He certainly did no such thing. And frankly you are coming dangerously close to direct attacks on a poster. Please constrain yourself to attacks on the arguments and not the poster. If you don’t care about the rules of the board, you should least care about the fact that your vitriol is coming off as much more like the work of a hating nut job than DT. Even assuming you had all your facts right, the way in which you present them makes you seem extremely distrustworthy.
Bullshit, Jack. Obviously, blatant bullshit. I’d also point out that “Nuhn Unh!!!” is not a rebuttal of the clear logical progression I just outlined.
Der clearly and unambiguously claimed that we were in the wrong and somehow were ‘attacking Iran’, when we offered help to Iraq while Sadaam and the UN were offering ceasefires and Iran was trying to conquer Iraq
Der clearly and unambiguously claimed that it was not Iran that was attacking the US and Iraq after Iraq and the UN were pleading for a ceasfire and the US that was acting defensively, but that it was the US that was attacking Iran and Iran that was acting defensively.
Der clearly and unambiguously said that he couldn’t fucking care less that Iran’s own people want peace and good relations with the US, and instead parroted the Mullah’s propaganda that they need to “defend” themselves.
That is, without a doubt, support of Iran’s right to spread its murderous theocracy by force and the demonetization of those who tried to stop them.
He also, clearly and explicitly, claimed his support for the Mullahs. Here, let me quote it for you since you seem to have missed it.
Thus, the Mullahs’ self interest (ya know, the gay-killing, Jew-killing, theocratic murderers?), their self interest is a valid means to nuke up. That’s support. Der supports murderous theocracy.
And, as I pointed out several times and you’ve steadfastly ignored, Iran’s actual population wants peace with America and Israel, Iran’s Mullahs’ propaganda is that they’re under direct threat and need to protect themselves. Der spits in the Iranians face and embraces the Mullah’s claims 100%. That’s support Der supports murderous theocracy.
Face it, you’re arguing in the teeth of the facts and the closest you can get to even an attempt at an actual logical rebuttal is “He certainly did no such thing.”
Whatever. Not that I’m not in awe of junior modding, but save us both time and just hit ‘report post’ if you can’t deal with what I’m saying.
Iraq attacked Iran, Iran defended itself. We backed Iraq because we wanted them destroyed.
So what ? Dead’s dead, regardless of whether we use our own soldiers or proxies.
And we support our own terrorists in Iran, and supported Saddam for a long time, till he lost his usefulness.
Don’t be ridiculous. WE’VE conquered Iraq, and Israel hasn’t exactly been passive either.
Because we’ve hurt them, repeatedly, and badly in the past. Right back to the Shah. Nor are they “the constant aggressor”. Aggressor’s, both local and foreign are one thing the region isn’t short of.
No; it’s just that they’ve been lied to so often that they don’t believe their own government even when it tells the truth. Which is why the Iranian populace is one of the few groups on Earth that actually still buys American propaganda.
And once again, I don’t support the Iranian regime. I just don’t support our right to slaughter people for their own good, and DO accept the right of any country to defend itself.
America is ALSO militaristic and expansionist. And we’ve CONQUERED IRAQ, right next to them. If the Soviet Union had conquered Mexico or Canada, would you have considered it irrational for Americans to worry about what they might do next ?
Fine, I condemn it. Just as I condemn every religion on the face of the Earth. I didn’t think it necessary to bother.
And we aren’t trying to oppose their religious brutality; we are indifferent to it at best.
But “Bullshit” is? 
How is saying “it’s in a murderer’s self interest to avoid detection by the police” support of murderers? He already rebutted you on this point but I’ll say it again for emphasis, pointing out what is the most beneficial strategy for someone is not a showing of support for them. If it were, then all military strategy would be considered treason, since you cannot anticipate an enemy without considering what they would likely do.
I’m calling you on your vacuous assertions. You haven’t backed up your crazy claims with any quotes from DT other than one that you have wildly misinterpreted. It’s pretty clear that you have some kind of weird grudge against DT from some other thread (which you yourself mentioned) and will take any opportunity to chew him out regardless of what he actually says.
I can deal with it just fine. But it’s not doing your arguments any favors.
Garbage. that’s pointing out the obvious fact that it’s in their self interest to stay alive. And the odds of them surviving a conquest un-executed by us or our puppets is low.
And just for the record, since we are expressing opinions about other poster’s true beliefs, I don’t believe for one second that you have the slightest concern for the people of Iran, or would be unhappy if we killed a few million of them and subjugated the rest.
Luckily Jack, Der has decided to help me prove my point some more.
Notice, again, that Der is claiming that even once Iraq was 100% out of Iranian territory and both Iraq and the UN were pleading for a ceasefire agreement, that Iran invading Iraq and continuing a war for roughly half a decade against a defeated for suing for peace is “defense”.
