POST SCRIPTS

Tasker, you are parsing words, just like I asked you not to do because it's a grasp at trying to win after your logic has failed.

You said, "The problem with this is defining what constitutes a 'terrorist group." No Tasker, that is not a problem for most of the worlds population. For most of us to know a terrorist group, you need only look to the headlines and read their message of death and destruction attached to their names. How much easier does it get? Their is no denial, they are proud of it; they brag about it, they rub it in your face and yet you have a problem knowing if they really are terrorists? And our law enforcement know these people even better than you could imagine.

Liberals are often grid locked by their inability to discern right from wrong, good guys from bad guys and perhaps this explains why they label Bush as their big enemy and pay no mind to Islamic terrorists bent on destroy them and their country? I see their world as one where moral relativism has run amuck which leads them to analysis paralysis, confusing and shooting from the hit, often at the wrong target.

Let me help a bit further, "Terrorism is the act of scaring people for a special reason. A person who uses terrorism is called a terrorist. Terrorists usually say they will engage in violent acts, such as killing people, to make someone do something (give something or change a behavior, for example). Terrorists believe if others are afraid of them, they will have more power to do what this wish." That's pretty clear isn't it? (I ask with great trepidation)

Anything anecdotal you have to say about somebody's stupid license plate turning up on an FBI file or whatever, is irrelevant and worse, it is "facts not in evidence" which means not a fact at all.

Digressing, I wished I had a dollar for every person who said they were being followed by the cops or claimed that I or one of my people, was bugging their phone or watching their home, etc.(I worked undercover and as an investigator for quite some time)

Back in my law enforcement days, I actually talked to a suspect who told me....."Jack Lee has his undercover guys following me." I didn't even know the guy, he was hardly worth the effort and he sure as heck had no clue who I was! He about croaked when I told him after the interrogation who I really was. It was a priceless moment (and those are few and far between in law enforcement, especially in drug enforcement where I was at the time.)

Now that's your anecdotal evidence, sworn to be true by a guy who believed it with all his heart! lol

Tasker, I'll try to help you understand things when I can, but you really have to start helping yourself. I suggest you begin by seeking out more balanced information from a variety of sources and not just leftist propaganda mills.

Mr. Tasker you are either not a bright person or you are being argumentative for the sake of argument. Mr. Lee has been very patient with you and this is cannot understand why. Who has time for such people like you. He says many truths and you just pick, pick, pick. Enough! You are very difficult person and remind of the party bosses I kknew in Russia. That is my opinion and I am an immigrant too. I am from Russia.

Since Tasker and most liberals like him can't seem to easily discern right from wrong when it comes to political groups, nor terrorists from people that have strong ideas...AND Because defining anything here will of course be attacked as biased, then I offer this:

The Wikipedia list of worldwide terrorist groups:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_groups
This list is compiled by worldwide collaborative consensus of history scholars, intellectuals, and plain folks, so there isn't an inherent bias built in though I'm sure Tasker will find some way to poo-poo that too since its really easy to throw anonymous opinion while hiding behind walls.

Note that only a handful of terrorist groups are listed in the USA. Many are disbanded. Such as the idiotic Symbionese Liberation Army, which was nothing more than a crime ring, most are dead or in jail. Proving to boneheads with angry ideals; "crime doesn't pay".

There's eco-terrorists listed, like Earth Liberation Front, and ALF that was responsible for trying to burn down (unsuccesfully) businesses in Chico, and there's Christian terrorists listed too. The list is broad with no favoritism or bias except this: if you're stupid, angry, organized, and cause harm, you're on the list.

The Weathermen were once a terrorist group in the USA, also now disbanded. I was never a member, though I'm sure Jack Lee has people watching me anyway. ;)

The frightening truth of why Iran wants a bomb

By Amir Taheri
UK Telegraph
(Filed: 16/04/2006)

Last Monday, just before he announced that Iran had gatecrashed "the nuclear club", President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad disappeared for several hours. He was having a khalvat (tête-à-tête) with the Hidden Imam, the 12th and last of the imams of Shiism who went into "grand occultation" in 941.

According to Shia lore, the Imam is a messianic figure who, although in hiding, remains the true Sovereign of the World. In every generation, the Imam chooses 36 men, (and, for obvious reasons, no women) naming them the owtad or "nails", whose presence, hammered into mankind’s existence, prevents the universe from "falling off". Although the "nails" are not known to common mortals, it is, at times, possible to identify one thanks to his deeds. It is on that basis that some of Ahmad-inejad’s more passionate admirers insist that he is a "nail", a claim he has not discouraged. For example, he has claimed that last September, as he addressed the United Nations’ General Assembly in New York, the "Hidden Imam drenched the place in a sweet light".

Last year, it was after another khalvat that Ahmadinejad announced his intention to stand for president. Now, he boasts that the Imam gave him the presidency for a single task: provoking a "clash of civilisations" in which the Muslim world, led by Iran, takes on the "infidel" West, led by the United States, and defeats it in a slow but prolonged contest that, in military jargon, sounds like a low intensity, asymmetrical war.

