was conveying. Making a statement about AVOIDING World War III is not irresponsible and I didn't hear him assume WWIII would evolve out of Iran specifically. ANY country with nuclear weapons could spawn WWIII.
Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread
GT explained what she meant in the post afterwards, which you conveniently ignored. She said: Yes, as in prove you are a bigoted fool, FRYE your butt.
Any reasonably intelligent person can see she was challenging this poster to be civil and honest and to debate instead of attack, as she herself explained in her above post. Obviously, the poster wasn't up for that challenge.
By the NewsMax.com Staff
For the story behind the story...
Thursday, March 16, 2006 9:11 a.m. EST
Ruth Bader Ginsburg Complains of Right Wing Death Threats
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is complaining that she's getting death threats from detractors who belong to the irrational fringe of society - people she says who have been egged on by mainstream conservatives who have been critical of the High Court.
In quotes picked up by The Associated Press Wednesday, Ginsburg told the Constitutional Court of South Africa last month that somebody in an Internet chat room had issued a death threat against herself and her former colleague, Sandra Day O'Connor.
According to Ginsburg, the chat room perpetrator declared:
OK commandoes, here is your first patriotic assignment ... an easy one. Supreme Court Justices Ginsburg and O'Connor have publicly stated that they use (foreign) laws and rulings to decide how to rule on American cases. This is a huge threat to our republic and constitutional freedom ... If you are what you say you are, and NOT armchair patriots, then those two justices will not live another week.
In a follow-up speech earlier this month, the Clinton-appointed justice said the whole experience had been disquieting for her.
The AP cited Ann Coulter as an example of a conservative who may have inadvertently encouraged radicals to threaten members of the court by joking during a recent speech that Justice John Paul Stevens should be poisoned.
Democrat: It goes on to say that Ginsberg did not speak up when a liberal commentator made a *wish him an early death* about Clarence Thomas, but was that Ginsberg's place to do so? And if so, did Clarence Thomas speak out for her?
Nothing like the threat of a
brisk IRS proctological exam to get a politician's mind right.
*Islamic Threat*
The *Islamic threat* grew over the past 50 years of our foreign policy. This did not happen just because as Bush says, they are jealous of our freedom. OMG, their ideology and ours are totally different and frankly, I dont think we will ever get a functioning democracy set up in the Middle East. Instead of doing what Blair is doing now, setting up meetings with Islamic organizations to try to defuse the situation, we went head strong into Iraq..Oh, we are America, we are gonna kick butt, and what happened, we are now fighting a world wide terrorist war with it's breeding ground Iraq and to a minimum Afghanistan. This was such an error in judgment and we will pay for it for decades to come. Bush and his administration dont have to worry. If we get attacked, they have bunkers, they have secret service that will be with them even after the term ends. It is us, who ride the subways, rail roads, buses, shop at the malls..we are the ones..the poor slobs on the farms, who are fighting Bush's war and will die in terrorist attacks. Thank you, Bush!
chavez threat
There have been many arrested over the past few years for just voicing threats that were meaningless, not like Robertson broadcasting all over the world about assassinating Chavez. That most certainly is a crime. You cannot threaten leaders of other countries, especially in a forum like Robertson has.
American is clearly a threat to some
America is clearly a threat to many countries, especially seeing what we have been doing for the past four plus years and how we have fueled the hatred and terrorism around the world by chosing to invade and kill instead of holding diplomatic sessions..the thinking mans way of handling a disagreement/problem..no not cowboy Bush, he thinks nothing of sending over our loved ones to fight his illegal, immoral so wrong war, just as long as his daughters and the children of the lawmakers dont have to go.
She is a threat to Obama. and they will do
nm
Approaching threat.s are......
Israel and Aghanistan, not Iraq.
It all started in Afghanistan.
Was there a threat made?
I'm afraid that this is what is going to happen everywhere. Anytime ANYTHING is said that sounds bad somebody is going to be reporting it to the FBI. We are slowly going to lose freedom of speech at this rate.
How about trying to be nice in return. This sounds like a threat:
Can I call your arse to task when you step off your ******* truce*******..You bet I will..So, honey, keep posting good posts, debate posts and you will be **in**, jump off that and your arse is fried..
