09-09-2004 09:48									#91
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Yes, it's good to assassinate them, I agree. However I disagree with the new policy of legal open warfare everywhere you want, anytime you want, and basically really what the problem is, against anyone you want. THAT is the problem. I think there are only few people who have problems about assassination terrorists.

	09-09-2004 10:42									#92
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

How long before China decides Taiwan is harboring terrorists?

	09-09-2004 11:37									#93
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar You are simply angry that under Putin Russia is rebuilding itself. Its no secret that Europe harbours little love for neither Russia nor its people.

I rather not want to see the end of this rebuilding process. If you haven't realized, but what Putin is doing in russia has little to do with democracy.
Basically he prepares the country for another decade of dictatorship. The terrorist affair just comes in handy for him. People will even more look for a strong man to handle the situation and Putin surely won't miss that chance. The fact that he controls the media is a guarantee that he will always come out as winner.
In the end: terrorists eliminated, democracy eliminated.

quote: I don't think you're right. I think they will only kill terrorists and terrorist sympathizers. It's what has to be done. We can't just go after these guys after they have already attacked us.

Of course they will only kill terrorist and terrorist sympatizers. It's just that what is a terrorist sympatizer is on them to decide.

	09-09-2004 12:47									#94
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

If they want a strong man they should get one. Isn't that democratic? It is what the people want. So no, democracy not eliminated. We can't have weak willed people like leftists in power because lives hang in the balance. I would not trust my life in the hands of corrupt leftists.

	09-09-2004 13:27									#95
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Well, I still think Putin will make a positive impact in Russia and is maybe the strongest leader in the world right now.

	09-09-2004 14:33									#96
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove I find this difficult to believe.

I find it easy to believe. There was something like 6 years of war in Chechnya. And they did firebomb Groznyi several times. Groznyi is now a city in shambles.

	09-09-2004 14:38									#97
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Sprayber How long before China decides Taiwan is harboring terrorists?

I'm glad you have understood the problem with agressive countries using terrorism as an handy excuse for their ordinary power-play

	09-09-2004 14:40									#98
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by The Mad Monk Most of Russian history is invading random countries.

Not Random, but adjacent

Anyway, that is really a veiled threat to Georgia. I just hope that Vova and George talk this over before killing a lot of Georgian people.

And against Iran? Not going to happen. In afghanistan, the SU underestimated the enemy, and lost. against Iran now, Russia doesn't have the forces needed.

	09-09-2004 14:57									#99
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Azazel Not Random, but adjacent Anyway, that is really a veiled threat to Georgia. I just hope that Vova and George talk this over before killing a lot of Georgian people. And against Iran? Not going to happen. In afghanistan, the SU underestimated the enemy, and lost. against Iran now, Russia doesn't have the forces needed.

I really don't think I'd like to see this happen, but couldn't Iran be successfully 'regime changed' by a joint invasion of US forces from Iraq and Afghanistan and Russian forces from the North? While such an invasion would likely be a horrible quagmire even worse than Iraq in the long run, perhaps even a thinly veiled threat that this could occur could be useful for persuading Iran to cough up the terrorists. That is assuming there even are any terrorists receiving asylum in Iran.

	09-09-2004 14:57									#100
	Get a bigger avatar today!

why would they attack iran ?

it's out of their reach and iran had nothing to do with the present drama...

if i were a georgian i would be digging a hole in my back yard right now

	09-09-2004 15:06									#101
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Geronimo I really don't think I'd like to see this happen, but couldn't Iran be successfully 'regime changed' by a joint invasion of US forces from Iraq and Afghanistan and Russian forces from the North? While such an invasion would likely be a horrible quagmire even worse than Iraq in the long run, perhaps even a thinly veiled threat that this could occur could be useful for persuading Iran to cough up the terrorists.

There is an use with Iran harboring terrorists. Unlike Al Qaeda, Iran is a country, that can be actually fought in a regular war, and that has geopolitical interests they'll approach with realism.

I suppose Iran doesn't want to be invaded. It doesn't want to see its geopolitical interests threatened or destroyed. Hence, when Iran harbors terrorists, it is also in power to control them so they behave. Same for Syria. Terrorist groups sponsored by Iran and Syria have been much less active now than before. A few attacks on Israel, and not even the bulk of it.

It's much better than having these organized terrorists let loose.

quote: That is assuming there even are any terrorists receiving asylum in Iran.

I seem to remember it has been proven than an AQ member was researched in Iran.

	09-09-2004 15:25									#102
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor There is an use with Iran harboring terrorists. Unlike Al Qaeda, Iran is a country, that can be actually fought in a regular war, and that has geopolitical interests they'll approach with realism. I suppose Iran doesn't want to be invaded. It doesn't want to see its geopolitical interests threatened or destroyed. Hence, when Iran harbors terrorists, it is also in power to control them so they behave. Same for Syria. Terrorist groups sponsored by Iran and Syria have been much less active now than before. A few attacks on Israel, and not even the bulk of it. It's much better than having these organized terrorists let loose. I seem to remember it has been proven than an AQ member was researched in Iran.

