A biography of Kermit Roosevelt Jr. would be one of the most interesting reads.
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?
I’m sorry…perhaps you were confused. High Explosives does not equal Nukes. Nukes are a subset of High Explosives, see?
Well, no. Now its 'luci in ridiculous hyperbole mode as he tries to hand wave and tap dance. It really happens quite often.
-XT
A proxy on both your houses!
I can hand wave and tap dance at the same time. Can you fart and chew gum?
No, I’m not that coordinated. I leave such feats of skill to you my friend.
-XT
Ooooh, snap! Wilde?
Interesting, I didn’t mention missiles. I suppose that the Hezballah cells within the country have a moral aversion to explosives?
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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?
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:
[
](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.
I know, this whole “arming, training, financing and giving safe haven to” thing is just hard to put a word on, eh?
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.
Mother of mercy, is straw on over there in the frozen north?
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?
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?
'Fraid so. All seems to have been shipped to some castle. Go figger.
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?
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:
[
](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9057520&postcount=55)
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
“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:
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.
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.
Do we have any hostile “cells” inside Iran, do you suppose?
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?
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.
We supported both sides, of course we were complicit in that war.
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.
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.
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.
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 (loonie lefties, shields up…er, um. …never mind):
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
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 ]
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?
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
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?
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?