Thinly veiled threat
It was a thinly veiled threat. Like someone stating..if you are interested in my punching you in the nose, keep up the baloney. It was stated to make other countries shiver in their boots, however, what it does is make other countries race faster to make the nuclear bombs to protect themselves from the country they perceive as a terrorist country, the USA...you know the country that pre-emptively invaded a soverign nation which was no threat to them.
IED threat was known before war but troops not protected
I'm so glad that Joe Biden is in the White House now, considering he was one of only two who spoke up about this. Our troops deserve an administration that respects and cares about them and will do its best to protect them.
Report: IED threat known before war
By Peter Eisler, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON Military leaders knew the dangers posed by roadside bombs before the start of the Iraq war but did little to develop vehicles that were known to better protect forces from what proved to be the conflict's deadliest weapon, a report by the Pentagon inspector general says.
The Pentagon "was aware of the threat posed by mines and improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and of the availability of mine resistant vehicles years before insurgent actions began in Iraq in 2003," says the 72-page report, which was reviewed by USA TODAY.
The report is to be made public today.
Marine Corps leaders "stopped processing" an urgent request in February 2005 for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles from combat commanders in Iraq's Anbar province after declaring that a more heavily armored version of existing Humvee vehicles was the "best available" option for protecting troops, the report says.
Marine officials "did not develop a course of action for the (request), attempt to obtain funding for it or present it to the Marine Corps Requirements Oversight Council for a decision on acquiring" MRAPs, the report says.
The military continued relying mainly on Humvees until May 2007, when then-incoming Defense secretary Robert Gates called procurement of the MRAPs his top priority. Since then, the Pentagon has spent more than $22 billion to buy more than 15,000 of the vehicles.
When field commanders first began requesting MRAPs, military officials saw the armored Humvees as a more immediate option to countering IEDs, Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said. "The threat has evolved and our force protection measures have evolved with it," he said.
The Marines requested the inspector general's investigation in February after an internal report accused the Corps of "gross mismanagement" of the urgent request for MRAPs. Hundreds of Marines died unnecessarily because of delays in fielding the vehicles, said the Jan. 22 study by Franz Gayl, a retired Marine officer and civilian science adviser.
Two U.S. senators Democrat Joe Biden of Delaware, now the vice president-elect, and Republican Kit Bond of Missouri demanded an investigation after details of Gayl's study were published.
"The Pentagon was aware of the threat IEDs posed to our troops prior to our intervention in Iraq and still failed to take the steps to acquire the technology needed to reduce the risk," Bond said after reviewing the report. "Some bureaucrats at the Pentagon have much to explain."
USA TODAY detailed the Pentagon's failure to move quickly on MRAP development in a series of stories last year. Gates credited one of those stories with sparking his interest in the vehicles.
Marine commanders in Iraq's then-volatile Anbar province sought 1,169 MRAPs in the February 2005 urgent request. "There is an immediate need for an MRAP vehicle capability to increase survivability and mobility of Marines operating in a hazardous fire area," it said.
The inspector general's report says that Marine officials advised Marine Corps commandant Michael Hagee at the time that armored Humvees were the "best available, most survivable" vehicles to meet the request.
MRAPs are far more resistant to IEDs and landmines than armored Humvees because they're higher off the ground and rest on a V-shaped hull, which deflects blasts from the vehicle's underside.
We just posted where these facilities are and what is going on, but hey....don't worry....no national security risk. OMG! What a bunch of flipping morons!!!
Why is it you are the only ones who are "free" to display your anger on your board?
If you take a look at the posts on this board, the only time they get nasty is when a troll from your board comes here and begins spewing your hatred and rage.
Why are you so angry? Your guy won.
Whenever a liberal raises an issue concerning a Bush administration policy or decision, I seldom see an intelligent thoughtful response come from most of you. Instead you attack the poster on a personal level when that poster never personally attacked YOU. They complained about Bush. Are you BUSH??
Time and time again, most of you come back with "all liberals" insults and rarely, if ever, address the question or issue that was raised.
If you can begin to understand that it isn't YOU PERSONALLY that we are referring to, maybe then we can begin to have an intelligent conversation on this board.
If you are a conservative, I respect your right to your opinions, and I'd like to learn more about them. I can't do that if all you do is throw insults, which you are "free" to do on your board, but if we are angered or insulted by them, we are not likewise "free" to express that.