Good. Now consider an Iran that harbors terrorists and acquires nukes.

	09-09-2004 15:27									#103
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The terrorist groups sponsored by Iran have been spending most of their time in Iraq.

	09-09-2004 16:08									#104
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by dannubis why would they attack iran ? it's out of their reach and iran had nothing to do with the present drama... if i were a georgian i would be digging a hole in my back yard right now

This notion I speculated on, of an attack on Iran is only worth mentioning if we accept at face value reports that Iran is harboring some Al quaida and Chechyan terrorists.

Of course I'm not certain that Iran isn't strictly speaking out of the reach of Russia. Perhaps Russia could strike through the former SU republics and afghanistan if it got the nod from the forces occupying those countries. Maybe it could even manage an amphibious invasion via the caspian (no idea how feasible that would be).

But of course if Iran isn't in fact harboring these people then certainly this all loses it's meaning.

	09-09-2004 16:14									#105
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Didn't read all the posts since yesterday, but I wonder how they'll hunt down terrorists "everywhere" as long they don't get them even in their own country.....

	09-09-2004 17:04									#106
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by The Mad Monk Good. Now consider an Iran that harbors terrorists and acquires nukes.

Where's the connection? You think the Iranians won't be able to protect their nuclear arsenal from the prying hands of terrorists?

I'm trying to understand: the Iranians keep their terrorists under control, and only allow them a few attacks on Israel. Why would they suddenly allow them to perform a nuclear terrorist strike?

	09-09-2004 17:07									#107
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: I'm trying to understand: the Iranians keep their terrorists under control, and only allow them a few attacks on Israel. Why would they suddenly allow them to perform a nuclear terrorist strike?

Doesn't matter. Do you really want Iran with such an amount of geopolitical power?

	09-09-2004 17:27									#108
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Azazel Doesn't matter. Do you really want Iran with such an amount of geopolitical power?

I don't want Iran with nukes, because Iran has a strong potential for being rules by unpredictable nutcases. If Iran has nukes, the real danger will come from their leaders more than from their terrorists.

But the connection between nukes and the harboring of terrorists is very slim. I don't expect the Iranian government to trust nukes in the hands of terrorists;

	09-09-2004 17:37									#109
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: But the connection between nukes and the harboring of terrorists is very slim. I don't expect the Iranian government to trust nukes in the hands of terrorists;

Depends. "Hizbullah" is practically a branch of the Iranian regime. I wouldn't see any problem with them recieving nukes ( from the Iranian perspective, that is. )

	09-09-2004 19:48									#110
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

i don't know about that.

teheran could end up glowing in the dark from an israeli counter strike (with the nuclear weapons which officially don't exist of course)

	09-09-2004 20:12									#111
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by BeBro Didn't read all the posts since yesterday, but I wonder how they'll hunt down terrorists "everywhere" as long they don't get them even in their own country.....

The terrorist once in your own country can be very hard to find since if unknown, they can be anywhere.

However, traditionally terrorists spend some time being trained. I think it is these types of camps that are contemplated being hit, as well as any nation which affords them support.

If a nation has very strong evidence of a terrorist camp, I have few qualms if a strike force goes in to take them out. If the Iranian goverment is directly supporting terrorists, they essentially are waging an undeclared war against the terrorists targets. What else can you call it when a nation state takes action to help kill people of and within another nation-state? If the "target" wishes to change the "war" to a declared one and bomb the crap out of the military bases of its enemy, I call that fair ball.

If nation A declares war on nation B we should have no problem with nation B responding. The problem with terrorism is that there are no such declarations and it is often hard to know or prove that a nation state is supporting terrorism as compared to support from a faction or powerful individual in that nation state.

	09-09-2004 20:27									#112
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor I seem to remember it has been proven than an AQ member was researched in Iran.

Saif el adel, operation chief in Al Qaeeda, is under house arrest in Iran, as is Saad Bin Laden, OBLs son who also had an operational role. Saudi has asked for extradition, and has been denied. Neo con sources allege that these two are in fact running AQ operations in Iraq, Saudi, and elsewhere in the region.

I suspect that for Putin to turn against Iran, which has been something of a geopolitical ally of Russia, both in Afghanistan and the Trans-causasus, Putin would require very solid proof of the AQ connection.

	09-09-2004 20:59									#113
	Put an end to popups!

Give me a "R"! etc.

Go RUSSIA!

:followed by chant:

"Nuke, nuke, nuke, nuke, nuke, nuke, nuke, ...."

	09-09-2004 23:55									#114
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Dissident hmm. I support strong response to terrorism, but even I have my doubts. I've asked if terrorism has ever worked. Another important questions to ask is: has strong violent responses to terrorism ever worked? That is the more important question. I don't think it has. It just breeds more terrorists. Terrorism cannot be defeated. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

Dissident, shooting missiles at terrorists will not end terrorism. I agree -- which is why the Clinton approach had no hope and which is why Israel cannot solve the problem of Hamas solely through the use of bombs.

