-> ->> I checked your links. The ABC news blog quotes the NY Daily News
-> ->> extensively as their source. They are a right wing mouthpiece

 EC> Of course they are, Bob!  They must be!  They reported
 EC> things that you didn't like!

-> Unless you are denying it, that was a non-sequitor.

There is nothing to deny or admit.  You ignored the news reports and
dismissed them based on your meaningless opinion of the newspaper that
printed them.  It is strange how you repeatedly think that things you
don't like will just disappear when you say anything - no matter how
empty or pointless or unsubstantiated - ANYTHING about them.

-> Note: Not an American source. And someone who has his own agenda.

A good example!  The guy is in a terrorist organization with ties to Al
Qaeda.  Bob says he is not an American!  Brilliant!  Take some
high-fives from Wilson!  The guy says that Iran is willing to support
people who want to fight the US, even if they are not close buddies with
Iran.  Bob says he has an agenda!  Wonderful!  So does Iran.  So does Al
Qaeda.

 EC> Iran spreads its investments everywhere  with the Shiites,
 EC> the Sunnis, and the Kurds,""

-> Whether you think Iran would support the sunnis or not, do you really
-> think they would back the Kurds in any sort of insurgency,
-> considering that Iran has long had problems with their own Kurds?

Do you really think Roosevelt and Churchill would support Stalin?

-> ->> and one claims Bin Laden's son was operating out of Iran

 EC> Actually it didn't say that at all.  It said he had been
 EC> given safe haven in Iran.  That is old news to everyone but

-> Being *detained* is not being given safe haven.

Completely irrelevant to the fact that you got caught in a gross
misrepresentation.  Being kept in Iran instead of being turned over to
the United States actually IS being given a pretty safe haven.  He was
held under house arrest for a time, which is far different from being
locked up at Gitmo, and it looks like he was released from house arrest
in 2006.  Gee, why did they do that?  Isn't he tied to Al Qaeda?

"Iran has freed a son of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden from house
arrest, a German newspaper reported on Wednesday.

Die Welt said the Iranian Revolutionary Guard released Saad bin Laden on
July 28 with the aim of sending him to the Syria-Lebanon border. It
linked the reported move to the outbreak of war between Israel and
Lebanese-based Hizbollah.

"From the Lebanese border, he has the task of building Islamist terror
cells and preparing them to fight together with Hizbollah," Die Welt
said, quoting intelligence information."

http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2006/08/02/iran_frees_b
in_laden_son_newspaper/

A European counter-terrorism expert explained why in the same article:

"He said Shia Muslim Iran was not sympathetic to members of
Sunni-dominated al Qaeda but "they protect them as long as they think
they can make use of them.""

Gee, that is the same motivation that you were thinking was impossible?

-> It was not established as a significant *terrorist* force, just after
-> the Afghan war.

Al Qaeda was a significant terrorist force BEFORE we ran them out of
Afghanistan, at the TIME we ran them out of Afghanistan, and AFTER we
ran them out of Afghanistan.  You are talking nonsense.

--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10