Should we attack Iran?

Great Debates
61

(Bolding mine)

Of course.

I think the problem is, people seem to think that ‘Mutually assured destruction’ wont work with Iran. Because ya’ know, those guys are crazy. They strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up, just to kill a handfull of people.

No, this is not true. Those crazy folks are usually impressionable young men who mindlessly follow the cause or men who are desperate to feed their families.

The policy makers, as in, the ones who actually have the authority to push that little red button, don’t want to die any more than you or I do.

62

From personal experience, I can attest there are other ways to be wrong than willful ignorance.

63

While your “I know you are but what am I?!?” rejoinder is, I’m certain, something you consider to be devastating. Unfortunately, your certainly is still based on the fact that you’re wilfully ignorant of the 9/11 Commission.

To begin with, your article does not deal with the time period during which Al Quaeda and Iran were allied, but the aftermath of 9/11. Ya know, the time period during which we were very publicly stating that we’d blast anybody working with Al Queada back into the stone age? Anyways, one hopes that you did not deliberately ignore and cherrypick around the very first sentence,** which stated the the timeframe for the article is “In the years since the September 11, 2001…”** Seeing as how it’s the 9/11 Commission Report that you’ve chosen to remain ignorant of, and of which you were informed, posting a cite about events after 9/11 and claiming that they somehow alter or disprove events backwards in time is, well… let’s just say it’s not a particularly effective tactic.

Now, to remind you as you’ve tried to change the subject, the facts that you are ignorant of are that “Iran was allied with Al Quaeda and helping them train in tactics and the use of explosives.” Remember, that was the claim you attempted, and dramatically failed, to refute. Despite the vapid snark that is the ‘substance’ of your argument, I will still display grandmotherly kindness and help fight your ignorance. Don’t say I never dun nuthin for ya.

[

](http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-911REPORT/pdf/GPO-911REPORT-8.pdf)

[

](http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-911REPORT/pdf/GPO-911REPORT-13.pdf)
You are wilfully ignorant of the 9/11 Commission Report and are basing your vacuous snark on that willful ignorance. It was willful ignorance that caused you to describe the fact that “Iran was allied with Al Quaeda and helping them train in tactics and the use of explosives.” as *“some Iranian agent loaded an Al Qaeda agent 5 bucks for gas 30 years ago” *. Your belief that the analysis of information you have never heard of, is “retarded”? That, perhaps, is not as compelling as you might think it is.

64

Again, it’s just making stuff up. An unnamed Al Qaeda operative received unspecified training based on an informal agreement. It’s building a ridiculously weak case out of random scraps of intelligence. It’s a retarded way to analyze intelligence, and it is being done merely to support a stupid goal. The only concrete evidence we have of the relationship between A.Q. and Iran is that it was antagonistic, and in no way can be described as an alliance or cooperation. It’s silly to even consider it.

65

Actually, friend Finn is up on the latest rhetoric. You know, where Netanyahu is pulling a Cheney, equating Salafist Sunni mobs in Libya with the Shiite dictatorship in Iran

See how that works now? :smack:

66

Yes, if the 9/11 Commission is known for one thing, it’s debunking your erro, er… being totally made up if it shows you’re wrong.

And yet again, you are making claims about a document you have not read. Which is more than passing strange, since I quoted part of it in this very thread, just a few posts up, and you opted to remain willfully ignorant and refused to read the quotes. Yes, Treis, the training was specified: explosives, security, intelligence. Your claim that it was “an unanamed Al Quaeda operative”, singular, again reveals you did not even bother to read the quotes as they make quite clear that they are discussing Iran providing military training for “senior al Qaeda operatives and trainers [and later] another such delegation” That you cannot even get straight that it was two groups and not a single operative flays whatever credibility your argument had left. If you can’t even cleave to basic standards of factual accuracy or read the actual Report, why should anybody give any weight to your judgement that the 9/11 Commission Report was “retarded” ?

