# Go ahead, tell me again how we're NOT going to war with Iran **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 25, 2007, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-ahead-tell-me-again-how-were-not-going-to-war-with-iran/424026 "2007-10-25T20:51:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2007, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-ahead-tell-me-again-how-were-not-going-to-war-with-iran/424026/121 "2007-10-30T18:10:25Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Because those were the years of the Hostage Crisis, which is all most Americans remember regarding Iran (conveniently forgetting [Operation Ajax](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_ajax)). [/QUOTE] A biography of Kermit Roosevelt Jr. would be one of the most interesting reads. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2007, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-ahead-tell-me-again-how-were-not-going-to-war-with-iran/424026/122 "2007-10-30T18:31:29Z")
[QUOTE=xtisme] Not since, oh, say 9/11…ehe? Sure they do…it’s called a really big boat full of LNG. All one needs is a few folks with guns willing too die for Allah in a big fiery ball. Oh wait…it worked well for AQ with planes. Perhaps Hezbollah isn’t as bright? Is that your point? Or, er, something? -XT [/QUOTE] Not only did 9/11 change everything, 9/11 proves everything. So now its not nukes anymore? Now its a big boat full of liquified natural gas, sailing from the Persian Gulf, across the Atlantic undetected, then up the Mississippi to blow up the Mall of America? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2007, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-ahead-tell-me-again-how-were-not-going-to-war-with-iran/424026/123 "2007-10-30T18:35:13Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] So now its not nukes anymore? [/QUOTE] I’m sorry…perhaps you were confused. High Explosives does not equal Nukes. Nukes are a subset of High Explosives, see? [QUOTE=elucidator] Now its a big boat full of liquified natural gas, sailing from the Persian Gulf, across the Atlantic undetected, then up the Mississippi to blow up the Mall of America? [/QUOTE] Well, no. Now its 'luci in ridiculous hyperbole mode as he tries to hand wave and tap dance. It really happens quite often. -XT ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2007, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-ahead-tell-me-again-how-were-not-going-to-war-with-iran/424026/124 "2007-10-30T18:35:14Z")
[QUOTE=FinnAgain] … Talking about how one Iranian proxy attacked American rather than another Iranian proxy attacked America doesn’t change that fact that it was an _Iranian_ proxy. [/QUOTE] A proxy on both your houses! ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2007, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-ahead-tell-me-again-how-were-not-going-to-war-with-iran/424026/125 "2007-10-30T18:36:49Z")
[QUOTE=xtisme] …Well, no. Now its 'luci in ridiculous hyperbole mode as he tries to hand wave and tap dance. It really happens quite often… [/QUOTE] I can hand wave and tap dance at the same time. Can you fart and chew gum? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2007, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-ahead-tell-me-again-how-were-not-going-to-war-with-iran/424026/126 "2007-10-30T18:38:03Z")
No, I’m not that coordinated. I leave such feats of skill to you my friend. -XT ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2007, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-ahead-tell-me-again-how-were-not-going-to-war-with-iran/424026/127 "2007-10-30T18:38:50Z")
Ooooh, snap! Wilde? ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2007, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-ahead-tell-me-again-how-were-not-going-to-war-with-iran/424026/128 "2007-10-30T18:39:54Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] At a range of ten thousand mile, with no means of delivery? [/quote] Interesting, I didn’t mention missiles. I suppose that the Hezballah cells within the country have a moral aversion to explosives? [QUOTE=elucidator] Ah! So its Hezbollah that has the long range missiles! No doubt supplied by Iran so that…oh, wait, that won’t quite work, now will it? [/quote] Sure 'luc, that’s exactly what I was talking about. The Hezballah cells won’t use explosives, they’ll order out for missiles. They couldn’t place bombs at soft targets, and they certainly couldn’t simply open fire on a densely packed commuter train. No, it’s using Iranian missiles or nothing. [QUOTE=elucidator] Hezbollah is a wholly owned subsidiary, they take their marching orders directly from Teharan? This part needs a bit of substantiation. Like, for instance, any at all. [/quote] Sorry, but no, your strawman needs absolutely no substantiation. You can play with it a bit more if you’d like, I guess. I already posted [this link](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9055559&postcount=52) once in