In Ahmadinejad’s analysis, the rising Islamic "superpower" has decisive advantages over the infidel. Islam has four times as many young men of fighting age as the West, with its ageing populations. Hundreds of millions of Muslim "ghazis" (holy raiders) are keen to become martyrs while the infidel youths, loving life and fearing death, hate to fight. Islam also has four-fifths of the world’s oil reserves, and so controls the lifeblood of the infidel. More importantly, the US, the only infidel power still capable of fighting, is hated by most other nations.

According to this analysis, spelled out in commentaries by Ahmadinejad’s strategic guru, Hassan Abassi, known as the "Dr Kissinger of Islam", President George W Bush is an aberration, an exception to a rule under which all American presidents since Truman, when faced with serious setbacks abroad, have "run away". Iran’s current strategy, therefore, is to wait Bush out. And that, by "divine coincidence", corresponds to the time Iran needs to develop its nuclear arsenal, thus matching the only advantage that the infidel enjoys.

Moments after Ahmadinejad announced "the atomic miracle", the head of the Iranian nuclear project, Ghulamreza Aghazadeh, unveiled plans for manufacturing 54,000 centrifuges, to enrich enough uranium for hundreds of nuclear warheads. "We are going into mass production," he boasted.

The Iranian plan is simple: playing the diplomatic game for another two years until Bush becomes a "lame-duck", unable to take military action against the mullahs, while continuing to develop nuclear weapons.

Thus do not be surprised if, by the end of the 12 days still left of the United Nations’ Security Council "deadline", Ahmadinejad announces a "temporary suspension" of uranium enrichment as a "confidence building measure". Also, don’t be surprised if some time in June he agrees to ask the Majlis (the Islamic parliament) to consider signing the additional protocols of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Such manoeuvres would allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) director, Muhammad El-Baradei, and Britain’s Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, to congratulate Iran for its "positive gestures" and denounce talk of sanctions, let alone military action. The confidence building measures would never amount to anything, but their announcement would be enough to prevent the G8 summit, hosted by Russia in July, from moving against Iran.

While waiting Bush out, the Islamic Republic is intent on doing all it can to consolidate its gains in the region. Regime changes in Kabul and Baghdad have altered the status quo in the Middle East. While Bush is determined to create a Middle East that is democratic and pro-Western, Ahmadinejad is equally determined that the region should remain Islamic but pro-Iranian. Iran is now the strongest presence in Afghanistan and Iraq, after the US. It has turned Syria and Lebanon into its outer defences, which means that, for the first time since the 7th century, Iran is militarily present on the coast of the Mediterranean. In a massive political jamboree in Teheran last week, Ahmadinejad also assumed control of the "Jerusalem Cause", which includes annihilating Israel "in one storm", while launching a take-over bid for the cash-starved Hamas government in the West Bank and Gaza.

Ahmadinejad has also reactivated Iran’s network of Shia organisations in Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Yemen, while resuming contact with Sunni fundamentalist groups in Turkey, Egypt, Algeria and Morocco. From childhood, Shia boys are told to cultivate two qualities. The first is entezar, the capacity patiently to wait for the Imam to return. The second is taajil, the actions needed to hasten the return. For the Imam’s return will coincide with an apocalyptic battle between the forces of evil and righteousness, with evil ultimately routed. If the infidel loses its nuclear advantage, it could be worn down in a long, low-intensity war at the end of which surrender to Islam would appear the least bad of options. And that could be a signal for the Imam to reappear.

At the same time, not to forget the task of hastening the Mahdi’s second coming, Ahamdinejad will pursue his provocations. On Monday, he was as candid as ever: "To those who are angry with us, we have one thing to say: be angry until you die of anger!"

His adviser, Hassan Abassi, is rather more eloquent. "The Americans are impatient," he says, "at the first sight of a setback, they run away. We, however, know how to be patient. We have been weaving carpets for thousands of years."

NOTE: Amir Taheri is a former Executive Editor of Kayhan, Iran’s largest daily newspaper, but now lives in Europe

Poor confused little Tasker, always the victim. Sorry friend, this isn't the modern public education system and we will not dumb down the blog just so you can keep up.

Good grief, Tasker, you are one for the books! I didn't tell you could not submit a link to an article in defense of a position. One time you sent me a link that was critical of policy in Iraq and asked me what I thought about it. I said it better for you to say what you thought about it, I could spend all day responding to thousands of what about this, what about that, better for you to say what you thought. Geez, I thought I made that pretty clear.

Next, sometimes if a post is a very compelling news story gleened from the net I will post that story as is, but we (E-R) prefers original posts and thoughts, which was the original idea for this blog site.

Lastly. I do not comment on every post. If I feel I can contribute something worthwhile or if I feel moved thank the poster for an especially relevant post, I may respond.

I hope this helps clear up any confusion?

Ok Tasker, you call me cowardly, while hiding behind anonymity of a moniker.

Yet I use my name for every post I make.

Double standard? Indeed.

Nick, it's not a question of if you have convinced Tasker, your logic here is flawless, it's a question of how Tasker is going to have the last word. lol

Having the last word is not the same as winning the debate, and clearly you have won this one.