www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/14/AR2007081401662_pf.html

The United States has decided to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, the country's 125,000-strong military branch, as a "specially designated global terrorist," according to U.S. officials, a move that allows Washington to target the group's business operations and finances.

The Bush administration has chosen to move against the Revolutionary Guard Corps because of what U.S. officials describe as the group's growing involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as its support for extremists throughout the Middle East, the sources said. The decision follows congressional pressure on the administration to toughen its stance against Tehran as well as U.S. frustration with the ineffectiveness of U.N. resolutions against Iran's nuclear program, officials said.

The designation of the Revolutionary Guards will be made under Executive Order 13224, which President Bush signed two weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to obstruct terrorist funding. It identifies individuals, businesses, charities and many extremist groups engaged in terrorist activities. The Revolutionary Guards would be the first national military branch included on the list, U.S. officials said -- a highly unusual move because it is part of a government, rather than a typical non-state terrorist organization.

The order allows the United States to block the assets of terrorists and to disrupt operations by foreign businesses that "provide support, services or assistance to, or otherwise associate with, terrorists."

The move reflects the escalating tensions between Washington and Tehran over issues including Iraq and Iran's nuclear ambitions. Iran has been on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism since 1984, but in May the two countries began their first formal one-on-one dialogue in 28 years with a meeting of diplomats in Baghdad.

The main goal of the new designation is to clamp down on the Revolutionary Guards' vast business network, as well as on foreign companies conducting business linked to the military unit and its personnel. The administration plans to list many of the Revolutionary Guards' financial operations.

"Anyone doing business with these people will have to reevaluate their actions immediately," said a U.S. official familiar with the plan who requested anonymity because the decision has not been announced. "It increases the risks of people who have until now ignored the growing list of sanctions against the Iranians. It makes clear to everyone who the IRGC and their related businesses really are. It removes the excuses for doing business with these people."

For weeks, the Bush administration has been debating whether to target the Revolutionary Guards Corps in full, or only its Quds Force wing, which U.S. officials have linked to the growing flow of explosives, roadside bombs, rockets and other arms to Shiite militias in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Quds Force also lends support to Shiite allies such as Lebanon's Hezbollah and to Sunni movements such as Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Although administration discussions remain ongoing, the initial decision is to target the entire Guards Corps, U.S. officials said. The administration has not yet decided when to announce the new measure, but officials said they would prefer to do so before the meeting of the U.N. General Assembly next month, when the United States intends to increase international pressure against Iran.

Formed after 1979 and originally tasked with protecting the world's only modern theocracy, the Revolutionary Guards took the lead in battling Iraq during the bloody Iran-Iraq war waged from 1980 to 1988. The Guards, also known as the Pasdaran, have since become an powerful political and economic force in Iran. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad rose through the ranks of the Revolutionary Guards and came to power with support from its network of veterans. Its leaders are tied to many mainstream businesses in Iran.

"They are heavily involved in everything from pharmaceuticals to telecommunications and pipelines, even the new Imam Khomeini Airport and a great deal of smuggling," said Ray Takeyh of the Council on Foreign Relations. "Many of the front companies engaged in procuring nuclear technology are owned and run by the Revolutionary Guards. They're developing along the lines of the Chinese military which is involved in many business enterprises. It's a huge business conglomeration."

The Revolutionary Guard Corps -- with its own navy, air force, ground forces and special forces units -- is a rival to Iran's conventional troops. Its naval forces abducted 15 British sailors and marines last spring, sparking an international crisis, and its special forces armed Lebanon's Hezbollah with missiles used against Israel in the 2006 war. The Guard Corps also plays a key role in Iran's military industries, including attempted acquisition of nuclear weapons and surface-to-surface missiles, according to Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

The United States took punitive actions against Iran after the 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, including the breaking of diplomatic ties and the freezing of Iranian assets in the United States. More recently, dozens of international banks and financial institutions either reduced or eliminated their business with Iran, following a quiet campaign by the Treasury Department and State Department aimed at limiting Tehran's access to the international financial system. And over the past year, two U.N. resolutions have targeted the assets and movements of 28 individuals -- including some Revolutionary Guard members -- tied to Iran's nuclear program.

