame on this horrible, morally-bankrupt country.

No, shame on you for not knowing any better. Shame on your for supporting the administration instead of the troops.

OK, stop now.
Really. You're embarrassing yourself.

(Though, come to think of it, this whole business of talking out your ass is quite an amazing feat.)

OK, belay that previous order.
Please, by all means. Continue to embarrass yourself.

OK, stop now.

Why? Oh! I see. Because you can't respond to anything I said and you are embarrassed.

Well... you should be if you think opening a 3rd front is a good idea.

Really. You're embarrassing yourself.
He did that the first time he posted, now he is in a much worse state.

Dharma has bad karma. :eek:

>.<

dharmabum,

You have a most Overdose-like tenacity of spirit and strength of conviction.
I admire you both.

Please don't give up the fight, no matter what the grownups eventually tell you or force you to do. They are inevitably wrong, and they just don't understand your pain or your particular situation.

Keep up the good fight, young sir.
You are a true lion among future-men.

GgrrRRowww!!!
http://www.fotosearch.com/comp/corbis/DGT086/42-16461173.jpg

ROFL!! Dharma's like in his forties.

Odd way of fighting "The War on Terror" by supporting terror groups.

The name is just to sound jazzy, simple and straightforward. We use terror as a tool of the state all the time.

Please don't give up the fight,

Thanks.

I don't plan to.

Ever.

"Give me liberty or give me death."

America is secretly funding militant ethnic separatist groups in Iran.....


Me, I am proud...:thumbs:

I think I'm going to hurl.

___________________________

"To maintain the legitimacy of U.S. imperialism, Bush needs the pretext of a global "war on terror" to justify further military intervention, expanded military budgets, concentration of executive power and restrictions on civil liberties” ----Anthony Arnove, author of "Iraq: The Logic of Withdrawal"

ROFL!! Dharma's like in his forties.

Of course he is, my overly-eager (and even younger) sir. And I am now in my late forties.
So the address was entirely appropriate.

As was the allusion to (and the inevitable comparison to) the blind tenacity and fighting spirit of young Overdose.
I don't agree with either of them on many points, but I do admire their strength of conviction.

I think I'm going to hurl.
You, guerilla, and dharma are disgusting. Don't ever claim you have a good sense of humor again.

I think I'm going to hurl.

And so we are finally blessed with the presence of the Apologist In Chief.

How was your weekend, sir?
Suitably miserable, I assume?

Not that it matters much but I am in my early thirties.

And to keep things on topic, I reitterate that opening a 3rd front is not a good idea.

Of course he is, my overly-eager (and even younger) sir. And I am now in my late forties.
So the address was entirely appropriate.

As was the allusion to (and the inevitable comparison to) the blind tenacity and fighting spirit of young Overdose.
I don't agree with either of them on many points, but I do admire their strength of conviction.
I never said it wasn't appropriate, just hilarious. You are funny, sir, very funny!

Not that it matters much but I am in my early thirties.

And to keep things on topic, I reitterate that opening a 3rd front is not a good idea.
neither is letting Iran have a nuke....especially now that they have a launch vehicle for it!

but this could all be avoided if they'd just let the U.N. inspectors do their job...like the Iraq war.:rolleyes:

If we open a new front against Iran we are screwed. We simply do not have the troops necessary.

If we open a new front against Iran we are screwed. We simply do not have the troops necessary.
we don't need any ground troops to put an end to Iran's nuke program, just one B-52 crew. we know were everything is (i hope).

They'll rebuild, and be more careful the next time. Only a regime change will dissuade Iran from it's nuclear ambitions.

we don't need any ground troops to put an end to Iran's nuke program, just one B-52 crew. we know were everything is (i hope).

Are you suggesting we should nuke the entire country?

dispite the fact that the Iranian people are some of the most American-friendly in the middle east?

