EAGLE1

I must admit to a certain gap in knowledge here. Im under the impression that Al kuds works in plain clothes for Iran in Lebanon and Iraq helping fellow Shia's fight against either Israel or Coalition forces.

Yet there are numerous examples of our own, i.e. British special forces helping fellow politcal travellers to fight our enemies across the world and not wearing a uniform.

What is the difference?

Iriemon

I thought the Revolutionary Guards was uniformed part of the Iranian military.

__________________
Matthew 5:9

Tashah

The IRGC can operate either in uniform or in civies. I saw quite a few Pasdaran corpses in Lebanon dressed in civilian attire. Their identity cards were typed in Farsi (Persian).

__________________

DivineComedy

Now that is sad…

You should be putting those high heels to better use than poking corpses.

__________________
“[59.14] They will not fight against you in a body save in fortified towns or from behind walls; their fighting between them is severe, you may think them as one body, and their hearts are disunited; that is because they are a people who have no sense.”

Yeah, a wall and a border patrol will protect us. {sound of laughter}

EAGLE1

Yes I suspect they are. When theyre in Iran or on the battlefield in a conventional conflict, just like us.

VTA

Sunnis are a physical minority; if America were simply fighting Sunni Arabs in Iraq, the war would be over by now. What could sustain such a conflict on their end against such a vast military?

A ruling class, which is a physical minority. If the Kurds and Shia decided to truly look for redress for just how that class ruled, there'd be no 'civil war' either. There'd be a slaughter.

Yeah and I've been waiting for a moment to read it, before answering this, but I'm having a devil of a time being left alone long enough. Sorry.

Yet he's talking about the actions going on in that country. Why? Because he has a stake in it, because it's his followers (in some sense) doing the fighting. From Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, foriegners are flocking to Iraq...

Because they are being used. There does exists a perfect propoganda tool: a foriegn invader on their land. It would be incredibly foolish of them not to play upon the Iraqi peoples sense of patriotic unity ot their country. Better to send them to their deaths in mass numbers.

They're not trying to defend lands. America has done nothing to Saudi Arabia but be a good patron and use diplomacy unstiltingly with Egypt (to some measure of success) over Israel.

Religions don't need defending, it's a paper excuse, used soley for propoganda. If any one, at this point in mans existence, believes a God is great enough to create all the wonders of the world, yet needs the tiny minds of men to defend his word, they are abjectly lost.

America is not fighting over land and religion. It's fighting for it's resources and stability.

__________________
-VTA

Trajan Octavian Titus

[quote=EAGLE1;615049]He wanted the U.S. to recognize his tyrannical rule as the legitimate government of Vietnam.


Diem fought the communists, Mihn allied with them.

Mihn erected a police state because he was a tyrant, Diem did it because he was under attack from a tyrant.


They opposed the elections because Minh erected a totalitarian police state and refused international observers making free elections impossible.


Yes you support a Communist tyranny attacking and slaughtering their peaceful neighbors to the South, you can spin that any way you want but the truth of the matter is clear.


Yes they did murder innocent people in mass and continued murdering innocent people in mass before, during, and after the war.

The Noth murdered people in mass for no good reason, the South killed Communists who were murdering people in mass for no good reason.

The travesty is that a totalitarian democidal regime attacked their peaceful neighbors to the south through a war of aggression.

EAGLE1

[quote][quote=Trajan Octavian Titus;615616]No actually he wanted the Americans to guarantee Vietnams independence from France and any other hostile nations.

Minh's alliances were only of convenience, not master and puppet as is and was proved over and again by Vietnams history. Diem sold out his own people in seeking to work for the French and then being plucked from obscurity by the Americans to rule over a people he didnt know and didnt care for.


Actually they both erected a police state to counter their political enemies. However, there was one vital difference. The North had the support of its people and the South did not having only a legacy of toadying to foreign interests. This is evidenced by the fact that state buildings in the North required no barbed wire around and despite its best efforts the US could not build any anti-communist resistance movement in the North.

Actually they opposed the elections because they knew theyd lose. After all, why would anyone vote for Diem anyway?

Peaceful state of South Vietnam? Hardly. Know what the three red bars on its flag stood for? They stood for South middle and North Vietnam.
Again of course the division of Vietnam into two states had no little legitimacy and the country was rightfully unified by force by the people of that country from both North and South.

Probably true. Nothing like those murdered by the US with the aid of the South though of course. Furthermore if you hadnt tried to split the country none of this would have happened.

Both North and South murdered innocents without trial and this charge that those victims in the South were all communists is baseless. The CIA proved unable to train their secret police in efficient methods of investigation and detection. Standard practice was rape torture and gunning down in the street for the neighbours to find the next day.
Furthermore, not one admission or apology was ever given.


The Southern regime was not only democidal but fascist and was a creation of foreign powers with no real support amongst even those the South. Therefore everyone around the world is rightly glad that the situation was rectified.

Trajan Octavian Titus

No actually he wanted the U.S. to recognize his communist dictatorship as the legitmate government of Vietnam.

Diem was a Vietnamese nationalist not a puppet of the French infact the French even labaled him a subversive and tried to have him arrested after they discovered the secret political organization he created called the "Association for the Restoration of Great Vietnam."

The reason why the South had to have barbed wire around its buildings was because of the North Vietnamese sponsored terrorists who murdered non-combatants in mass. The difference between the two police states is that the North Vietnamse one was created because of the ideology that the state was based on, and the reason why the South Vietnamese one was created was because of the same ideology that created the police state in the North and its adherents who were murdering innocent civilians in mass. The proof that the people of the South supported their government more than the North is shown by the mass exodus during the war into the South which far far outweighed the number of refugees who went from the South to the North not to mention that when the South Vietnamse government fell the South Vietnamse tried to leave on anything that float or flew.

They opposed the elections because they knew that the elections in the North would be rigged and that ofcourse the North would win because the vote had been decided by Ho in advance.

Really I don't recall the South waging a war of aggression against the North infact I recall the exact opposite being the case.

By your logic Hitler had the right to invade Czchekoslavakia because it had a large Germanic population. Ofcourse that was the policy of appeasers to tyranny like you supported back then. Sorry but the South was peaceful and non-aggressive and the tyrants of the north waged a war of aggression against them to further the evil ideology of communism.

Not probably.


If Minh hadn't established a totalitarian police state in North Vietnam negating any possiblity at free elections none of this would have happened. If Minh and his tyrannical government hadn't implemented policies of mass slaughter of innocent people and adobt catastrophic land reforms which caused mass starvations none of this would have happened. If North Vietnam hadn't sponsored an insurgency and the mass murder of civilians in South Vietnam none of this would have happened. And if North Vietnam hadn't waged a war of aggression against the peaceful south none of this would have happened.

That's because it was anti-war pro-communist propaganda which is still spouted by the international left to this day. You're a prime example of that. See the difference is that in open societies crimes committed by the state are published and widely reported yet in totalitarian police states like that of North Vietnam those things are concealed, so the effect is that you people maximize crimes committed by the South Vietnamse government and minimize those of the North, which feeds right into their propaganda effort, which is in effect what won them the war.

LMFAO, Minh was litterally a ****ing National Socialist and you're calling the South fascist? You got your wires crossed mate.

Trajan Octavian Titus

Oh as for Minh not being a Soviet puppet he was a ****ing KGB comintern agent, since the 20s.

His bid to ask the Americans for recognition was just a classic Communist propaganda maneuver that always precedes the Communist takeover.