conditional declaration of terrorism - Iran

Well the Brits are known to have some really good ex-sas
"security
professionals" they keep on contract for just this
sort of thing.  Hell a
lot of the problems we are having now can be laid on their
door step, they
might as well take part in cleaning up their hundred year
old mess. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:mdinowithouseoffusion.com] 
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 5:10 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: conditional declaration of terrorism - Iran

Couple of high paid guys who you don't even know exist so
there's no tracing
it back to a specific person/government. 'In house' people
are good but
professionals are better. Fewer complications.

> Couple D-Boys, Coupla Mossad guys.
>
> Game over.
>
> To bad we won't do it.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:mdinowithouseoffusion.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 4:45 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: conditional declaration of terrorism -
Iran
>
> Lets see.
> America can refrain from announcing it's potential
plans to bomb or 
> invade Iran.
>
> The UN can stop trying to enforce the NNTP or any
resolution against 
> Iran
>
> Iran can stop threatening to destroy fellow UN members,
stop 
> threatening to destroy world oil traffic, stop
threatening to release 
> terrorists against the world, stop funding terrorists,
and maybe even 
> do a little something to stop the world from thinking
they are trying 
> to build a nuclear weapon and distribute the tech to
all of it's 
> allies.
>
> Chances of ANY of that happening (other than the UN
just caving)? 0%
>
> Where do we go from here? Well, we've tried talk.
We've tried to let 
> Russia talk. We've tried to let the UN talk. Nothing
has worked. How 
> about we just forget about them, let them build
whatever they are 
> building, and let nature take it's course. If they are
stupid enough 
> to fulfill their threats (yes, they are) then by by
world. If not, 
> then it's all talk.
> I personally expect there to be some assassinations in
the next year 
> and some changes in the regime in Iran because of them.
At least 
> that's what I would do. The problem is NOT Iran. It's
the leaders of 
> Iran. It's not an entire people but a few who are
connected to another 
> few who are connected to another few. Remove the few
and the many will 
> live in peace. But that's just my take.
>
>> Welp, both sides have flexed their muscles.
>>
>> We know what the US plans are (we've seen them in
action, and nothing 
>> is ruled out so Nukes are definitely an option),
and we know what 
>> Iran's plans are (No Nukes, but Germ Warfare,
blowing up 
>> installations, affecting the flow of oil throughout
the world).
>>
>> Where do we go from here?
>>
>> On 4/28/06, Michael Dinowitz <mdinowithouseoffusion.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> http://www.aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=1&
;id=4722
>
>
>
>
> 



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~|
Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:205841
Archives: h
ttp://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5
Subscription: http:
//www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/un
subscribe.cfm?user=22184.15789.5
Donations & Support: http://www.h
ouseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54