The key obstacle to stronger international pressure against Tehran has been China, which is now Iran's largest trading partner. After the Iranian government refused to comply with two U.N. Security Council resolutions dealing with its nuclear program, Beijing balked at a U.S. proposal for a third resolution that would have sanctioned the Revolutionary Guard, U.S. officials said.

China's actions reverse a cycle during which Russia was the most reluctant among the veto-wielding members of the Security Council. "China used to hide behind Russia, but Russia is now hiding behind China," said a U.S. official familiar with negotiations.

The administration's move also comes amid growing support in Congress for the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act, which was introduced in the Senate by Gordon Smith (R-Ore.), and by Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) in the House, where it already has 323 cosponsors.

The administration's move could hurt diplomatic efforts, some analysts said. "It would greatly complicate our efforts to solve the nuclear issue," said Joseph Cirincione, a nuclear proliferation expert at the Center for American Progress. "It would tie an end to Iran's nuclear program to an end to its support of allies in Hezbollah and Hamas. The only way you could get a nuclear deal is as part of a grand bargain, which at this point is completely out of reach."

Such sanctions can only work alongside diplomatic efforts, Cirincione added. "Sanctions can serve as a prod but they have very rarely forced a country to capitulate or collapse," he said. "All of us want to back Iran into a corner but we want to give them a way out, too. [The designation] will convince many in Iran's elite that there's no point in talking with us and that the only thing that will satisfy us is regime change."

I thought that the first part of the definition of 'terrorist' was that they were not part of a govt or military.  And the second part being that they attacked civilian targets...

The hell with targeting their business interests and finances, target their barracks!

Quoted: But if we hold to that definition, that means that it can be turned around and applied to our military  personnel...

Our Troops aren't terrorists.

Quoted: No, we do not delibrately target civilians.

Yes we do.  We have to.  Every Iraqi insurgent is a civilian.

Our Troops aren't terrorists.

Ask an Iranian if their's are.

I'm just sayin'...

Quoted: Quoted: No, we do not delibrately target civilians. Yes we do.  We have to.  Every Iraqi insurgent is a civilian.

They are combatants, and affiliated with terrorist organizations, making them the enemy, non-civilian etc.

An insurgent is not a civilian.

That's reaching, but okay.  Why can't they be both civilian and enemy combatants?

Main Entry: ci·vil·ian
Pronunciation: s&-'vil-y&n also -'vi-y&n
Function: noun
1 : a specialist in Roman or modern civil law
2 a : one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force

Then again I say cops & fire fighters are civilians...  

I wonder how this will effect our negotiations over Iran's nuclear weapons program.

Quoted: That's reaching, but okay.  Why can't they be both civilian and enemy combatants? Main Entry: ci·vil·ian Pronunciation: s&-'vil-y&n also -'vi-y&n Function: noun 1 : a specialist in Roman or modern civil law 2 a : one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force Then again I say cops & fire fighters are civilians...

in·sur·gent      –noun

1. a person who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority, esp. a person who engages in armed resistance to a government or to the execution of its laws; rebel.  

2. a member of a section of a political party that revolts against the methods or policies of the party.  
–adjective 3. of or characteristic of an insurgent or insurgents.  

If I engage in armed resistance am I no longer a civilian?

Thanks

*I'll remember this when the shit hits the fan, "I am not a civilian anymore"  

take them all to the soccer field and behead them.. sofort!

Quoted: Quoted: That's reaching, but okay.  Why can't they be both civilian and enemy combatants? Main Entry: ci·vil·ian Pronunciation: s&-'vil-y&n also -'vi-y&n Function: noun 1 : a specialist in Roman or modern civil law 2 a : one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force Then again I say cops & fire fighters are civilians...   in·sur·gent      –noun 1. a person who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority, esp. a person who engages in armed resistance to a government or to the execution of its laws; rebel.   2. a member of a section of a political party that revolts against the methods or policies of the party.   –adjective 3. of or characteristic of an insurgent or insurgents.