this thread, I guess I can post it again. I’m not going to type up my argument all over again. If you want to address it rather than dancing with your strawman, feel free. [QUOTE=elucidator] A “certain faction”? Secular humanists? Trotskyists? Satanic Amish? [/quote] Okay, I’ll spend a moment on this rabbit trail. I don’t have a name for them, or I’d have named them. A certain faction, as defined by their actions. Hope that answers your question. [QUOTE=elucidator] And how is the verbal construct “Islamophobia” more “interesting” than “Islamofacism”, which merges an Italian secular political construct with fundamentalist Islam. And, of course, the orginal Facists, had they any religious convictions at all, were most likely Catholic. [/quote] Ah, I see, the well honed tu quoque fallacy. Not sure why you’re bringing it up, especially since I didn’t use that term, but, okay, I’ll spend a moment on that rabbit trail as well. Short and sweet: I don’t believe that “Islamofascism” is an accurate description. It seeks to join fascism and Islamism together in order to scare people, but Islamism, while totalitarian, is not fascism. Islamisim, all on its own, is certainly as frightening as fascism ever was, and needs to suffix or prefix to show that. Coming back off the rabbit trail, I notice that you have used your snark, fallacies, and obfuscation to get away from the fact that the west has very real reasons to fear Iran’s terror networks. [QUOTE=elucidator] If its so secret and well-hidden, how is it that you know so much about it, with such unassailable certainty? [/quote] I’m not sure if you’re playing a game here, or if you’re honestly confused. I’m going to answer as if you aren’t aware of the facts, rather than as if you’re having a laugh. First off, we know that they were secret and well hidden because we only learned of some of them in 2002, and entire nuclear sites do not spring up over night. We know they were secret because Iran did not tell the IAEA. We know that Iran’s 20 year long relationship with the nuclear black market was secret because, again obviously, they didn’t tell anybody. We learned about them later. I see you aren’t even discussing the facts (some of which the IAEA itself confirmed), just slinging innuendo. What was that you said about innuendo and masturbation? [QUOTE=elucidator] And if its not so secret, how is it that Mr Al-Baredei believes otherwise? [/quote] You know, it would be helpful to read the cites I provide. Just, ya know, for debate’s sake.From an article to which a link was already posted: [ > [@](#): > > Long before 1998, Khan extended his ambition beyond Pakistan to become a wealthy and influential man. In the 1980s, Khan and his associates started advertising their nuclear wares in glossy fliers at conferences. These ads attracted the attention of Iranian scientists seeking to develop their country’s nuclear infrastructure. During the past few years, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) investigations have uncovered the almost 20-year-long Iranian effort to clandestinely acquire the technologies necessary to build an indigenous nuclear fuel cycle. ]([http://hir.harvard.edu/articles/1501/](http://hir.harvard.edu/articles/1501/)) So the IAEA not only believes that Iran was trying to score nuclear tech off the black market, but that they were doing so in secret. You can hurl witty snark at them, if it will make you feel any better. I will also point out that Baradei said there was no evidence of an Iranian nuclear _weapons_ program. Not no evidence of a nuclear program. One that went on for decades. In secret. Now, if you are one of those trusting souls who believes that a regime that attempted to buy black market nuclear technology, built facilities in secret and spent decades with a program that was clandestine… but they’re totally in the open now and all intents were good back then, well, that’s your call. I could ask why the IAEA found no evidence of Iran’s secret nuclear program for decades, but I’d wager that the answer is either so obvious to you that you’ve chosen to ignore it, or that snark is simply more fun than honest debate. [QUOTE=elucidator] I tire, I am weary, this point by point process is too ennervating. But one last thing: this whole “proxy” thingy you seem to be so set upon. [/quote] I know, this whole “arming, training, financing and giving safe haven to” thing is just hard to put a word on, eh? [QUOTE=elucidator] Is it true, then, that a power that arms and supports another entity or movement has direct responsibility for the actions of the beneficiary? Would you say, then, that the USA has direct responsibility for the rape and murder of nuns in Central America, or the murder of an Archbishop? [/quote] Ahhh, another tu quoque fallacy. I like it, I like it! Simply for the record, the US was certainly guilty of crimes through the actions of the School of the Americas. What on earth that has to do with this debate, other than a diversion and a rhetorical fallacy, is anybody’s guess. [QUOTE=elucidator] China and Russia supplied arms and material help to the VC in Viet Nam. Is it your contention that the most correct response would have been all-out thermonuclear war with the Soviet Union and China? [/quote] Mother of mercy, is straw on over there in the frozen north? [QUOTE=elucidator] Still, seems a bit much. Extreme. Batshit crazy. [/QUOTE] Indeed, I wonder why you feel a need to invent a batshit crazy position and pretend that it has anything to do with my argument. Interesting, that. In general, when someone creates numerous strawmen as the core of their argument, it shows the state their argument is in. Ah well, eh? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2007, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-ahead-tell-me-again-how-were-not-going-to-war-with-iran/424026/129 "2007-10-30T18:53:22Z")
Man, when you play fast and loose, you play _fast_ and _loose_! Just for starters, linking to yourself as proof of yourself is, well, a mite weak. And these Hezbollah cells in America? You can, of course, prove this. Do so. Addresses and phone numbers would be a big help, while you’re about it. And if these rabid Hezzys are so feverishly determined to strike, why haven’t they? > [@](#): > > … > Mother of mercy, is straw on over there in the frozen north?.. 'Fraid so. All seems to have been shipped to some castle. Go figger. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2007, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-ahead-tell-me-again-how-were-not-going-to-war-with-iran/424026/130 "2007-10-30T19:04:36Z")
[QUOTE=FinnAgain] …So the IAEA not only believes that Iran was trying to score nuclear tech off the black market, but that they were doing so in secret. You can hurl witty snark at them, if it will make you feel any better… [/QUOTE] Nuclear tech is not nuclear bomb. At least, not necessarily. Japan has nuclear tech, and, so far as we know, no such bombs. And how is it that you find the IAEA so authoritative when they substantiate your argument (albeit flimsily) but have no use for them when they don’t? ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2007, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-ahead-tell-me-again-how-were-not-going-to-war-with-iran/424026/131 "2007-10-30T19:35:57Z")
Bah, in after the edit window: “and needs **no** suffix or prefix to show that.” “is straw on **sale** over there” As long as I’m at it though, I’ll add another bit of logic that resides right next to the post of mine I just linked to twice: [ > [@](#): > > I specifically and deliberately avoided getting into a discussion about control, as it is simply not required. Funding, arming, training and sheltering a group with a history of attacking a specific target makes one complicit in those attacks. > It makes no difference if Iran said “Here are weapons and money, go attack America” or “Oh, you’re going to be attacking America? Here are weapons and money.” ]([http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9057520&postcount=55](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9057520&postcount=55)) > [@elucidator](#): > > Man, when you play fast and loose, you play fast and loose! > Just for starters, linking to yourself as proof of yourself is, well, a mite weak. Not quite as weak as pretending that’s what I did. You deliberately mis-characterized my argument. I linked to a post where I’d laid out my argument, nice and neat. You then deliberately mis-characterize my response. Like I said, when all you’ve got is strawmen, your argument begins to look mighty threadbare. > [@elucidator](#): > > Nuclear tech is not nuclear bomb. At least, not necessarily. Quote anywhere at all where I said it did? Or , yet again, are you unwilling or unable to address my actual argument, and you’re propping up a strawman and hoping that nobody will notice that it aint me? I did not say it was necessarily anything, merely that a 20 year long secret program of black market nuclear procurement was certainly damn suspicious. If you see nothing at all strange with clandestinely trying to buy nuclear technology from the black market and then hiding your nuclear facilities underground and not telling anybody about them for years, that’s your call. > [@elucidator](#): > > And how is it that you find the IAEA so authoritative when they substantiate your argument (albeit flimsily) but have no use for them when they don’t? I see you really don’t want to touch on the actual facts, and making stuff up will suit you better. Shame, that. I’d hoped you were here to debate. Just to fight some ignorance, they certainly didn’t substantiate it with “flimsy” support, they uncovered a 20 year pattern of Iran attempting to buy nuclear technology on the black market. But you’re unable to touch on the evidence, so you call it flimsy. Not exactly a strong factual rebuttal, that. Further, I have never said that they’re not authoritative, that’s yet another one of your strawmen. As I said