Are you suggesting we should nuke the entire country?

dispite the fact that the Iranian people are some of the most American-friendly in the middle east?
naw! they carry conventional warheads too! and with a 1500+ mile range for air-launched cruise missiles, the air crew doesn't even have to get close.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-86

but bombing the uranium processors wouldnt be necessary if their government would live up to it's treaty obligations.

Are you suggesting we should nuke the entire country?


Why, certainly he is!

And, may I ask, why not?!?

After all, we pious and godly folk here in the U.S. of A. are the big bad masters of the planet!

What do we care if a few million of them darky furriners get incinerated??

[/sarcasm]

naw! they carry conventional warheads too! and with a 1500+ mile range for air-launched cruise missiles, the air crew doesn't even have to get close.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-86

but bombing the uranium processors wouldnt be necessary if their government would live up to it's treaty obligations.


Clinton tried that with Iraq and it has been the subject of endless criticism from the Republicans.

Why, certainly he is!

And, may I ask, why not?!?

After all, we pious and godly folk here in the U.S. of A. are the big bad masters of the planet!

What do we care if a few million of them darky furriners get incinerated??

[/sarcasm]
learn to read, or stfu.

Clinton tried that with Iraq and it has been the subject of endless criticism from the Republicans.
tents and massive buildings with highly specialized equipment are completely different types of targets

tents and massive buildings with highly specialized equipment are completely different types of targets

And you would have us trust the same "intelligence" that got us into Iraq to tell you which buildings to hit?

ROFL!!

good luck with that! You will need it.

And you would have us trust the same "intelligence" that got us into Iraq to tell you which buildings to hit?

ROFL!!

good luck with that! You will need it.
a building the size of a car factory and has a parking lot only big enough for 20 cars and no mass transit is a dead give away. not that i expect you to understand that since you think soldiers should vote on which orders to obey.

a building the size of a car factory and has a parking lot only big enough for 20 cars and no mass transit is a dead give away.

And you know for a fact that is the exact conditions in Iran?

Based upon what?

not that i expect you to understand that since you think soldiers should vote on which orders to obey.

Please show me where I ever said that.

Transparent Lies like that only discredit you.

And you know for a fact that is the exact conditions in Iran?
uranium processing takes up a huge amout of room-the processing plant in Oak Ridge took up more room than the Rouge...some figures put it as the largest building of any kind in the world at the time.
it's not brain surgery that a freaking huge industrly building with nothing being shipped at nearly the rate a building that size suggests is a huge red flag...armed guards is one thing, guards armed with tanks is quite another.

Please show me where I ever said that. The Republicans are DESPERATELY clinging to the fantasy that the troops actually support this idiotic occupation. There is a difference between obeying an order and liking an order, but the Republicans depend upon confusing them.


Transparent Lies like that only discredit you.

uranium processing takes up a huge amout of room-the processing plant in Oak Ridge took up more room than the Rouge...some figures put it as the largest building of any kind in the world at the time.
it's not brain surgery that a freaking huge industrly building with nothing being shipped at nearly the rate a building that size suggests is a huge red flag...armed guards is one thing, guards armed with tanks is quite another.

And you don't think Iranians are smart enough to know that and setup decoy sites?



Transparent Lies like that only discredit you.

Yes, you discredited yourself again. I said nothing at all about the troops voting for what orders to obey.

And you don't think Iranians are smart enough to know that and setup decoy sites?
they don't have the resources for that. their oil revenue has been declining by 10% annually since they started this folly because they've been diverting capital to build the equipment to develop a nuke instead of maintaining the oil fields.

Yes, you discredited yourself again. I said nothing at all about the troops voting for what orders to obey
then what the frack did you mean by that?

they don't have the resources for that. their oil revenue has been declining by 10% annually since they started this folly because they've been diverting capital to build the equipment to develop a nuke instead of maintaining the oil fields.

Where did you hear that?


then what the frack did you mean by that?

I was quite clear. I did not say that "soldiers should vote on which orders to obey."