Being engaged in armed resistence and being on active duty in a military are two completely different things.

this thread isnt going to end well

meh, if anyone needs me, I'll be elsewhere shaving my ass for the g/f


Hairy, I know

The distinction is properly rendered as combatants and non-combatants.

Quoted: If I engage in armed resistance am I no longer a civilian? Thanks *I'll remember this when the shit hits the fan, "I am not a civilian anymore"

No you will be a freedom fighter, Militia member, Rebel, terrorist.

It all depends on what you are resisting. (And how you do it)

Quoted: Being engaged in armed resistance and being on active duty in a military are two completely different things.

True, but after you join a armed revolt, you are no longer a civilian, you are an insurgent, revolutionary, etc.

Civilian = Non-combatant

Terrorist = Enemy who targets non-combatants.

Insurgent = Enemy who is in a state if violent rebellion, not a civilian.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: That's reaching, but okay.  Why can't they be both civilian and enemy combatants? Main Entry: ci·vil·ian Pronunciation: s&-'vil-y&n also -'vi-y&n Function: noun 1 : a specialist in Roman or modern civil law 2 a : one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force Then again I say cops & fire fighters are civilians...   in·sur·gent      –noun 1. a person who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority, esp. a person who engages in armed resistance to a government or to the execution of its laws; rebel.   2. a member of a section of a political party that revolts against the methods or policies of the party.   –adjective 3. of or characteristic of an insurgent or insurgents.   Being engaged in armed resistence and being on active duty in a military are two completely different things.

Exactly.  GWB and the media have completely blurred the distinction between an insurgent and a terrorist and use the terms pretty much interchangeably.  IIRC, the renewed Patriot Act defines a terrorist anyone who fights against the US or its interests...

Ah Hell, battery's about to die...

Quoted: I thought that the first part of the definition of 'terrorist' was that they were not part of a govt or military.  And the second part being that they attacked civilian targets...

Perhaps the Iranian government isnt a legitamate one? Personally I feel that the whole of the Iranian government should be classified as a terrorist organization.

IIRC, the renewed Patriot Act defines a terrorist anyone who fights against the US or its interests...

Uh, no it does not! You're making stuff up now.

IMO, there hasn't been a legitimate government in Iran since 1979.

Quoted: But if we hold to that definition, that means that it can be turned around and applied to our military  personnel...

Quoted: IIRC, the renewed Patriot Act defines a terrorist anyone who fights against the US or its interests... Uh, no it does not! You're making stuff up now. IMO, there hasn't been a legitimate government in Iran since 1979.

I was slightly off...

usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa121201a.htm

In less-well publicized amendments, lawmakers added language to the Patriot Act very broadly defining terrorism and who the Justice Department and Secretary of State can designate as eligible for investigation and close surveillance according to provisions of the Patriot Act. • You need not be a member of a terrorist group to be considered a terrorist. If you openly represent or seek community support for terrorist acts or a known terrorist organization, you could be declared a terrorist. • Raising money for or giving money to a terrorist group is considered a direct act of terrorism if the funds are used to plan or conduct an act of terrorism. • Providing services or assistance to terrorists can also be declared an act of terrorism unless the accused can prove "he did not know, and should not reasonably have known" the services would be used to assist a terrorist act. Knowingly providing a hideout, transportation, training or firearms are examples of services that could fall under this provision. • Members of terrorists' immediate family may be considered and treated as terrorists themselves unless they can prove to the satisfaction of the Justice Department that they were either unaware of or had openly renounced the terrorist activity. • Spouses and children of terrorists can be treated like terrorists themselves unless "the attorney general has reasonable grounds to believe [the family member] has renounced the activity." What is a "terrorist activity?" Under the Patriot Act, terrorist activities include: • threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other vehicles. • threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected" persons, such as government officials • any crime committed with "the use of any weapon or dangerous device," when the intent of the crime is determined to be the endangerment of public safety or substantial property damage rather than for "mere personal monetary gain" In his excellent article Anti-terror legislation so far, Civil Liberty Guide J.D. Tuccille details Congress' deliberations on the Patriot Act, as well as how its provisions impact personal freedoms. Tuccille writes, "The bill includes a definition of terrorists and terrorist organizations that's a tad ... well ... broad."