You are, of course, free to attempt to handwave away the 9/11 Commission Report based on your belief that two separate Al Queada groups of multiple people were somehow really “[an] unnamed Al Qaeda operative”. You may also claim that it had not “specified” what training was provided. Yes, even if the 9/11 Commission report states that there was training in explosives, intelligence and security.

It’s quite clear that your argument isn’t just wrong, but that it’s so wildly wrong that even correctly relating simple facts is beyond its scope.

Oh, this should be good.
Please offer up your Conspiracy Theory as to what “stupid goal” the 9/11 Commission was conspiring to support.

67

I didn’t necessarily mean they’d hand the weapons off to an outside organization like al-Qaeda. I think there is plenty enough terrorist activity vying for control within Iran itself. An attack could be handled covertly enough to cast a shadow of doubt on the weapons origin and contrary to the majority opinion on this board the U.S. and most other members of the nuke club would not and could not turn another country into a glass lake without a pretty good consensus on evidence.

68

Are you claiming that the 911 Commission report was “just making stuff up”?

If not, what did the “it” in that sentence refer to?

69

The it being the conclusion that Al Qaeda and Iran were working together. The evidence they give is that 20 years ago, unnamed Al Qaeda operatives met with unspecified Iranians and received indeterminate training. These are facts in the most meaningless sense of the word. They have no detail, and prove nothing. For example, it cites Iranian operatives. Who are these Iranian operatives. Were they in the Revolutionary Guard, Iranian spies, members of the military, paramilitary, or what? Were they operating with the blessing of the upper echelon of the Iranian Government? Were they even part of the Iranian government, or some dissident organization.

It’s like we saw in the lead up to the Iraq war. Throw out this piece tiny, insignificant, “proof” so that people like FinnAgain can say " ZOMG!!! Iran and Al Qaeda!!!". But it’s junk. It’s absolutely ridiculous. Anyone who knows anything at all about the M.E. knows that a fundamentalist Shia regime is not going to work with a fanatical Sunni organization. It’s basic common sense.

70

Well, you’ve at least cleared up your singular-vs-plural error (without admitting your error or retracting it, of course), but you still are claiming that training in explosives, security and intelligence is “indeterminate”. This does not speak well for your argument. Of course, your claim that Iran helped train Al Quaeda operatives to use explosives, engage in intelligence work and maintain security are “meaningless” facts again points to the fact that your argument has no credibility. At the point where you’re actually claiming that training terrorists to blow things up and engage in intelligence and counter-intelligence operations is a “meaningless” fact, it’s pretty clear that you’ve dug yourself a nice deep hole and rather than just admitting your error, you’ve decided the solution is to dig really, really hard.

Ah, you’re JAQ’ing, I see. Do you really think that obfuscation will fool anybody? What, because they didn’t identify the name, rank and serial number of the Iranian agents, your handwaving somehow becomes a rebuttal?

If you waved your hands any harder, you’d create hurricane strength winds. Here we’re told that Iranian officials and security officials cooperated with Al Quaeda, but you think that by Just Asking Questions you can somehow prove that it’s flimsy.

Treis, your ignorance is showing. Again.
That you don’t know Hamas and Hezbollah cooperate is hardly shocking. But that you’re ignorant of such a basic fact and still providing nothing but bombast and bluster about how your flights of fantasy must be real and we have to ignore reality? Again, very unpersuasive. Seriously, if you don’t even know about Hamas and Hezbollah, any nuggets you drop about what the Middle East’s violent factions simply must act like is so beyond the pale as to render your argument an auto-caricature.

71

I think the central issue lies in who decides if we go to war with Iran.

I think Israel sees an attack on Iran as provoking the closing of the Strait of Hormuz. For one, Iran would not simply endure an attack by Israel- it would mean war. For two, the closing of the Strait of Hormuz would likely provoke American military action, considering the serious economic issues that would follow.

So Israel probably views attacking Iran as a way to provoke war between Iran and the US. Personally I find this unacceptable, and that is why I propose attaching a wire to this lever, such that if Israel pulls it and provokes the war, Israel also gets the shit bombed out of it by the US.

This ought to provide Israel with the necessary perspective to understand the situation. If provoking this war is the last thing Israel ever does, is it worth doing? Similarly, if nuking Israel is the last thing Iran ever does, is it worth doing?