That mean he is clearly and unambiguously supporting Iran’s right to expand its theocracy, by force, and justifying it as “defense”, while demonizing those who tried to stop it.
When it’s pointed out that Iran has a 30 year history of being an aggressor, Der excuses it with a tu quoque fallacy and (surprise surprise!) talks about how much he hates the US.
He then goes on to claim that the Irianian people are idiots who can’t tell the difference between truth, and the Mullahs are the honest ones looking out for Iran’s best interests. He says that the Iranian people themselves should be totally fucking ignored, and that the theocrats are the ones who should not only dominate and tyrannize their own populace who are sick of them, but that they’re the ones who get to make all the calls.
That is support.
This isn’t rocket science. Speaking of which, WTF?
Confused, eh?
Here, I thought that the numerous posts where I set out exactly what my claims were, as well as the text after the word “bullshit”, which was also 100% a logical rebuttal, would count as, oh, I don’t know… a logical rebuttal?
Do you really not understand the difference between calling bullshit and offering a thorough rebuttal, and the simple handwaving you’ve been engaged in? Really?
Are you really unaware of what pure bullshit that analogy is? It’d be closer to say that after murdering numerous people, it was not only in the murder’s self interest to get a rocket launcher, but he needed it for purposes of “defense”.
Defense has an actual meaning, you can’t make it up.
And anybody who actually claimed that murderers should get rocket launchers to “defend” themselves from the police would certainly and without any ambiguity at all, be supporting murderers. Just like Der supports the Mullahs even while offering a luke warm flimsy denial of his support (in the same post as he enthusiastically supports their right to authoritarian rule and to disregard that the Iranians actually want peace and good relations with the US.)
Er… if by “he rebutted you” you mean “he proved your point with his own words”, then yes.
Again, he went on to spit in the Iranian people’s faces, saying they were too fucking stupid or brainwashed or whatever, to tell truth from lies. And, what’s more, he’s now on record in black and white supporting the Mullahs as the only ones with the real, authentic vision of what is best for Iran.
Again, that’s support. He supports the theocrats and, what’s worse actively and vocally opposes the Iranian people themselves, saying in essence that they should just shut up and let the theocrats rule over them.
So, if I was being really thorough, I’d point out that Der supports a murderous theocracy that destabilizes the region and makes open conflict much more likely, and opposes secular democracy and the Iranian peoples’ wishes for peace and safety. (of course with the addendum that his argument is talking out of both sides of its mouth as it claims that theocrats are bad, but then says they should rule Iran, engage in aggressive imperialistic expansionism as “defense”, nuke up, and not give a fuck that their own people want peace with the United States.)
If you really want to get into it, I could point out how even more of his argument is based on a fantasy-land with claims about how the US ‘uncritically’ supports Israel, and such. But, eh. That’s just icing, right?
My, you really are fond of distorting what people say, aren’t you ?
Of course. Just as it was defense for the Allies to conquer Germany and Japan; they started it.
Nothing of the sort. They defended themselves; your complaint is they did so successfully.
No, I’m pointing that you define everything Iran does as aggression, and everything we and our proxies do as NOT aggression. You come across as the sort who’d beat up an Iranian and justify it by holding up your bleeding fists and saying “See what he did !”
At least in this matter, they are.
No, it’s not. I said that ANYONE in charge of Iran should do the same thing. If the mullahs were all executed tomorrow, whoever replaced them should still go for nuclear weapons. It’s America’s hostility and general aggression that makes getting nuclear weapons a good idea; the Iranian leadership has nothing to do with that. I’ve said in the past that it’s the logical thing to do for every country to get nuclear weapons, and point them at us, because the US has become a rabid dog of a nation.
No, the analogy doesn’t work because our hostility toward Iran has zero to do with them being “murderers”. We’ve never cared about that, with the Iranians or anyone else. Including ourselves.
WE destabilize the region and oppose democracy. That how Iran GOT a theocracy - we didn’t want democracy there.
That’s no fantasy.
MAD governs Israeli/Iranian relations. Though at this point it favors Israel, but maybe not for very long. One nuke on Qom might actually serve to break the Theocracy and lead to a more liberalized Iran. Not saying that this should be done pre-emptively, but if Iran attacks Israel, maybe it’s what needs to happen.
Regardless of what happens, if Iran hits Israel with a credible pre-emptive attack of some kind American boots will need to be on the ground immediately to protect them from the Arab nations that surround them.
Wait. Don’t get me wrong. I think the US should be trying to stop Iran from making problems in the middle east, along with all the anti-Israel threats. But I’d like to get this statement straigtened out. Al Qaeda has no ties with Iran. Al Qaeda, you see, is sunni, or at least the leader, Osama Bin Ladin is sunni.