before > [@](#): > > I could ask why the IAEA found no evidence of Iran’s secret nuclear program for decades, but I’d wager that the answer is either so obvious to you that you’ve chosen to ignore it, or that snark is simply more fun than honest debate. The IAEA is perfectly authoritative when it says it’s found no evidence of Iran having a weapons program. It was also perfectly authoritative when it hadn’t found any evidence of an Iranian secret program for almost two decades. It speaks with authority about what it knows, perforce. But a secret program is _secret_, and thus hidden, and thus not known. This should be obvious. Saying that there is no evidence of a secret program is like saying there’s no color for an invisible thing. It’s not exactly a revelation. The question, as I posed and you have repeatedly deliberately ignored, is what Iran’s credibility is and whether or not it’s a safe assumption that there is absolutely no possibility of them having any unflattering motives, designs or hidden branches of their nuclear program. I have repeatedly and clearly stated that the status of any of Iran’s covert nuclear programs are uncertain and that whether or not Iran will use Hezballah against us again is unknown. I have said that anybody who tells you otherwise is trying to sell something. You either can not or will not argue against what I have actually said. I’m not quite sure why. And this isn’t the forum to discuss it either. > [@elucidator](#): > > And these Hezbollah cells in America? You can, of course, prove this. Do so. Addresses and phone numbers would be a big help, while you’re about it. Cute. Try reading the thread. I’m not going to link to cites, again, just because you can’t be bothered to participate in a debate. I will say, for the second time in this thread, that if you’re going to get into a debate it behooves you to do the reading _before_ you start attempting to debate. Or attempting to avoid debate and sling zingers. Either way. > [@elucidator](#): > > And if these rabid Hezzys are so feverishly determined to strike, why haven’t they? “And if those wacky Al Quadeys were so determined to strike, why haven’t they attacked the World Trade Center after 1993, eh, eh?” -some guy, August 2001. Then again, if you were being at all honest in how you conducted this debate, you’d have noticed that I stated, clearly, unambiguously and _repeatedly_ that I am not saying Iran definitely will attack us via its proxy forces, but that they certainly could and that having groups of hostile terror cells within our borders is a clear and present threat. In post of mine I linked to, you might have seen where I said, quite plainly: > [@](#): > > So will Iran attack us? The only truly honest answer is “maybe”. > Some of us are willing to take that chance, others are not. And there are certainly arguments to be made for both positions. You might also take note of the fact that terrorist attacks take quite some time to plan and orchestrate. Or you might not if you could get a real zinger out of ignoring it. > [@elucidator](#): > > 'Fraid so. All seems to have been shipped to some castle. Mmm hmmm. The “I know you are but what am I” defense. I trust that you can show, anywhere in this thread at all, where I’ve used a strawman fallacy? No? I am shocked, shocked! Well, not that shocked. Nor am I at all surprised that you haven’t retracted your other strawmen or admitted any of your other errors or distortions. If this is all you’ve got 'luc, I’m really not going to waste more of my time with this game. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2007, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-ahead-tell-me-again-how-were-not-going-to-war-with-iran/424026/132 "2007-10-30T19:50:54Z")
> [@](#): > > Then again, if you were being at all honest in how you conducted this debate, you’d have noticed that I stated, clearly, unambiguously and repeatedly that I am not saying Iran definitely will attack us via its proxy forces, but that they certainly could and that having groups of hostile terror cells within our borders is a clear and present threat. Do we have any hostile “cells” inside Iran, do you suppose? > [@](#): > > I specifically and deliberately avoided getting into a discussion about control, as it is simply not required. Funding, arming, training and sheltering a group with a history of attacking a specific target makes one complicit in those attacks. So you would agree that we were complicit in Saddam’s invasion of Iran? Instead of both nations compiling an ever-lengthening list of grievances, wouldn’t it make more sense to respond to Iran’s overtures and seek common ground? ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2007, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-ahead-tell-me-again-how-were-not-going-to-war-with-iran/424026/133 "2007-10-30T20:04:50Z")
