[quote=“treis, post:76, topic:634775”]
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 /QUOTE]
By such a definition, then all Muslims are fundamentalists.
Moreover, you seem to have Khomeini confused with the Salafists.
Treis? Remembering what you’ve written in this thread is not “making shit up”. You’ll probably want to watch out for that sort of odd error in the future, nip it in the bud. Now, I don’t credit it as plausible that you’ve somehow forgotten that you argued Hamas and Hezbollah would never work together… instead, what’s far more likely is you are quite ignorant about Hamas and Hezbollah and didn’t even know that they are a specific and excellent example which disproves your bombastic bluster.
But okay, just in case you forgot, I’ll remind you.
Hamas is a Sunni organization, Hezbollah is a Shia organization. By cleaving to your willful ignorance and stridently holding forth on topics you know very little about, you indeed claimed that Hamas and Hezbollah would never work together and that it was “basic common sense” to conclude that.
You’ll make far fewer such errors if you simply wait to post until you learn at least the basic facts about which you’re posting.
Er…you claimed that a radical Shia group would never work with a “fanatical Sunni organization”.
Are you claiming that Hezbollah isn’t a radical Shia group and that Hamas isn’t a “fanatical Sunni organization”?
In fairness, it could be an either/or.
I predict that the dodge, should it come, will be whether or not Hezbollah is a “fundamentalist” organization. Whether Treis will then claim that he really meant that of course radical, reactionary, etc… Shia organizations would be happy to work with fanatical Sunnis? Well, that’s another question.
The 9/11 report has roughly one page of information on Iran’s involvement with Al Qaeda. For example, the first claim is that Al Qaeda members received “advice and training” from Hezbollah. That sounds menacing and evil, but if you simply look at the fact stated, it doesn’t really mean anything. Because, for example, Al Qaeda members also received advice and training from U.S. Universities and flight schools. That is why it is a meaningless statement. Did the Hezbollah trainers know they were training Al Qaeda members? Did Hezbollah’s upper management know that they were training Al Qaeda members? Clearly, we are supposed to make connections here, but there’s no evidence to support those connections.
Another example, here is part of the conclusion:
So Iran didn’t stamp passports from Saudi Arabia, and somehow this means that they are actively helping Al Qaeda?
That’s the problem with the entire Iran section of the 9/11 report. There is no hard evidence, or really any evidence, that Iran actively worked with Al Qaeda. It is all innuendo and suggestive facts. A careful reading of that section shows that there is not one piece of evidence presented that Iran as a country was actively helping Al Qaeda as an organization. It invites us to draw that conclusion, but does not present the evidence to justify it.
Not to mention that the entire section is based on evidence from interrogations that likely were conducted using torture.
See, making shit up again. I didn’t say Sunni organizations would not work with Shia organizations. It’s right here in the thread:
“Fundamentalist religious fanatics aren’t going to be long term allies with people they consider apostates.”
" 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"
So where did I say Shias won’t work with Sunnis? I didn’t. I said they won’t work with fanatical Sunnis. You understand how adjectives work, right? Fanatical modifies the word Sunni. Therefore, “fanatical Sunnis” refers to a different set of people than Sunnis.
Perhaps your command of the English language is at issue here.
Would you care to explain why Hamas is not a “fanatical Sunni organization”?
Everybody else in the region would certainly refer to them as radical Islamists.
Admittedly your explanation of which Muslims are “fundamentalists” vs. “radicals” would raise more than a few eyebrows in the ME.
Tone it down, treis. You’re coming close to personal insults here. And FinnAgain, stick to comments on the arguments and keep statements like “If you waved your hands any harder, you’d create hurricane strength winds” to a minimum or omit them entirely.
I haven’t used the word radical in this thread, so I’m not sure what explanation you are referring to. It would be nice if you and FinnAgain would confine your arguments to attempting to refute things I’ve said, instead of what you decide I’ve said.
Anyways, to use an example:
Barack Obama is a Democrat
Barack Obama is fanatical about beer
But Barack Obama is not a fanatical Democrat.
So, yes Hamas can be called fanatical in their opposition to Israel. They are also Sunni. But they are not fanatical Sunnis. In other words, they aren’t going around chopping people’s heads off for not growing a beard, they aren’t calling for the murder of all Shias, or many of the other things we associate with religious fanatics.
This whole line of debate is absurd and I’m not sure if I have walked into a case of Poe’s law. In any case, no reasonable person should take “a fundamentalist Shia regime is not going to work with a fanatical Sunni organization” and conclude that I think no Shia will ever work with any Sunni. It’s ridiculous.
So noted. The point was simply that Treis has handwaved away all evidence that proved him wrong in this thread, often evincing significant errors on the basic facts he was discussing. I spiced the phrase up when I pointed out he was handwaving yet another fact, but I will endeavor not to use such colorful verbiage in this thread.