On the other hand Iran is predominantly shiite and Iran said to support shiite militias in Iraq. I don’t think that means supporting organizations with Sunni leaders.
This is not a bandwaggon, it’s reality. Maybe the US didn’t respond to attacks from Iran, but that doesn’t mean the US isn’t a threat. The US is not on great terms with Iran for it’s carrying out sanctions and is in fact, carrying out missions to fight Iranian prescence in Iran. The US has the potential to wipe out Iran any day. I’d call that a threat, good thing or not. Now weather you think the US will respond to Iran in the future, we can debate that any day. Israel is also a threat to Iran. People miss that Israel has a pretty strong military and is nuclear armed (while Iran is still trying to make nuclear weapons). I’m not saying Israel will use nuclear weapons, I’m just saying that Iran won’t be able to just wipe out Israel out of the map without themselves paying the price, even if Iran does one day does get a Nuclear weapon (but let me make it clear the US should still stop Iran from getting Nuclear weapon. It would still be a big problem if it did).
Now I think that Iran is the agressor here. The US and Israel havn’t done as much violence or propose radical things, don’t get me wrong, I agree with that, but I feel like you’re completely dismissing arguments coming from the other side.
I do hope you see the irony of these two sentences in their juxtaposition. Claiming that one must take the high road or else one’s words look like those of a “hating nut job” is not exactly living by one’s own advice.
= = =
Everyone: back off and cool down.
[ /Moderating ]
Al Quaeda most certainly had ties with Iran. I’m about to cook dinner now, but I’ll be happy to re-post cites I’ve posted around here before detailing how Iran, for instance, gave Al Quaeda explosives training, safe passage, etc… even after Bin Laden made his goals and methods clear.
It’s not fiction. The 9/11 report goes on at some length about Iran’s support (pre-9/11) for Al Queada.
Not only is it a bandwaggon, it’s a bandwaggon that’s pulled by a team of oxen made of fail.
Honestly, can you list, say, a dozen friendly nations that the US has invaded? There is absolutely no reason, at all, to come to the conclusion that an Iran which had warm relations with the west, didn’t support terrorism and was openly democratic would have any cause to fear US strikes.
Yeah, it pretty much does. If someone attacks your soldiers numerous times, kidnaps your civilians, supports global terrorism that targets your friends and allies, and you do not engage y our actual military might even once? It’s very odd to call that nation a threat.
Folks can’t ignore the fact that if America wanted, we could’ve rubbled Iran at any time in the last three decades. We didn’t. We weren’t going to. We’re not going to. Unless, of course, Iran does something spectacularly stupid like gives nuclear material to Hezbollah.
But we haven’t even when savagely provoked with at least two direct, fairly major military assaults against our soldiers by Iran. It might be accurate to say that if Iran goes to extraordinary lengths to cause conflict that we might be a threat, but if Iran was minding its own bussiness and acting as a responsible nation-state, then no, we’d not be a threat at all. Any more than we’re a threat to, say, Saudi Arabia.
Enjoy your dinner I guess. I know there’s claims about Iran having ties to al qaeda, supplying them arms, training, etc. but it doesn’t make sense for reasons I just explained. Maybe your links might persuade me, I’ll take a look at your links you previously posted but I gotta eat dinner too.
No. But I can say that there is support in the US to stop Iranian terror regime, definitely not as radical as Iran though and that the US is keeping troops in Iraq partially to keep Iranian presence out.
Yeah, which is why I’m saying the US is a threat. We havn’t provoked anything, but the US striking back is the hazard if Iran does anything provokitive. I define “threat” as anything “potentially harmful”. and the US will fight Iran if it carries out its regime. I think it’s a little definition trouble of the word “threat” we have. Rather than calling the U.S. a threat, I’ll say the U.S. is potentially harmful and an obstacle to Iran’s plans of terror. Is this wording you can agree with?
Pasta sauce is simmering, so I found the previous links.
[
](http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec2.pdf)
[
](http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec7.pdf)
As for whether or not Iran knew of Bin Laden’s ideology and methods:
Sounds roughly doable. I’d probably say “The US could potentially retaliate strongly and is an obstacle to Iran’s designs for dominance of the region.”
It’s the difference between saying that a father out with his daughter at a playground is a ‘threat’, and you might be in serious shit if you walk up in front of him and punch his girl.
Another interesting bit on how theologically opposed terrorist groups sometimes find common ground. It’s CFR stuff so it should pass the ‘quality’ test, and it’s fairly objective and gives both sides and discusses various experts’ views.
TLDR version: yes, there exists great animosity between the two major factions in Islam. But yes, sometimes terrorists with strong theological disagreements are willing to work together, on a limited basis, to attack commonly loathed targets.
And as long as this thread is on the front page, here is a bit about Iran’s cooperation with Syria, even though they have significant ideologically differences.