72

Respectfully, anyone who “knows anything about the ME” would completely disagree.

For starters, the Iranian government is lots of things but it is most certainly not “a fundamentalist Shia regime” and in fact is hated by fundamentalist Shia.

Moreover, anyone familiar with the ME would certainly know that Iran has repeatedly allied itself with “fanatical Sunni organizations” when it was in their interest to do so. The most obvious being Hamas, but they were also willing, according to several reports to aid various Kurdish groups against Saddam Hussein.

Beyond that, since you refer to “basic common sense”, according to “basic common sense” does the Iranian government hate Salafists more than it hates the US(AKA the Great Satan) and Israel(AKA the Zionist Regime or The Jews)?

I ask because we all know the answer and Iran regularly collaborated with both the American government and the Israelis throughout the 80s and the early 90s, prior to Saddam Hussein getting defanged during the First Gulf War, when it was in their interest to.

For those interested, I’d highly recommend The Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States, by Trita Parsi, President of the National Iranian American Council.

http://www.amazon.com/Treacherous-Alliance-Secret-Dealings-Israel/dp/0300143117/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1347944964&sr=8-2&keywords=Trita+Parsi

I’m sure some are thinking of the phrase “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” but in truth, from the Middle Eastern perspective, a better saying would be “My enemies are sometimes my allies”.

Nor is it just the Iranians for whom this is true.

King Hussein attempted to invade and destroy Israel in 1967, but he and Israel regularly collaborated in secret decades before he finally recognized Israel and Israel offered him some protection against moves by both the Syrian and Iraqi Ba’athist governments.

Nor, would anyone dispute that Lehi hated the Nazis, but they were more than happy to collaborate with them during WWII against the British(though the Nazis rejected them).

Beyond that, I don’t see why the idea of Iran collaborating with Al Quaeda would be more preposterous than the idea of Israel collaborating with Hamas, but in fact they initially did because they saw them as a good check on Al-Fatah.

Like I said, the Middle East is vastly more complicated than westerners think and much of what might be seen as “common sense” to westerners are simply flawed assumptions.

73

You’re making the same mistake as der Trihs, commenting on the NPT without actually reading it. It was not written by those with nukes, it was written and agreed upon by all of those who signed it, only 5 of whom had nukes. It most certainly was not written by those with nukes to benefit them; nuclear powers pledged in it to work to stop the nuclear arms race and reduce their stockpiles, which they have done. No nation was forced to sign the treaty; India, Israel and Pakistan didn’t sign it and went about developing their own nukes. Any signatory can freely leave the treaty by invoking article X and providing 90 days notice of their intent to withdrawal, as North Korea did.

You’d have a leg to stand on if there weren’t countries that didn’t sign the treaty, and Iran would have a leg to stand on if it hadn’t signed it or withdrew from it rather than continue to develop nuclear weapons while denying doing so and not withdrawing from the treaty. Again, the treaty is in no way unfair to those who signed it, didn’t have nukes and pledged not to develop them. Any nation that felt it would be unfair to them and not in their interests simply didn’t sign it, again see India, Israel and Pakistan.

Making up facts doesn’t help your cause. Care to cite where Bush threatened Iran with nuclear attack? A statement that no options would be removed from the table to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons if Iran continues to develop nuclear weapons in violation of the NPT does not equal a threat to nuke Iran. The logic that Iran is free to violate obligations it voluntarily entered into because it is threatened for violating them is perverse logic to say the least.

74

I’m sorry, I stopped reading here. How exactly would you describe the religious beliefs of the government of Iran?

75

Well, that is a rather interesting way of looking at it. You argue that “common sense” dictates that Iran would never collaborate with Al Quaeda, so when it’s pointed out that if Iran was willing to collaborate with both Israel and the United States for years, in order to deal with their mutual enemy Saddam Hussein, why would they not be willing to do it with a group they have far less reason to hate and far less reason to fear, you can just ignore that.