The Republicans are DESPERATELY clinging to the fantasy that the troops actually support this idiotic occupation. There is a difference between obeying an order and liking an order, but the Republicans depend upon confusing them.

Is Bush really insane enough to try and fight on three fronts?

Speaking of melodrama....:rolleyes:

this illustrates once again how the media continues to assign two different sets of rules to those involved in the same fight. The inusrgents and al qeada can do whatever they want without criticism. In fact, not only do they not recieve criticism from western media, but we recive the blame for their acts! talk about having your cake and eating it too. we have such a strict line to walk on our guys cant fart sideways without an ivestigation being launched.
I say good that we are causing "unrest" in Iran. they should not get comfortable with the idea that they can supply the insurgents with weapons and technical help at will. There should be consequences for thier actions. They stay covert in their attacks on us so we will stay covert in our attacks on them. If they want it to go to the next level then it will.

Speaking of melodrama....

Do you think opening a third front is a good idea?

do you think Iran opening a two front war with us is a good idea? we are already on their east and west in case you have forgotten your geography.

Why won't anyone answer my simple question? "Do you think opening a third front with Iran is a good idea?"

What is so hard about that?

no, it is not a good idea, but, seeing as we are bordering Iran on two sides, we have the strategic advantage over them. when it comes down to it, and we go to war with Iran, the IED's and booby traps in Iraq will ceaqwse to matter. As i said before, you cant lose a war to IED's. We will focus all our forces, except for a small cadre to stay in Baghdad, on Iran, from east, west and south form the gulf. insurgencys in Iraq and afghanstan that now seem so awful will seem like the good old days when a large conventional war with iran breaks out. it wont be three fronts, it will be one, because small insurgencys are not "fronts" when the real war starts

Opening a front with Iran is a bad idea, but it would be in consistancy with a Gov whos Foreign Policy is a list of bad ideas,so who knows.

Why won't anyone answer my simple question? "Do you think opening a third front with Iran is a good idea?"

What is so hard about that?

A third front is not going to be opened. It's a meaningless question.

You could just as easily ask if it's a good idea to jump off the golden gate bridge.

Ahdmidinejad is coming under more and more pressure from his own countrymen.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2022029,00.html
Critics from across the Iranian political spectrum took him to task for his "no brakes or reverse gear" remarks, bolstering claims in the west that his hardline position may be starting to backfire.

"This rhetoric is not suitable for a president and has no place in diplomatic circles," said Mr Atrianfar, a confidant of Hashemi Rafsanjani, an influential regime insider and rival of Mr Ahmadinejad. "It is the language people in the bazaar and alleyways use to address the simplest issues of life."

Fayaz Zahed, leader of the pro-reform Islamic Iran Solidarity party, criticised the president for seeking to emulate the populist Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, rather than internationally revered leaders such as Nelson Mandela or Vaclav Havel.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/26/AR2007022600664.html
[Ahmadinejad's] comments brought a hail of condemnations in Iran on Monday, not only from reformists who have long opposed Ahmadinejad, but also from conservatives who once backed him but now see his fiery rhetoric as needlessly provoking the West into confrontation.


My advice, take a cold shower, a couple midol, and a long nap. It'll all be better in the morning.

no, it is not a good idea,

On this we agree.

but, seeing as we are bordering Iran on two sides, we have the strategic advantage over them.

Our military is stretched too thin to take advantage of that situation.


As i said before, you cant lose a war to IED's.

You can lose an occupation to IEDs.


insurgencys in Iraq and afghanstan that now seem so awful will seem like the good old days when a large conventional war with iran breaks out.

Yes, hense it is a "bad idea".
And it would be such a colossal waste considering the fact that Iranian-backed Shite militias are only responsible for 8% of American casualties in Iraq.

When are we going to finally confront Saudi Arabia?

it wont be three fronts, it will be one, because small insurgencys are not "fronts" when the real war starts

Iraq is just a "small insurgency"?