Hate and a desire to dominate your neighbors/the region/the world can make for very, very strange bedfellows sometimes.
Oh, the thick, rich, buttery irony of a hard-line supporter of Israel typing that sentence.
Well, as long as the thread picked up a free bump, I might as well point out last month’s IAEA report on Iran.
The long and the short of it is that Iran is still not in full compliance and without that compliance, the IAEA cannot verify the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program.
And as the recent NIE certified with a high degree of confidence that Iran’s nuclear program was, in fact, a nuclear weapons program, things might get interesting.
If folks remember, the NIE assessed with a high degree of confidence that Iran’s nuclear weapons program was suspended for at least a few years, but due to that judgment not being “based on high-quality information, and/or that the nature of the issue makes it possible to render a solid judgment.”, they only concluded with moderate confidence that Iran’s nuclear weapons program remains halted.
They also concluded that it was possible, but very unlikely, that Iran would have a working nuke by 2009. Although, the report did not address the North Korea —> Syria —> Iran connection and especially the Syrian, North Korean nuclear connection.
We may very well see Israel take action after the US election especially since, if the claims in the OP’s link are accurate, America would have much more reason to allow Israel to initiate a strike since Iran’s policy would not only included targeted retaliation at Israel, alone, and not the US.
Then again, the next US administration may be able to capitalize on the substantial support for the US among Iranian citizens and avoid further nuclear buildup. How awesome would it be if for the first time in a long, long time, Iranians could walk the streets without worrying about the thugs of the religious police? If their economy could be strengthened again by international trade and their sponsorship of terrorism a vestigial relic of an ugly, ugly past.
There’s great potential there. Khomenism has run its course in almost all but the most fanatical. The Iranian people are ready for peace, and a popular tide is a hard thing for even a theocracy to stifle. If our next President can effectively reach out to the Iranian people, directly, we may very well be able to avert the entire situation and gain another strong democratic ally in the ME.
This is how the battle for ‘hearts and minds’ should have been fought the last eight years.
Details from the polls:
My dinner took a little long;)…just kidding. I was a little busy with other things. Sorry with the delay
Okay, we agree on something then. But now there’s this other stuff to sort out.
I see where you’re coming from, but the analogy could use a little work. the U.S. isn’t just some dad that Iran’s a stranger to. The US isn’t in good terms with Iran. I’m not trying to imply that the US is a threat to just any old country like Cuba.
I’m not going to use the word “threat” anymore. It’s not worth it arguing about definitions (the english language is plain old confusing with exactly how you define words, that we can both agree with). I used threat because that’s the wording you used to describe the bandwagon you disagreed with and I wanted to adress to that. But now I think we both see each others’ perspective so I think we can look over definition difference.
As for your sites. From what I’ve read, they all imply that al qaeda has in the past cooperated with Iran and Hezbollah ifor the purpose of defeating a common enemy. Okay, you made your case that terrorist groups do at times work together. I don’t know if you can make a solid case that ties between al qaeda and Iran have ties today necessarily (but it could be possible). The reports seem to be about the late 90’s and a bit after 911 and things might’ve changed since, for these ties don’t seem very solid. One quote did say that strengthened relations between al qaeda and Iran were rebuffed because Osama did not want to risk losing Saudi Arabian support.
What gets me though is when the media makes the case that al qaeda is tied to something as if there’s solid evidence when there isn’t really.
My dinner took a little long;)…just kidding. I was a little busy with other things. Sorry with the delay
Okay, we agree on something then. But now there’s this other stuff to sort out.
I see where you’re coming from, but the analogy could use a little work. the U.S. isn’t just some dad that Iran’s a stranger to. The US isn’t in good terms with Iran. I’m not trying to imply that the US is a threat to just any old country like Cuba.
I’m not going to use the word “threat” anymore. It’s not worth it arguing about definitions (the english language is plain old confusing with exactly how you define words, that we can both agree with). I used threat because that’s the wording you used to describe the bandwagon you disagreed with and I wanted to adress to that. But now I think that we both see each others’ perspective so I think we can look over definition difference.
As for your sites. From what I’ve read, they all imply that al qaeda has in the past cooperated with Iran and Hezbollah ifor the purpose of defeating a common enemy. Okay, you made your case that terrorist groups do at times work together. I don’t know if you can make a solid case that ties between al qaeda and Iran have ties today necessarily (but it could be possible). The reports seem to be about the late 90’s and a bit after 911 and things might’ve changed since, for these ties don’t seem very solid. One quote did say that strengthened relations between al qaeda and Iran were rebuffed because Osama did not want to risk losing Saudi Arabian support.
You’ll have to be a little more specific. What “naughty” activity are you putting up against a well funded Hezbollah who fired thousands of rockets at Israel.