But, when governments oppose terrorists within their own borders and offer their citizens hope through democracy, terrorism can be suppressed and ended.

This is why the Palestinian problem, for example, will only be solved with the government of Palestine is democratic.

The Bush plan of bringing democracy to an portion of the world that has never know freedom is the only plan, the only plan, that has a hope of prevailing.

	10-09-2004 00:18									#115
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark Saif el adel, operation chief in Al Qaeeda, is under house arrest in Iran, as is Saad Bin Laden, OBLs son who also had an operational role. Saudi has asked for extradition, and has been denied. Neo con sources allege that these two are in fact running AQ operations in Iraq, Saudi, and elsewhere in the region. I suspect that for Putin to turn against Iran, which has been something of a geopolitical ally of Russia, both in Afghanistan and the Trans-causasus, Putin would require very solid proof of the AQ connection.

Putin already knows the truth about Iran. Come on.

	10-09-2004 03:26									#116
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Lancer "Putin is really hugely pissed, the Russians are marching in the streets for action. It would be great if the US and Russia could combine to kick Iran's tail. The US supplying the mobile forces and air while the Russians did the heavy ground work." I agree. Only a combined effort on the part of the US and Russians could work. The US heavy stuff is tied up right now but our airforce and air mobile forces could be cut loose to give the heavy Russian forces a high tech edge.

Yes, I see, and in addition we should give the green light to India settling the Pakistan problem too, though we'd have to neutralize pakistan's nuclear arsenal first. Perhaps this could be accomplished by a joint Airborne, SAS, Spetnatz operation. Following this we could give permission for the Europeans to re-occupy some of the old colonies, giving back Morroco to Spain, Algiers, Tunisia, Mauretania, Mali, and Chad to France, Somalia to Germany, Libya to Italy, Indonesia to the Netherlands, Egypt, Sudan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Aden, Oman, and the UAE to Britain, while the US keeps Iraq and Saudi Arabia. We'd give Turkey and Cyprus to the Greeks, Malaysia, Uzbekistan, Kighiz and Turkmenistan to China and allow the Israelis to establish a greater Israel consisting of Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan.

	10-09-2004 03:32									#117
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Flubber 1)If a nation has very strong evidence of a terrorist camp, I have few qualms if a strike force goes in to take them out. 2)If the Iranian goverment is directly supporting terrorists, they essentially are waging an undeclared war against the terrorists targets. What else can you call it when a nation state takes action to help kill people of and within another nation-state? If the "target" wishes to change the "war" to a declared one and bomb the crap out of the military bases of its enemy, I call that fair ball.

1) Taking out a terrorist base is ineffective if that base is located in a country that supports terrorism. The base will be rebuilt or relocated.


2) What do you mean, if Iran is....

Also, bombing bases without taking out the government supporting the bases is more than ineffective, it is stupid and counterproductive.

	10-09-2004 03:37									#118
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove Yes, I see, and in addition we should give the green light to India settling the Pakistan problem too, though we'd have to neutralize pakistan's nuclear arsenal first. Perhaps this could be accomplished by a joint Airborne, SAS, Spetnatz operation. Following this we could give permission for the Europeans to re-occupy some of the old colonies, giving back Morroco to Spain, Algiers, Tunisia, Mauretania, Mali, and Chad to France, Somalia to Germany, Libya to Italy, Indonesia to the Netherlands, Egypt, Sudan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Aden, Oman, and the UAE to Britain, while the US keeps Iraq and Saudi Arabia. We'd give Turkey and Cyprus to the Greeks, Malaysia, Uzbekistan, Kighiz and Turkmenistan to China and allow the Israelis to establish a greater Israel consisting of Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan.

That is quite a list of countries. Apart from perhaps syria it doesn't include many countries that have been uncooperative in the counter terrorism effort.

Anyway, given that I don't think we even need a smilie clue to guess that this was meant to be sarcasm, would you spell out directly what your point is? Are you starting from the assumption that Iran is being cooperative in the counterterrorism effort?

	10-09-2004 03:55									#119
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Pakistan is co-operative and yet there's good evidence that the secret HQ of al Qaeda is in Pakistan. Saudi Arabia is co-operative yet most of al Qaeda's money comes from Saudi Arabia.

Let's face it, the time for neo-colonialism has arrived. It's not that we want it, it's just being forced upon us.

Question. Are the peoples of the middle east sentient enough to be sobered by such a prospect, or not?

	10-09-2004 04:07									#120
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Ned 1) Taking out a terrorist base is ineffective if that base is located in a country that supports terrorism. The base will be rebuilt or relocated.

But those particular terrorists are dead

quote: Originally posted by Ned 2) What do you mean, if Iran is.... Also, bombing bases without taking out the government supporting the bases is more than ineffective, it is stupid and counterproductive.

What's your solution? My idea is simply that a state supporting terrorism against my country makes that country my enemy. In theory you could try to justify unrestricted warfare but I would tend not favor that. I would tend to meet force with force and strike at the nation state that is striking at my country. What would you do ? I'm assuming sanctions etc are already in place and I don't think just taking it is effective either