I thought the rightwing talking point is that Iraq is the "defining struggle of our time"?

A third front is not going to be opened. It's a meaningless question.

Oh, well I am so glad that someone with the inside track to the mind of George W. Bush is here to make us all feel so much better. :rolleyes:

I wonder if Iran's troops are kept on alert during these harsh times? Do they sit at gun & missle emplacements around important buildings? What kind of shape is their air force in?

Inquiring minds want to know!

The inusrgents and al qeada can do whatever they want without criticism. In fact, not only do they not recieve criticism from western media, but we recive the blame for their acts!

Wow. That's incredible.

I have a hard time conceiving of a statement more completely detached from reality than the assertion above, that in the U.S. media, al Qaeda has no criticism leveled at it, and that in fact it is the U.S. that gets blamed for their actions.

Wow. That's incredible.

I have a hard time conceiving of a statement more completely detached from reality than the assertion above, that in the U.S. media, al Qaeda has no criticism leveled at it, and that in fact it is the U.S. that gets blamed for their actions.

wow, THAT is incredible...

FT you are the front runner for being an apologist... i never see you condemn the actions of terrorists who blow up car bombs and kill 15 innocent civilians(which happens daily).. NEVER see it. But yet when an american bomb kills 1 innocent civilian.. THAT is grounds for Bush's murder and should be enough for America to be arrested by the "all talk no walk United nations"...

The media hardly bashes the terrorists.. they seem to give them a pass because we are on their soil. Just because we ARE on their soil doesn't mean they have the right to launch rockets at our helicopters and gun down our soldiers from buildings. American soldiers aren't going to just gun down any old person on the street over there, like FT likes to paint... if they are fired on? yea take em down. But the terrorists are the ones who should be getting the charges and the jail time. Now of course there are exceptions... some soldiers act out of the code of conduct, and should be charged. But that happens ALOT less frequently than FT likes to paint.

Wow. That's incredible.

I have a hard time conceiving of a statement more completely detached from reality than the assertion above, that in the U.S. media, al Qaeda has no criticism leveled at it, and that in fact it is the U.S. that gets blamed for their actions.

thats the truth jackass, in the real world at least. maybe in right wing americuuu where you live it is i niot, but in reality the media doesnt seem to be to concerned with what al qead ais doing. But a US soldier puts some pntys on someones head and it spawns HBO specials!

thats the truth jackass...

Maybe in Dittohead LaLa land but not here in Reality.

You preach about the virtues of the "free market" and then blame the media for reporting the stories that sell.

You are so totally detatched from reality it is funny.

Originally Posted by Freethinker; "I have a hard time conceiving of a statement more completely detached from reality than the assertion above, that in the U.S. media, al Qaeda has no criticism leveled at it, and that in fact it is the U.S. that gets blamed for their actions."

thats the truth jackass, in the real world at least. maybe in right wing americuuu where you live it is not, but in reality the media doesnt seem to be to concerned with what al qeada is doing.

But your prior claim was not that ""the Media doesn't seem to be to concerned with what al Qaeda is doing"".

Your unambiguous assertion was that the U.S. media does not criticize al Qaeda, and that when al Qaeda does something it is the U.S. that gets blamed for it.

And --your riposte that ""thats the truth jackass"" notwithstanding-- your assertion is still as absurd now as it was when you originally voiced it.

Oh, well I am so glad that someone with the inside track to the mind of George W. Bush is here to make us all feel so much better. :rolleyes:

Nice to see that you feel i have such powers but in public i will merely deny such laudatory comments. In reality i'm just providing a rational perspective to the rampant paranoia among the far left wing of society. :)

diarrhea and freethinker telling me I am detached from reality, that's funny shit. two guys from black helicopter land. go out and find me one interview where two "experts" discuss how bad what al qeada is doing and I will find you 1,000 where experts carry on about GITMO and abu ghraib. how many headlines are there on al qeada suicide bombers? none. only a story about how many americans that bomb killed, which of course implys george bush killed them by having them there. hell, half the time al qeada isnt even called what they are, they get labled "militants" or "rebels".

