U.S. intercepts Iranian order for attack on U.S. interests in Iraq -report

(Reuters) - The United States has intercepted an order from an Iranian official instructing militants inIraq to attack U.S. interests in Baghdad in the event the Obama administration launches a military strike in Syria, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday.
The American embassy in Baghdad was a likely target, according to unnamed U.S. officials quoted by the newspaper. The Journal said the officials did not describe the range of potential targets indicated by the intelligence.
In addition, the State Department issued a warning on Thursday telling U.S. citizens to avoid all but “essential” travel to Iraq.
reuters.com/article/2013/09/06/us-syria-crisis-usa-iran-idUSBRE98504120130906?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=992637

Thanks for the links. We should stay out of Syria. :highprayer:
PAX

God, please intervene and help us…

It is very hard to even pray for God to help us, if you mean the United States of America at this point in history, with our evil laws allowing and encouraging such atrocities as abortion, the overblown exaggeration and forcible attempts of our government and judicial system to force us to accept homosexual lifestyle as “normal” behavior, persecution of Christianity in the laws being passed daily prohibiting the freedom to express our religious beliefs and live out our faith in society. May God have mercy on peoples of the world who are being corrupted and coerced to accept the evils of contraception, abortion and sterilization by the US Government in order to receive such basic necessities as food, clean water and medicine.

I agree with you but I still think we should pray.

Affirmative. :thumbsup:

Don’t be surprised if the Obama administration somehow keeps “finding” new information to justify attacking Syria. There may even be a false flag event.

So far I’ve read that the Americans, British, French, Israelis and Germans have accessed information about gas attacks and incriminating evidence in phone conversations in a foreign country. Maybe Venezuelan intelligence has some dirty stuff on the US.

They way I look at it is if the Obama admin wants us to do or not to do something we should support the opposite.

I pray to God that He extend His mercy on the whole world and pray for peace.

1-minute till Obama speaks. I see he and Putin didn’t agree. Putin said they had a 20-minute talk, and they got along well, understood each others point, and they disagree.

Absolutely agree, but what alternative do we have other than to pray?

Meanwhile, America remains far from being the worst offender with regard to abortion. China has killed, through both abortion and infanticide, more than a third of a billion people since records began to be kept of this kind of thing.

Why is it dotcom Catholics are always focused on the US (whose abortion rates have been falling since 1990), while giving a free pass to China? Doesn’t that strike you as the height of moral inconsistency?

Would you hold that such an attitude should be maintained in wartime? That is, if it turns into a shooting war and Obama employs military force, should people in this country be laying down in front of troop trains and convoys leaving military bases and things like that (a la Vietnam War protests)?

This admin (as all other admins) are going to do whatever they want regardless of what I think.

What is a dotcom Catholic?

I don’t think anyone is giving a free pass to China. I think it makes sense for Americans to work on the abortion laws in the US, where we actually have anything we can conceivably do about it. How is this morally inconsistent?

Reminds me of the story of the man on a beach with thousands of starfish washed up on shore…throwing them back into the ocean. Someone pointed out that he could never save them all, in fact, could barely make a dent in the number washed up on shore. So it didn’t make any difference. He picked one up, threw it back, and said, “To that starfish, it made a difference.”

Same for abortion. That we’re working on reducing and eliminating it in one country means we’re doing what we can, not that we’re giving a free pass to another country.

You know, there may be things we haven’t thought of happening here. This

thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/05/fearful-of-a-u-s-strike-defectors-flee-the-syrian-army.html

speaks about the phenomenon of Syrian army troops defecting. What if some of them have been offered safe conduct through rebel lines if they steal chemical weaponry and hand it over to the rebels upon reaching their lines? Also, the rebels are well-funded (probably with Saudi money). What’s to prevent them from bribing defectors with both money and offers of safe conduct if they hand over chemical weapons?

If this is the case, there’s your explanation for chemical atrocities—the rebels using the government’s own weapons and framing the government for atrocities.

Also, if this is the case, what’s the only way to shut down the whole vicious cycle?
Destroy the chem weapon stockpiles any way you can? But if the Syrian government won’t do it, who will do it besides us?

If they’re in a relatively few, centralized locations, what better way than from the air?

I honestly don’t know what we should do about this whole mess. But the above (or some variation) may very well be the sequential logic that has led the president to this decision.

Catholics who post at catholic.com

I fear that you are absolutely correct. If Obama doesn’t get the go-ahead from Congress to strike - and that’s assuming he doesn’t *already *have the secret pre-approval of Congress, and that “asking for permission” is merely a verbal pretense for the to public to believe that there is actually some sort of genuine democratic process going on - then a false flag attack might be staged and blamed upon either Syria or Iran to give the government the excuse it needs to attack.

These tactics have been attempted before.

We need to realize that intervention in Syria is merely a prelude for what those in power really want - to attack Iran. Shoot, AIPAC is so desperate it is even flat-out exposing the hidden motive - notice how many times they can’t help but mention Iraq while urging Obama to attack *Syria *in their latest press statements:

aipac.org/en/news-hub?id=%7B1F8ECED7-E27D-47D7-9015-4F606E787E97%7D#

If the U.S. moves to intervene in a sovereign nation’s affairs, whom Iran is indirectly supporting, then Iran will take this as a extended threat to them.

Um…you are a Catholic who posts at catholic.com and therefore a “dot com Catholic” by your own definition. Are you “always focused on the US, while giving a free pass to China?” No? Then, I guess your charge is false.

Oh, btw, your argument regarding China is a logical fallacy called Red Herring. Thank you Matt Fradd at catholic.com for teaching this “dot com Catholic” about fallacies. :smiley:
catholic.com/blog/matt-fradd/5-fallacies-you-need-to-know

Okay, if this were a formalized debate situation, the judges would probably award you a point or two on the basis of what you’ve pointed out. But, that not being the case, I needn’t feel constrained to die in the last ditch defending every last iota of what I have so far written.

I can therefore alter my statement just a bit, and amend it to, “Why is it MANY dot com Catholics are always focused on abortion in the US (in which abortion rates have continued to fall since 1990), while giving a free pass to China—IN TERMS OF THEIR CONTINUING FAILURE TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT CHINA’S ABORTION PRACTICES, AND THEIR (the dot com Catholics’) CONTINUED FAILURE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE US IS NOT NEARLY AS BAD AS CHINA IN THAT REGARD?”

Now, as regards the “red herring” contention, howsabout you amplify upon THAT just a little, while we’re at it?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.