In other words, water is wet...

I was slightly off...

You were completely off. It does not make anyone who fights against the US government a terrorist. Nice try.

I thought this was straight out of the Onion till I saw it on Drudge.  

So acts of war are to be prosecuted by lawyers and bankers?  Lawfare taken to its extreme.

This is so outrageous all I can do is go "huh."

"In related news, the Imperial Japanese Navy has been designated a terrorist organization due to the recent events at Pearl Harbor.  Talks continue with the Japanese Army regarding control of the Phillippines, Singapore, and Malasia, areas in which President Togo expressed a great deal of concern."

Quoted: Quoted: But if we hold to that definition, that means that it can be turned around and applied to our military  personnel...

Quite the convincing argument.

I don't think he said that it "should be turned around and applied to us"...no I guess reading it again is says just what someone in Europe or wherever else will likely come up with.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: But if we hold to that definition, that means that it can be turned around and applied to our military  personnel... Quite the convincing argument. I don't think he said that it "should be turned around and applied to us"...no I guess reading it again is says just what someone in Europe or wherever else will likely come up with.

Our troops do not murder, kidnap, torture, maim, behead, brutalize, or bomb civilians just for the fuck of it like the terrorists do.

Anyone that says otherwise is damned liar and they know it.

Quoted: Our troops do not murder, kidnap, torture, maim, behead, brutalize, or bomb civilians just for the fuck of it like the terrorists do. Anyone that says otherwise is damned liar and they know it.

+ 100,000,000

It's a shame we are even having this conversation.

I wonder if this could be used to stop the world bank from handing our money to Iran.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/09/AR2007080901929.html