Nice to see that you feel i have such powers

It's called "Sarcasm" Einstein. :rolleyes:

diarrhea and freethinker telling me I am detached from reality,

Did you say something? All I hear is the shrill whining of a lost child.

you really need to stop talking to yourself then mang

you really need to stop talking to yourself then mang

There is that whiney lost child again...

you really should stop while you are ahead. We all know you can not win a put down battle, so dont be a George Bush and get yourself involved in a war you can not win.

Youll find that the US Armed Forces have standards and rules of engagement which thet must adhere to, the insurgents do not have such standards to live up tp, no rules to break.

you really should stop while you are ahead.

Thanks for being big enough to admit you lost the debate.

Youll find that the US Armed Forces have standards and rules of engagement which thet must adhere to, the insurgents do not have such standards to live up tp, no rules to break.

There was U.S. Soldier and Iraq Vet in the movie "Ghosts of ABu Ghraib" who said that when he first arrived in Iraq and was about to go out on his first patrol as a gunner on a humvee, he asked for the rules of engagement. He was told, "If it looks like an enemy, shoot it." He responded, "Im new here, everyone looks like an enemy to me." He said his commanders only response was "Welcome to Iraq".

so you calling someone a baby is debating? well your a dumbass. there I win, now STFU

so you calling someone a baby is debating?

ROFL!!! Now you are flip flopping.

Thanks for the laugh! now STFU.

There was U.S. Soldier and Iraq Vet in the movie "Ghosts of ABu Ghraib" who said that when he first arrived in Iraq and was about to go out on his first patrol as a gunner on a humvee, he asked for the rules of engagement. He was told, "If it looks like an enemy, shoot it." He responded, "Im new here, everyone looks like an enemy to me." He said his commanders only response was "Welcome to Iraq".
Wasnt the gunner your best friend in the whole world too?

Wasnt the gunner your best friend in the whole world too?


Reality never intrudes into your little fantasy world. Accept that and STFU.

man you really are the worst this forum has ever seen in terms of come backs. stick to black helicopters and storys about all your army buddies

Wasnt the gunner your best friend in the whole world too?


Nope, he is an infantryman in the 101st Airborne. He was a grunt the first time he went to Iraq and since then he got his law degree, and it looks like the next time he goes over it will be as an officer.

That that it is any of your business, fuckstick.

man you really are the worst this forum has ever seen in terms of come backs.

Yeah, and that's a real gem of a comeback. I feel sooo put down now. </sarcasm>

You are such a moron.

you still here? If I tell you you won will you STFU and go away?

stick to black helicopters and storys about all your army buddies

Perhaps the last part of that sentence should be rephrased to " ... all your buddies in the Army ...". It's rather difficult to have Army buddies if one has never served.

Nope, he is an infantryman in the 101st Airborne. He was a grunt the first time he went to Iraq and since then he got his law degree, and it looks like the next time he goes over it will be as an officer.

That that it is any of your business, fuckstick.

wait a minute, is this where you meet all of your "friends" that are in Iraq? In movies? LMAO, pathetic. You wouldnt know a grunt if he kicked you in the face.

It's rather difficult to have Army buddies if one has never served.

No, it isn't. Are you telling me you don't have any friends in the Military?

you still here?

Yup, still laughing at you.

You really should learn to STFU and stop embarressing yourself.

Perhaps the last part of that sentence should be rephrased to " ... all your buddies in the Army ...". It's rather difficult to have Army buddies if one has never served.

the only buddies this guy has is butt buddies

No, it isn't. Are you telling me you don't have any friends in the Military?

Did you read what I posted the first time? From your question, apparently not. Let me refresh your memory:

Perhaps the last part of that sentence should be rephrased to " ... all your buddies in the Army ...". It's rather difficult to have Army buddies if one has never served.