Similarly, when you point out that they would never ally themselves with a “Fanatical Sunni organization” you can choose not to notice when someone refers to their well-known, well-documented alliance with Hamas and similar groups.

The very opposite of “fundamentalists”. The Ayatollah Khomeini was a radical who came up with his own theological view which was completely different from anything preached by Muhammad or practiced by previous Shia theologians.

He called for, and based the regime he founded on Velayet-e-faqih, which is the idea that society should be ruled not by Kings, Presidents, or other traditional leaders(which was true not just in the west, but in the Islamic world) but by clerics who’d dedicated their lives to studying Islamic Law.

Khomeini was also heavily influenced by Plato’s The Repbulic, which is part of the reason he made a point of creating the Islamic Revolutionary Guards, and the Guardian Council, who’s job it is to both interpret the Iranian Constitution, and vet and approve all candidates for Parliament, the Presidency, and the Assembly of Experts, having been heavily influenced by Plato’s idea of “the Guardian class”. And of course, he set himself up as “the Supreme Leader” modeled very much after Plato’s “Philosopher King.”

As Vali Nasr, arguably the West’s leading expert on Shia Islam, said, “His government was as if the Quran had been edited by Plato.” It’s also a reason some have referred to the Iranian government as “the dictatorship of the Judges”, “the dictatorship of the scholars” or “the dictatorship of the intellectuals”.

Fundamentalist Shia, by contrast, strongly object to Velayet-e-faqih, believing that it’s wrong for the clerics to rule, for a variety of reasons, and preferring to take a quietist approach while waiting for a return of the Imam.

Edit: One thing I’ll agree is that the term “hate” was a bit too strong a word to describe the way fundamentalist Shia feel. A more appropriate term would be “object” or “oppose.”

76

Fundamentalists and traditionalists aren’t the same thing. A fundamentalist is a person that, typically, returns to their holy book as the source of religious doctrine and strictly follows whatever they find there. A fundamentalist is not someone who follows traditional teachings or practices regarding their faith. That is more accurately described as a traditionalists. Generally speaking, fundamentalists reject traditional teaching as corrupted, misinterpreted, or whatever.

77

Khomenism.
So you don’t know that Hamas and Hezbollah work together and you don’t understand that Khomenism is not mainstream Islam, either. And yet you’re posting stridently and with faux authority in this thread. Willful ignorance is not a strength, Treis.

78

I was kind of with you until Finn’s preceding post and this weak-ass response.

79

Why do you keep making shit up? By what bizarre methodology did you determine that I think Hamas and Hezbollah don’t work together?

80

I don’t know, but are there sanctions or negative effects from not being in that treaty? For example, would you be automatically placed on a list of rogue nations or something? If so, I think that’s an inherent unfairness in the system. “Sign this treaty saying you’ll never make weapons, otherwise we’ll wreck your economy” isn’t exactly a gesture of evenhandedness. Then again, the NPT was signed by the former government, and as far as I know, hasn’t been ratified by the current Islamic government. Why should they be held accountable to an entirely different government’s (not simply a continuation) treaty agreements?

I disagree with the part about benefits. I think at the time it was written, the world was in dire fear of actually being completely wiped out in a nuclear war. Like how the US totally overreacted after 9/11, fear can motivate in a way that levelheaded analysis can’t. You’re right that I didn’t read the NPT, but if it prevents new nuclear nations from coming into existence while not making the existing 5 nuclear nations into “former” nuclear nations, then there is an inequality with that. And as I said above, the treaty was signed by a completely different government of Iran, and personally I cannot see a good reason for this government to follow it. I’m sure they will withdraw from it officially, 91 days before they test their first nuke.

I know this was to Der Trihs, but how hard would it be to simply say “We’re not going to use nukes, but we will use every available conventional means if…” instead of what Bush said. I know I know, everybody says the line of “All methods are on the table”, but if that’s true, then you cannot expect Iran to not think that nukes are part of the table. Just say we’re taking nukes off the table, how hard is that? Besides, its not like we’d be handcuffing ourselves based on a speech. If the circumstances change, I have no doubt that any American president would put nukes on the table