Bankrolling Iran The World Bank's Largess Is Undermining the U.N. and the West By Mark Kirk Friday, August 10, 2007; Page A13 Both the U.N. Security Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency have found Iran in breach of its obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The IAEA reports that Iran ignored the Security Council's February deadline to stop enriching uranium and has even expanded its nuclear program. As Iran's Atomic Energy Organization moves toward its announced goal of operating 50,000 uranium enrichment centrifuges in Natanz, the World Bank is funding nine government projects in Iran totaling $1.35 billion -- one of which operates in Isfahan, where Iran's nuclear program is headquartered. While the World Bank is part of the U.N. family, the bank's board is disconnected from the policies of key U.N. agencies -- especially the Security Council and the IAEA. The United States remains the top investor in the World Bank, contributing $950 million in 2006 and $940 million this year. In June the House of Representatives approved another $950 million. Meanwhile, the bank will disburse $220 million to Iran this year, with more than $870 million in the pipeline for 2008, 2009 and 2010. Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush all certified that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. The Treasury Department's Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence spends considerable effort locating Iranian assets to freeze. Yet published World Bank documents reflect a worldview toward Iran that is backward, uneducated and outdated. All current projects in Iran are based on a 2001 Interim Assistance Strategy, in which the bank wrote: "There is a relatively animated and active political competition in Iran through which people express their views, choice of society, economic aspirations and political representation. . . . Since the 1979 Revolution, Iran has given strong and special emphasis to human development, social protection, and 'social justice,' with significant progress to date." Freedom House, the global leader in assessing personal and political freedoms, had a different perspective in its 2006 Freedom in the World report: "Iranians cannot change their government democratically. . . . Corruption is pervasive. . . . Freedom of expression is limited. . . . Religious freedom is limited. . . . Academic freedom in Iran is limited. . . . Although the constitution prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention, these practices are very common and increasingly routine." The 2001 bank document notes that Iran has begun "an era of détente and greater openness to the outside world." The Security Council and the IAEA appear to disagree with that assessment. One has to wonder why a country that exports 2.6 million barrels of oil a day needs World Bank development assistance. Iran's oil export revenue nearly doubled between 2003 and 2005, from $23.7 billion to $46.6 billion. That number grew to $50 billion last year. Iran's real gross domestic product grew 4.8 percent in 2004 and 5.6 percent in 2005. Why does Iran need World Bank aid? Furthermore, the bank's investment in Iran stands in stark contrast to its work in Iraq. Iraq was a founding member of the World Bank in 1945, yet it took the bank 2 1/2 years after the fall of Saddam Hussein to approve one development project. To date, the board has approved only four projects, totaling $399 million, for the new Iraqi government -- and little of that money has been spent. The World Bank's board is not only disconnected from the Security Council's policies but is also at odds with the Iran policies of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel. As the Treasury acts to dry up funding for Tehran, the World Bank is providing support to the Iranian government through 2010. As President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pledges the destruction of Israel, funds Hezbollah and Hamas, and defies Security Council resolutions, the bank's board will approve further Iran disbursements. U.S. law requires the American executive director at the bank to vote against any project for the Iranian government. However, since the United States has no veto power on the bank's board, this policy is largely symbolic. We need to do better. This summer the bank has gotten a president who works well with allies -- former deputy secretary of state Robert Zoellick. It would be prudent for Zoellick to realign the bank's policies with Security Council resolutions on Iran. As long as the Security Council condemns the actions of Ahmadinejad, the World Bank should suspend funding for his government. Multilateral organizations represent the best and greatest potential for U.S. and allied diplomacy. The success of this diplomacy will be enhanced if the United Nations and World Bank work together, particularly on Iran. The writer, a Republican representative from Illinois, is a member of the House Appropriations subcommittee on state-foreign operations. He previously served on the staff of the World Bank's International Finance Corp.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: But if we hold to that definition, that means that it can be turned around and applied to our military  personnel... Quite the convincing argument. I don't think he said that it "should be turned around and applied to us"...no I guess reading it again is says just what someone in Europe or wherever else will likely come up with. Our troops do not murder, kidnap, torture, maim, behead, brutalize, or bomb civilians just for the fuck of it like the terrorists do. Anyone that says otherwise is damned liar and they know it.

I was trying to say that those who dont agree with the US can/will turn this around against us.  If US troops are going after an insurgent and blow up a family in their home in the process, those troops just became 'terrorists' to the people in that community.  Thats why the definition of the term should stay what it always was until GWB changed it to suite his needs.  

Quoted: I don't think he said that it "should be turned around and applied to us"...no I guess reading it again is says just what someone in Europe or wherever else will likely come up with. Our troops do not murder, kidnap, torture, maim, behead, brutalize, or bomb civilians just for the fuck of it like the terrorists do. Anyone that says otherwise is damned liar and they know it.

that isn't the issue (and is debatable when our opponents can list example after example of US troops causing civilian casualties)

The Guard is an arm of the military of Iran.   If we can declare their military to be a terrorist organization, they can do the same to us.  

We don't like them because they

1) provide training for the terrorist organizations who attack us in Iraq (just like we gave training to the terrorist organizations who attacked the Soviets in Afghanistan)
2) provide equipment and arms to the same organizations (just as we did in Afghanistan)

Iran isn't doing anything we haven't done before, are doing now, and will do in the future.  

Declaring the Guard to be a terrorist organization is equivalent to them declaring the Marine Corps to be a terrorist organization.

If we truly believe the IRGC is attacking US interests, why play this fucking game?  They are a legitimate military arm of the Iranian government.   This isn't some shadowy organization with no ties to any country, we know where their bases are and where their leaders are.  

Quoted: IIRC, the renewed Patriot Act defines a terrorist anyone who fights against the US or its interests... Uh, no it does not! You're making stuff up now. IMO, there hasn't been a legitimate government in Iran since 19791953.