I had hoped that these new boards would eliminate the personal favorites that seemed to exist on the other board. Looks like that isn't the case.
And as far as approaching the administrator about fairness, if I can't do that, then I truly don't belong in a forum like this one. I belong in one that doesn't play favorites, where intelligent discourse can occur, where personal insults and attacks are prohibited for everyone, not just for some.
I just wonder how many people you've chased away from here, besides me.
I don't think this quote refers to ignoring a threat...
I think it speaks about creating and justifying a war, and in the Iraq war's case, a hasty and simple-minded war. I don't know what Goering's thoughts were, but my own are that war should be a last resort and that seems like common sense. This is in no sense to be construed as downplaying the threat of Islamic terrorism. I would like to mention there that a big complaint about the Iraq war was that Bush ignored or didn't wish to consider the advice of folks who had a solid background in the Middle East. The insurgency and threatening civil war were all predicted when we went to war but the advice was ignored. Bush, it seems, reversed the usual order in which a country is forced to go to war: He decided FIRST that he would go to war, then created justification, then ignored all the sage advice that Iraq was a potential powderkeg, and then he did what Goering prescribed to get the U.S. to rally around his cause (or at least some of the U.S.). That's how it appears anyway. I hope I am wrong about this but with the mounting well-documented evidence to the contrary I believe this will become the ultimate truth of the matter.
The post was inappropriate, but was a threat made??
Bye bye freedom of speech.
FBI has better things to be working on and I'm afraid if this is any indication they are going to be bombarded with inappropriate statements.
British government security advisors and the national media are doing their level best to strike rampant irrational paranoid terror into the hearts of UK citizens by identifying the latest targets of the war on terror as pregnant women and toddlers.
Absurd delirious fearmongering continues in the British media with the Sun tabloid, Britain's most braindead and unfortunately also most popular newspaper screaming, HATE-filled mums willing to sacrifice themselves and their BABIES are being hunted in the war on terror.
Yes that's right you haven't slipped into an upside down parallel universe - pregnant women and mothers with young babies are the new Al-Qaeda.
The evidence?
The nightmare is that mums carrying tiny tots would provide very good cover and not raise suspicions among even the most alert security guards.
The Sun cited a senior Government security adviser as their source.
So let's ignore that guy with the turban who looks like Mohammed Atta and instead focus our magic screening wand on Mrs. Smith and her newborn infant.
Extra pat downs for young mums and making toddlers take their shoes off - boy do I feel safer now.
What's the next threat? Barney the purple dinosaur?
Of course we know what this is all designed to accomplish - it's about broadening the terrorist definition to the point where everyone's a suspect and everybody's behavior is under preposterous and suffocating scrutiny.
The implication that the most benign, harmless and innocent members of our society could in actuality be terrorist suicide bombers is a sick ploy crafted to ensure that absolutely no one is allowed to escape the self-regulating stench of being under suspicion.
It is also intended to brainwash the population that terrorists are potentially hiding under their beds, that they are everywhere and that only by a system of reporting suspicious behavior and unquestionably trusting the government will they too avoid the accusing finger.
This is classic Cold War style behavioral conditioning and the Neo-Fascist architects know exactly what they're doing.
Despite the status of alert returning to previous levels in both the US and the UK, ridiculous restrictions on travelers remain in place. Every time a new bout of fearmongering washes over a stupefied public, they are more pliable to new ways of being shoved around by government enforcers, even after the alleged plot has been foiled.
The fearmongering never subsides, it is always ratcheted up another peg in anticipation for future manufactured threats.
The future of airport security?
Why don't they just ban any luggage, clothing or personal accessories whatsoever and have done with it? Better yet - why not strap every passenger into a straight jacket from the moment they enter the airport?
In Knoxville, TSA officials are testing a biometric scanner device which interrogates passengers about their 'hostile intent' by asking a barrage of questions. If you thought the current delays and blanket 'everybody's a criminal terrorist' attitude were annoying enough, you ain't seen nothing yet.
In a similar example to the mothers and babies mindlessness, the London Guardian reports that located in the tranquil and peaceful rural surroundings of the British Lake District and Yorkshire Dales are terrorist training camps where Al-Qaeda devotees are preparing for their next big attack.