Is it still permissible to state that a point had been “handwaved?”
You aren’t describing this cite correctly, either. Not stamping all Saudi passports? “Iran facilitated [by not stamping passports]the transit of al Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11” Iran and Afghanistan share a border. Are you now claiming that the passport stamping was the main evidence that they were helping Al Quaeda, not the explosives, security and intelligence training?
For the record, I did predict that you would try hair splitting on adjectives, but you evidently chose a sillier argument than I’d predicted. You are now hanging your argument on a claim that it’s somehow wrong to call Hamas “fanatical”. That, I think, is a position risible enough to be indefensible, but do try to explain how an organization that uses people who strap explosives to their own bodies and then detonate them in crowded areas, has genocide as one if its key ideological planks and, has summer camps to indoctrinate children with their ideology and provide them with military training, and use children as human shields is "not fanatical."I’d like to see you argue that.
When I was a very young child, I would “play semantics”, as my mother called it. I wasn’t hitting my brother, I was smacking him. No, I wasn’t smacking him, I was shoving him. No, I didn’t shove him, I pushed him. Of course, I was very young and grew out of such silly tactics. Can we now expect to hear “Hamas isn’t fanatical, they’re hardcore,” or some such variation?
Or, you could simply admit that you were quite wrong to argue that (whatever silly adjectives you’d like to apply), Sunni and Shia groups won’t cooperate.
You are yet again wrong on the facts. You can simply admit you were wrong, or you can try to shave ever smaller slivers off the word “fanatical”. Or you can just declare I’m wrong and that Hamas isn’t fanatical at all, they’re hardcore, Xtreme, Srs Bizzness, or some such.
There’s no need to go back to Bush when Obama has done the same thing recently:
– highlights mine.
Care to parse “not taking any options off the table” into excluding nuclear weapons? Methinks you’d have to turn into a pretzel to do so. But go ahead, this should be interesting…
Respectfully, you might want to actually read up on Hamas before making such arguments.
Moreover, Al Quaeda doesn’t cut off people’s heads for not having beards, does this mean they shouldn’t be seen as a “fanatical Sunni organization”?
Is this a joke? Do you truly not understand the difference between “attempted to corroborate” and “corroborated”?
That’s fine. If you think Al Qaeda and Hamas are essentially equivalent in their religious views and attitudes towards Shias, that’s your business. It’s not true, but believe what you’d like.
I can understand you trying to change the subject after you were shown to be wrong about [adjective] Sunni and [adjective] Shia working together, wrong on Hamas, and so forth. It’s a hallmark of a losing argument that it’s wrong on the facts, never retracts incorrect claims and, when proven wrong, changes the topic as rapidly as possible.
Of course, you are misusing the word corroborate. It is to make more certain, not to make definite. Attempting to achieve greater certainty is, rather obviously, not a case in which one arrives at an absolute. This is especially true in intelligence gathering. It’s the same reason that the famous NIE on Iran’s nuclear program went to such great lengths to describe its degree of certainty on all of its claims.
Naturally, you changed the subject to this objection because you have repeatedly made wildly inaccurate claims, like describing two groups of multiple people as a single individual, described training in explosives, intelligence and security as hiding passport info, claimed that rather than transit between Afghanistan and Iran it dealt only with Saudi passports, and so on.
Just admit you were wrong already.
What is the strongest evidence that Iran is working with Al Quaeda in, say, the last ten years?
The stuff in the 9/11 report is really weak. A lot of it is very old, in the early 90’s before Al Quaeda was even considered a serious threat to the US. Stuff like not stamping passports is meaningless.
It’s quite possible that elements in the Iranian intelligence services have worked with Al Quaeda members from time to time. That is what intelligence services do. What there is no evidence of is any kind of serious partnership between the Iranian government and Al Quaeda.
So, the answer is no? You don’t know the difference between “attempted to corroborate” and “corroborated”?
As to the rest of your post, you look like a two year old that has managed to jam his square peg half way in a round hole, and now are crowing about how the peg is round. I know exactly what words I used. I know exactly what those words mean. And I know exactly what I meant. All you’ve done is attempted to twist my words into some ridiculous caricature of the original meaning so you can crow around like some puffed up chicken about how right you were.
There’s no particular reason to interpret the statement with regard to nuclear weapons. He was saying the use of military force remains an option regarding Iran and the nuclear program.
I shouldn’t be, but I admit I’m sort of astonished that anyone would try to split this particular hair. Ok, so maybe Iran’s intelligence service has worked with Al Qaeda from time to time, but despite all the people killed by that particular terrorist organization, it’s “not a serious partnership?”