Fixed it for ya.

Quoted: Get some. NOW.

Yeah! We should attack Iran right now.

We'll just draw from the hundreds of thousands of reserve forces we have ready to go

Quoted: meh, if anyone needs me, I'll be elsewhere shaving my ass for the g/f i25.photobucket.com/albums/c55/M855/assneeedinshaved.jpg Hairy, I know

Nice ass

This is a real pussy move by Bush....he should have lobbed a few T-Lams at them already...Their guard is part of their government...what bullshit.

... Good

This is not the time in history for America to be pussy-footing around an obvious threat to peace and Western civilization. Hell with pandering to the left; calling a spade, a spade, goes a long way in executing the GWOT. A war fought with brutally devastating force and destruction - seemingly, the only thing those bastards know.

The Iranian people get exactly what they have coming them. Their refusal to oust a maniacal leader to join a peacefully existing global economy will cost them decades of economic, political and technological advances. Fuck them.

Quoted: Quoted: I don't think he said that it "should be turned around and applied to us"...no I guess reading it again is says just what someone in Europe or wherever else will likely come up with. Our troops do not murder, kidnap, torture, maim, behead, brutalize, or bomb civilians just for the fuck of it like the terrorists do. Anyone that says otherwise is damned liar and they know it. that isn't the issue (and is debatable when our opponents can list example after example of US troops causing civilian casualties) The Guard is an arm of the military of Iran.   If we can declare their military to be a terrorist organization, they can do the same to us.   We don't like them because they 1) provide training for the terrorist organizations who attack us in Iraq (just like we gave training to the terrorist organizations who attacked the Soviets in Afghanistan) 2) provide equipment and arms to the same organizations (just as we did in Afghanistan) Iran isn't doing anything we haven't done before, are doing now, and will do in the future.   Declaring the Guard to be a terrorist organization is equivalent to them declaring the Marine Corps to be a terrorist organization. If we truly believe the IRGC is attacking US interests, why play this fucking game?  They are a legitimate military arm of the Iranian government.   This isn't some shadowy organization with no ties to any country, we know where their bases are and where their leaders are.

Well put. If want to declare the Revolutionary Guard terrorists because they train, assist and in part finance insurgent/revolutionary movements in other countries - what exactly does that make the Green Berets?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I don't think he said that it "should be turned around and applied to us"...no I guess reading it again is says just what someone in Europe or wherever else will likely come up with. Our troops do not murder, kidnap, torture, maim, behead, brutalize, or bomb civilians just for the fuck of it like the terrorists do. Anyone that says otherwise is damned liar and they know it. that isn't the issue (and is debatable when our opponents can list example after example of US troops causing civilian casualties) The Guard is an arm of the military of Iran.   If we can declare their military to be a terrorist organization, they can do the same to us.   We don't like them because they 1) provide training for the terrorist organizations who attack us in Iraq (just like we gave training to the terrorist organizations who attacked the Soviets in Afghanistan) 2) provide equipment and arms to the same organizations (just as we did in Afghanistan) Iran isn't doing anything we haven't done before, are doing now, and will do in the future.   Declaring the Guard to be a terrorist organization is equivalent to them declaring the Marine Corps to be a terrorist organization. If we truly believe the IRGC is attacking US interests, why play this fucking game?  They are a legitimate military arm of the Iranian government.   This isn't some shadowy organization with no ties to any country, we know where their bases are and where their leaders are.   Well put. If want to declare the Revolutionary Guard terrorists because they train, assist and in part finance insurgent/revolutionary movements in other countries - what exactly does that make the Green Berets?

WTF is wrong with you?

Quoted: Quoted: Get some. NOW. Yeah! We should attack Iran right now. We'll just draw from the hundreds of thousands of reserve forces we have ready to go

On OUR terms or thiers, which would you rather?

I didn't say INVADE, did I ?

Don't put words in my mouth.