[QUOTE=spoke-] Do we have any hostile “cells” inside Iran, do you suppose? [/quote] Why do you put the word into quotes? I am aware that the US supports various resistance groups with an aim of destabilizing the government of Iran. I am not aware that we support any genocidal terrorist organizations. But I am open to being proven wrong. [QUOTE=spoke-] So you would agree that we were complicit in Saddam’s invasion of Iran? [/quote] We supported both sides, of course we were complicit in that war. [QUOTE=spoke-] Instead of both nations compiling an ever-lengthening list of grievances, wouldn’t it make more sense to respond to Iran’s overtures and seek common ground? [/QUOTE] If I believed that Iran’s efforts were honest, then yes. But I already answered this question once **spoke-**. What’s more, I answered it when you asked it and [I responded directly to you.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9125680&postcount=116) Is there anything I said that you’re unclear on? I’m happy to clarify anything that you’re unclear about, or flesh out any positions you’d like to discuss, but I really don’t want to repeat myself. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2007, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-ahead-tell-me-again-how-were-not-going-to-war-with-iran/424026/134 "2007-10-30T20:15:27Z")
**Finn** , you’re all over the map, its a scattershot approach, you buttress conjecture with suggestion, and then pretend as though its all been established beyond debate. But it hasn’t. So lets take it bite sized, one thing at a time. Have you any support for your _conjecture_ that Hezbollah has active cells within the US, and that these cells are under orders from Teheran. Proof, mind you, not somebody else’s “maybe-could be”. We’ll move along to some of your other alarmist scenarios after you establish that one. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2007, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-ahead-tell-me-again-how-were-not-going-to-war-with-iran/424026/135 "2007-10-30T20:26:25Z")
Man, my irony gage is off the charts atm. I’m sure Finn will fight his own fight, but here is a cite from the noted right wing source [NPR](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5579252) (loonie lefties, shields up…er, um. ..never mind): > [@](#): > > Hezbollah in the U.S.: Fundraising or Worse? > > After the State Department designated Hezbollah a foreign terror organization in 1996, the FBI began to conduct wide-ranging operations to shut down the group’s fundraising activities in the United States. > > “Before 9/11, they had killed more Americans than anybody else on the terrorist scene,” says Ken Piernick, a former FBI special agent who ran the bureau’s Hezbollah program. > > In addition to other terrorist attacks, Hezbollah has been tied to the 1983 Marine barracks bombing in Beirut that left 241 U.S. personnel dead, and the 1996 Khobar Towers attack in Saudi Arabia that left 19 U.S. servicemen dead. > > One U.S. law enforcement official, speaking on condition of anonymity, says there is considerable forensic evidence tying Hezbollah bomb experts to roadside explosions in Iraq. > > Dennis Lormel, who founded the counterterrorist financing program at the FBI, says the United States has been a cash cow for Hezbollah. > > “They raise funds through business fronts, through criminal activity, use of shell companies and through fundraising mechanisms,” he says. > > Before the Sept. 11 attacks, Hezbollah was the top priority for counterterrorism agents at the FBI, Lormel says. > [@](#): > > “Hammoud would convert it to cashier’s check and just hand it to the next guy going home on a plane who’d put it in his coat pocket and fly to Lebanon,” Bell recalls. > > A support cell in Canada served as the procurement office purchasing dual-use materiel such as night-vision goggles, communications equipment and drone technology. All of it eventually made its way to Hezbollah in Lebanon. > > Most law enforcement officials interviewed agree that Hezbollah is one of the best-trained and most sophisticated terrorist organizations in the world. “The A-team of terrorism,” as former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage described the group. > > Hezbollah has the capacity to carry out large-scale terrorist attacks worldwide. But there is some debate within law enforcement circles over whether the group would launch attacks in the United States. > [@](#): > > “I think we dismiss the potential of Hezbollah striking in the United States at our peril,” he says in an interview with NPR. “If you go back to the months before 9/11 and look at some of the mainstream writing – including, incidentally, some of the senior people in [NPR] – about Osama bin Laden and was he really a threat and what did he amount to. Well, the growing opinion seemed to be that he was just a sort of weirdo, a guy who had a lot of money but not really a serious threat.” I know, I know…you want absolute proof. You want the addresses and names of every Hezbollah operative in the US. Even then, you want iron clad proof that they are doing Bad Things™…so that you