What's next? Bomb making factories under the Atlantic Ocean? Islamo Fascist brainwashing schools at the North Pole?
The sheer stupidity implicit in the Guardian article is bewildering. If the police haven't even questioned the alleged terrorists, allowing them to gather evidence of terrorist activity, because they're conducting covert surveillance of the group then why in God's name have they told a national newspaper, who in turn have splashed the story all over their front page?
If these supposed terrorists didn't know they were under surveillance before then they sure do now!
I live on the edge of the Peak District nearby the kind of areas being fingered as terrorist training areas. The closest thing to Al-Qaeda like activity up here is when a discourteous rambler leaves a farm gate open.
Again, it's about people who live in the country being smothered with the same raving paranoia and cockamamie fearmongering city-dwellers are subjected to. Woe betide anyone living in a converted barn house in the middle of miles and miles of wilderness think they can escape the war on terror - it applies to anything!
Baby formula, lip gloss, mothers and toddlers included.
Fortunately, Lurker, many on the left realize the threat from radical Islam. sm
It isn't political, but it has been made that way. That's why a lot of you have been lulled into being apologist for murdering Islamofascists.
Iran....
But, governments do speak for their people in diplomatic circles and at the United Nations, regional conferences with other nations where they live, etc.
It is not possible for other countries to differentiate between the people of Iran and the government leaders. They deal with the leaders.
You know, we were fed a line in this country as far as back the first George Bush administration back in 1988-1992 that the people of Iraq did not support Hussein and that he would be overthrown by internal forces. That did not happen. We went in there 3 years ago to free the Iraqi people and it is now a huge mess that has cost thousands of lives, mostly Iraqi, and cost an unbelievable amount of money. Now Iran is making more noise. They hated the Shah because of his close ties to the West, so they put in a lunatic Islamic cleric and turned the country into a religious state. Islam teaches brotherhood and tolerance, so why are the leaders of this religious state so full of hate and spite?
Frankly, I think we should completely withdraw from the Middle East, including Israel. We should deport all Middle Easterners from this this country and from our American territories. We should quit buying your oil and anything else you produce. Leave us alone and we'll return the favor.
I think it is apparent that democracy is not possible in Arab Islamic countries. It works in other Muslim countries, like Turkey and some other places, but obviously the Middle East is not evolved enough to be able to tolerate other people's viewpoints and value systems. Until that happens, there can be no democracy.
Iran
" Rafsanjani, one of the most influential politicians in Iran, supports opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi, who says that June 12 elections were rigged in favor of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. That puts him in conflict with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who has approved of the electoral win. "
" In Washington, President Barack Obama urged an end to the crackdown. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people, he said in an e-mailed statement. "
Till now the verbal support of Obama suffice to give the protesters enough moral support to continue with their just protests. Khatami is detaining his own people and their relatives!
I was listening to a variety of news shows and visiting a number of news sites this morning for my "daily dose" when it struck me that the coverage about Iran is already diminishing - even on sites like Fox News.
Sometimes I think that we Americans have the attention span of a fruit fly...and I also think that people like the Ayatollah rely on the fact that after a brief period of outrage, Americans will forget that there may be thousands of Iranians either in hospitals or sitting in cells waiting to hear exactly how they will be executed.
Iran's increasingly isolated opposition leader effectively ended his role in street protests, saying he'll seek permits for future rallies. A leading cleric demanded in a nationally broadcast sermon Friday that leaders of the unrest be punished harshly and that some are "worthy of execution."
Well, here it is, folks. The beginning of the end of humanity, as Congress sits paralyzed and watches it happen (unless they finally grow a backbone and say *ENOUGH* to Bush).
The administration of President George W. Bush is planning a massive bombing campaign against Iran, including use of bunker-buster nuclear bombs to destroy a key Iranian suspected nuclear weapons facility, The New Yorker magazine has reported in its April 17 issue.
The article by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh said that Bush and others in the White House have come to view Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a potential Adolf Hitler.
That's the name they're using, the report quoted a former senior intelligence official as saying.
A senior unnamed Pentagon adviser is quoted in the article as saying that this White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war.
The former intelligence officials depicts planning as enormous, hectic and operational, Hersh writes.
One former defense official said the military planning was premised on a belief that a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government, The New Yorker pointed out.
