That still doesn’t mean we can’t have a secondary priority.
Nor have you offered any evidence, at all, that talking about Iran on the Dope, or the US’s actions wrt Iran have, in any way shape or form, reduced our commitment and involvement with Pakistan.
Wow. Hand waving, by the way, means deliberating ignoring something via bluster. That’s what you just did, by the way. Nor are they “alleged” attacks, that’s a nifty piece of dishonesty on your part though.
And as long as I’m at it, you pretending that anybody has ever said that Iran and Hezbollah are one and the same is absurd. Yet again, since you can’t or won’t directly address what someone is saying, you play a rousing game of make-believe. But good job arguing against the claim that Iran and Hezbollah are identical. If anybody in the thread was actually arguing that, you’d be ahead of the curve.
And while I’m at it, what, are you proposing that Pakistan and Al Quaeda are “one and the same”? After all, in a discussion of Pakistan’s instability, you’re talking about how we should have that as a priority because of Al Quaeda has attacked us on our own soil. Make much sense to you? Perhaps logical consistency isn’t so much the order of the day as an apologia?
Mmmm hmmmm. It’s those traitorous quisling Zionists again! Meanwhile, of course, you yet again ignore that there is absolutely no conflict, at all, between being worried by Iran and worried by Pakistan. Moreover, you deliberately ignore that there is a massive gulf between the dynamic of stabilizing a foreign nation that already has nukes, and trying to prevent another nation from developing nukes.
Nor have you offered a single shred of support that we have some sort of problem with “allocation of resources” between Iran and Pakistan. It seems, instead, that you’re objecting to us talking about Iran on the Dope instead of Pakistan. Of course, you haven’t provided a scrap of proof to back up your claims… largely because you probably haven’t researched the issue and, well, you’re totally wrong.
Simply to fight your ignorance, the actual balance of resources is wildly disproportionate in Pakistan’s favor. Again, reading up on a subject before you post on it generally helps.
And, yet again, you ignore that Iran is stable around the idea of hating/opposing/using military force against the West. Stability for you seems to be some sort of bromide. What do you even think it means? A stable enemy is somehow a good thing all of a sudden? Pointing out that an enemy is stable somehow makes them, what, less of a threat?
“Ivan, don’t worry about those Mongol hordes, they’re pretty stable.”
And Hezbollah and the sort of Shia extremists who support it, are all over the damn place, but also in Iran, not Pakistan.
I have to say, though, it’s truly interesting that you puff up your chest and talk about what a big brave ol’ bravey brave person you are when one terrorist organization is mentioned, but as soon as another is mentioned, boy howdy, we should really take them seriously! It’s fear mongering if someone talks about Hezbollah, prudent caution if someone talks about Al Queada. Being aware of Hezbollah and Iran is falling prey to an “Islamofascist bugaboo”, but being aware of Al Quaeda and Saudi Arabia/Pakistan is just sound thinking.
Somewhere, Athena is weeping.
Interesting. I will note that you’ve reached the point of your screed where, unable to deal with facts or logic, you’re now referring to text as ‘shouting’ and ‘waving its arms’. And where you either cannot or pretend that you have not already read any of the lists I’ve already given of the history of Hezbollah’s attacks against Americans.
Obviously, if you’re dead from a Hezbollah attack and you’re not on our own shores, you get a do-over. Or something. Surely it’s somehow significant that Hezbollah murders Americans but that they don’t happen to murder them here, right?
Ah, I see you’re playing the same game others have in this thread. Either you have neglected to read any of the cites I provided, or you are deliberately pretending that you haven’t. “Allegedly”. As if. In any case, pretending that US peacekeepers, in a separate country from Iran, are a “motivation” for murdering American civilians is a bit wacky, even for your argument.
And again you pretend you haven’t read my cites or you engage in debate without bothering to read the thread. And again you pretend that somehow murdering US peacekeepers is a “response” to them having the effrontery to be in a separate nation from Iran.
Meanwhile, I’m guessing that you also haven’t done any of the required reading on what actually happened in Lebanon? Talking about “US intervention” kinda makes that readily apparent. The US took part in a UN peacekeeping mission. For that, evidently, someone had a “reason” to murder US troops and civilians.
And you cite… Wikipedia. Good job!
Luckily I’ve provided actual cites that you either can’t be bothered to read or can’t be honest enough to address. Ah well.
I know, much like a few others in this thread, you can’t be bothered to read my posts, my links, my cites, or the evidence (but you’ll cite Wikipedia). Or you do read, and then you pretend that you haven’t. Instead of spamming this debate with uninformed opinions, why don’t you read up on Hezbollah? It’s interesting that those folks arguing your position can’t seem to remember past the early 1980’s.
Mmm hmmmmmmmm. So them being religious fanatics isn’t possibly part of the answer, spoke says so, so it aint. But, of course, the US daring to have an embassy in a country where they have peacekeepers is a “reason” for Hezbollah to murder some civilians.
I wonder if your faux logic would hold up if the tables were turned, eh? Iran has influence/covert forces in quite a few countries. Do we have a “reason” to start blowing up their embassies? Or rather than logic and guiding principles, is this more an exercise in rationalization?
Yes, I know, it’s much better, Al Quaeda murders Americans in America, Hezbollah murders Americans outside of America. So… what?
…
What is this, history off the back of a cereal box? Do you honestly think that the entire constellation of AQ ideology, goals, and theology boils down to “We want the US out of Saudi Arabia?” That’s it?
Brilliant factual refutation. Brilliant!
You do know that willful ignorance doesn’t make the world go away? Right? You don’t think that simply because you pretend reality, aint, it’ll run away from you? It just, ya know, leaves you ignorant? Something tells me you cannot possibly rebut the facts, that Iran is a theocracy, that they export their ideology, or that they’re looking to spread it.
In short, you just continue with this patently dishonest bull, remain deliberately ignorant, and crow about how very brave you are.
Right. Except a great deal of actual intelligence experts disagree with you. And I’ve cited them. And you’ve ignored or haven’t read them.
And, of course, you’re again making stuff up when you pretend that our nation’s energy and resources are on Iran and not Pakistan.
And you keep flinging this strawman. You keep pretending that by deliberately muddying the waters and trying to talk about a totally different situation, that you’ve somehow dealt with this one. You haven’t. Nobody who has said Iran is a concern has talked about whether or not it’s a greater or lesser concern than other nations, except you. While you act as if you’re actually responding to… anybody at all.
And your continued dishonesty, willful ignorance, and patting yourself on the back about how very, very brave you are to ignore facts just means you’re not actually interested in debate. So, I think I’m done with your game as well. If you can’t be bothered to read a thing about Hezbollah’s actions after the early 1980’s, I’m not going to pretend that you’re here to fight ignorance instead of spread it.