Quoted: Well put. If want to declare the Revolutionary Guard terrorists because they train, assist and in part finance insurgent/revolutionary movements in other countries - what exactly does that make the Green Berets?

WTF is wrong with you?

a better question would be wtf is wrong with Jorge Bush

this will come back to haunt us

Quoted: Quoted: Well put. If want to declare the Revolutionary Guard terrorists because they train, assist and in part finance insurgent/revolutionary movements in other countries - what exactly does that make the Green Berets? WTF is wrong with you? a better question would be wtf is wrong with Jorge Bush this will come back to haunt us

You should send Ahmadinejad a letter of commendation. I'm sure this will cheer him up.



ETA : This should get you started....

email : http://www.president.ir/email/

or

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs    URL:
http://www.mfa.gov.ir
Email:
[email protected]

Iran's Terrorists Behind 73% Of Attacks That Killed Or Wounded U.S. Troops In July

Quoted: Our troops do not murder, kidnap, torture, maim, behead, brutalize, or bomb civilians just for the fuck of it like the terrorists do. Anyone that says otherwise is damned liar and they know it.

Generally they don't, it's never part of the official mission.  Unfortunately there have been some isolated incidents:

My Lai Massacre
Haditha Killings
Hamdania Incident
Mahmudiyah Killings
Nangarhar Highway Killings

I'll beat you to the punch and tell you I'm neither a "liar" or a "liberal" so you can save it.

Quoted: Generally they don't, it's never part of the official mission.  Unfortunately there have been some isolated incidents: My Lai Massacre Haditha Killings Hamdania Incident Mahmudiyah Killings Nangarhar Highway Killings I'll beat you to the punch and tell you I'm neither a "liar" or a "liberal" so you can save it.

Yeah, the few isolated incidents where Americans may or may not have intentionally killed civilians is in absolutely the same league as car bombers, death squads, and IED and sniper cells that target innocent civilians daily.

Take your anti-American bullshit somewhere else, troll.

Really?

I am fine with designating the IRG as a terrorist entity.

If it walks like a duck and quacks...

Things between the US and Iran definately just escalated, but how much?

Will there be a response from them?

What's Russia think of this? or Syria?

Quoted: Quoted: Generally they don't, it's never part of the official mission.  Unfortunately there have been some isolated incidents: My Lai Massacre Haditha Killings Hamdania Incident Mahmudiyah Killings Nangarhar Highway Killings I'll beat you to the punch and tell you I'm neither a "liar" or a "liberal" so you can save it. Yeah, the few isolated incidents where Americans may or may not have intentionally killed civilians is in absolutely the same league as car bombers, death squads, and IED and sniper cells that target innocent civilians daily. Take your anti-American bullshit somewhere else, troll.

Sweet Jesus cakes. Point out historical facts and all of a sudden you're spouting "anti-American bullshit."

Tune out worldnetdaily once in a while dude.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Generally they don't, it's never part of the official mission.  Unfortunately there have been some isolated incidents: My Lai Massacre Haditha Killings Hamdania Incident Mahmudiyah Killings Nangarhar Highway Killings I'll beat you to the punch and tell you I'm neither a "liar" or a "liberal" so you can save it. Yeah, the few isolated incidents where Americans may or may not have intentionally killed civilians is in absolutely the same league as car bombers, death squads, and IED and sniper cells that target innocent civilians daily. Take your anti-American bullshit somewhere else, troll. Sweet Jesus cakes. Point out historical facts and all of a sudden you're spouting "anti-American bullshit." Tune out worldnetdaily once in a while dude.

Oh, but comparing our troops to Nazis, Pol Pot and terrorists is somehow Patriotic.

All this debate!  

A winner, a loser.
Whats right, what's wrong.

There can be only one!

In the direction to drive our future world.

I will ride with the USA

Quoted: All this debate!   A winner, a loser. Whats right, what's wrong. There can be only one! In the direction to drive our future world. I will ride with the USA

I'll ride with you. Thank you.