In recent weeks, the president has quietly initiated a series of talks on plans for Iran with a few key senators and members of the House of Representatives, including at least one Democrat, the report said.
One of the options under consideration involves the possible use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, to insure the destruction of Iran's main centrifuge plant at Natanz, Hersh writes.
But the former senior intelligence official said the attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the military, and some officers have talked about resigning after an attempt to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans in Iran failed, according to the report.
There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries, the magazine quotes the Pentagon adviser as saying.
The adviser warned that bombing Iran could provoke a chain reaction of attacks on American facilities and citizens throughout the world and might also reignite Hezbollah.
If we go, the southern half of Iraq will light up like a candle, the adviser is quoted as telling The New Yorker.
Yes, and regarding that final paragraph re: Iran
Seymour Hersh has yet to get it wrong, no matter how much the King George and his men attack.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060821fa_fact
I believe he made the statement concerning Iran...
because Ahmadinejad has said publically that Israel should be wiped off the map and he had a vision of the world without the United States. Don't recall North Korea saying anything remotely like that. The big difference in Kim Jong IL and Ahmadinejad is that Ahmadinejad does not care what happen if he nuked Israel or the US...because to him, being martyred is the most wonderful thing that can happen to anyone. And if his attack ushered in the coming of the 12th Imam, mores the better. If you will look at his statements, especially the one about the 12th Imam...that will tell you why he could very well be the one to start a world war III if he had nukes. I believe that is what was meant.
And one could surmise he used that word to shock some out of their complacency.
These remarks from Iran and Russia may not
RE: Response to Obama's election by Iran: What I see here is an opening for dialog in the recognition that there is a capacity for improvement of ties, not exactly the "Death to America" sentiments expressed in the past, this despite Obama's statement directed at those who would tear the world down (we will defeat you). I also see several implied preconditions. After all, preconditions are a two-way street:
1. I would be curious to have Aghamohammadi expand on what he means by Bush style "confrontation" in other countries. He is the spokesperson for the National Security Council in Iran, has been involved with the EU, Britian, France and Germany as a nuclear arms negotiator and would be directly involved in any dialog with the US on the subject of nuclear arms nonproliferation. We hardly have a leg to stand in this arena with our current "do as I say, not as I do and never mind the nuclear stockpiles in Israel we financed" approach. My guess would be he is condemning military invasion and occupation, hardly a radical position for any sovereign nation to take. In his own capacity, he should understand the US has unfinished business in Afghanistan and possibly Pakistan, so it is impossible to know in the absence of dialog what alternatives to military invasion may be possible. It might be worth a look-see.
2. His implied request for the US to "concentrate on state matters" might be seen by some as a little progress, especially since, at the moment, we do not even have an embassy in Iran. This also implies a possible opening to US business interests there (which were abundant under the Shah), a staging ground for diplomacy and establishing an avenue for articulating US foreign policy within their borders.
3. Concentrating on removing the American people's concerns would imply a desire on his part to repair and improve Iran's image abroad.
A well thought out response to these implied preconditions would be a logical place for Obama to start when speculating on his own preconditions.
RE: Russia's recent behavior and rhetoric is worrisome on many levels to more than a few countries in the region. Cold war with Russia is in NOBODY'S interest, including Russia's I fail to see how turning our backs, isolating ourselves or ratcheting up bellicose rhetoric toward them would do anything except give them a green light to proceed. It's an ugly world out there and Obama will inevitably be taking either a direct or an indirect diplomatic role in addressing this issue. Russia has expressed that same expectation.
I agree with you and find humor in the remarks from Sudan. Anyway, wait and watch is all we can do at this point. It certainly beats the heck out of prognostications of failure or defeat.
marks the location of current message within thread
!["](http://images.bloomberg.com/r06/global/odot.gif"){kind=small}
![](http://images.bloomberg.com/r06/news/story_tl.gif"){kind=small}
![](http://images.bloomberg.com/r06/news/story_bl.gif"){kind=small}
![Iran](http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20090617/videolthumb.ec330d8bf51ff0f97896c253d0a81a66.jpg?x=213&y=160&xc=1&yc=1&wc=399&hc=300&q=85&sig=n02llinss0WKJvn1w3HGlg--")