can then just hand wave it all away anyway. Anyway, I just wanted too toss in the above link for fun…I’m getting more enjoyment out of watching Finn post a page of interesting stuff and then seeing you come back with a line or two…and think you are holding your own. That and you asking for cites when thus far you’ve provided…well, nothing. Fascinating. -XT ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2007, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-ahead-tell-me-again-how-were-not-going-to-war-with-iran/424026/136 "2007-10-30T20:36:59Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Still, seems a bit much. Extreme. Batshit crazy. [/quote] I realize that this was probably technically addressed to the post, not the poster, _per se_. Still, it certainly serves no purpose resembling the promotion of a good discussion. [QUOTE=elucidator] (The cite is from the Lydon LaRouche newsletter, thought you’d appreciate the _homage_…) [/QUOTE] This, I am afraid, you will need to _elucidate_. To whom is the _homage_ addressed? [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2007, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-ahead-tell-me-again-how-were-not-going-to-war-with-iran/424026/137 "2007-10-30T20:43:18Z")
Your insuations about the looney left and NPR are beneath our notice, unless we have some requirement for recreational contempt. Its an _interview_, for Og’s sake, with men who have opinions very much like friend **Finn**. What, precisely, do you imagine this proves? The Irish Republican Army raised a ton of money in the US, please point out to me how that was a threat to America. If someone is raising money to fund a conflict abroad, well, yes, our course, I would that they were closely watched. Beyond that, why should we clutch our pearls and faint dead away? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2007, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-ahead-tell-me-again-how-were-not-going-to-war-with-iran/424026/138 "2007-10-30T20:47:02Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Your insuations about the looney left and NPR are beneath our notice, unless we have some requirement for recreational contempt. Its an interview, for Og’s sake, with men who have opinions very much like friend Finn. What, precisely, do you imagine this proves? [/QUOTE] Just riffing on your patented ‘tighty righties…sheilds up!’ meme there, 'luci. It’s funny that it would get your panties in a bunch when you use it so often. Proves? Well, it doesn’t PROVE anything. Then again, your own contributions have been a bit, um, sparse on the whole proof thingy as well, ehe? -XT ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2007, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-ahead-tell-me-again-how-were-not-going-to-war-with-iran/424026/139 "2007-10-30T21:03:08Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] I realize that this was probably technically addressed to the post, not the poster, _per se_. Still, it certainly serves no purpose resembling the promotion of a good discussion. This, I am afraid, you will need to _elucidate_. To whom is the _homage_ addressed? [/Moderating] [/QUOTE] Dear Tom: How are you? I am fine. The weather here is fucking glorious. But don’t move here, its too cold. I believe you are being a bit one-sided in your criticism, I believe that I have been the subject of sarcasm that skirts the borders of insult, yet you can only find time to point to me. When offered veiled insults, I will offer them in return, I give as good as I get. The reference to LaRouche and “batshit” are precisely that. Am I unique in this regard, I alone have stressed the bounds of propriety? And if I’m technically within bounds, and you only seek to instruct me on my many character flaws, shouldn’t you take off The Hat? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2007, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-ahead-tell-me-again-how-were-not-going-to-war-with-iran/424026/140 "2007-10-30T21:17:50Z")
[QUOTE=xtisme] Just riffing on your patented ‘tighty righties…sheilds up!’ meme there, 'luci. It’s funny that it would get your panties in a bunch when you use it so often. Proves? Well, it doesn’t PROVE anything. Then again, your own contributions have been a bit, um, sparse on the whole proof thingy as well, ehe?.. [/QUOTE] My mistake, I thought that giving it as a cite implied an attempt to support a point, that being the general run of things around here. NPR also had a interview on _The Splendid Table_ about stinky cheese, you might just as easily have provided that, I see that now. That it bore a relation to the subject at hand is simply no reason to suggest that you were offering an argument. Here, in GD. Whatever was I thinking? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-ahead-tell-me-again-how-were-not-going-to-war-with-iran/424026.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-ahead-tell-me-again-how-were-not-going-to-war-with-iran/424026.md?page=8)