Yeah. The heavy water reactor is actually a garage hiding Saddam’s WMD’s.
We must act at once!
Even if you read in Teheran? Come on now…
All major intelligence services work with members of all sorts of groups including terrorist groups and hostile countries. That doesn’t mean their governments are allied with those groups or countries. Did Iran-Contra mean that the US and Iran were allies?
I suspect the Iranians knew what he meant. What does Obama’s word choice have to do with it?
That’s probably not the best word for an illegal business relationship. But what’s the thrust of your argument here? That FinnAgain was wrong to say “Iran was allied with Al Quaeda and helping them train in tactics and the use of explosives” because that’s a working relationship but it’s not, yanno, an alliance alliance?
My point is that the 9-11 Report claims about Iran and Al Qaeda are vague, old and weak. Most of the stuff is about the early 90’s when Al Qaeda was not yet a major terrorist organization. The stuff about not stamping passports is just incredibly weak. There is nothing at all to indicate any sort of serious partnership between the Iranian government and Al Queda.
Let me repeat my question: what is the strongest evidence that Iran and Al Qaeda have worked closely in the last 10 years?
How did it get to be a major terrorist organization?
I think you’re hanging this argument on a unique interpretation of what “serious” means.
The problem is that even those accusing Iran of working with Al Qaeda haven’t specified what that relationship was. For example, the 9/11 report says things like:
Which is a lot different from something like “Hezbollah had an agreement with Al Qaeda to provide training”.
The obvious conclusion we are supposed to draw is that these “individuals” are members of Al Qaeda. But it isn’t explicitly stated.
Not to mention it is internally contradictory:
So what is it? Was it Iranian policy not to stamp Saudi passports or were they not stamping passports of Al Qaeda members?
We are obviously supposed to connect the dots and conclude that there was some sort of working partnership going on here. But there’s no hard evidence to support it.
There is also this part:
Even without disputing the accuracy or relevance of the statement, it clearly states an “informal agreement”. An “informal agreement” isn’t an alliance by any definition.
By conducting major terrorist attacks. I believe the first major one was the Khobar Towers Bombing in 1996. In the early 90’s Al Qaeda was just a random bunch of violent radicals. That some Iranian operatives worked with them doesn’t mean much.
And let me ask once again: in the last ten years what is the evidence that Iran is working with Al Queda?
Again, this comes off as hairsplitting. It makes much more sense to argue that the evidence is weak than to say a relationship isn’t really an alliance (“fundamentalist friends with benefits?”) or that advice and training is one thing and an agreement to provide advice and training is something different. I’d want to see more evidence linking the two, but my impression had always been that there was no way Al Qaeda and Iran could have any kind of relationship and apparently that’s not the case. I’m not aware of evidence of a current relationship between the parties but so far the evidence for treating this as no big deal is weak.
Yes, and to do that they needed time, assistance, money, and training, among other things. So I don’t think you can sensibly say that a connection between Iran and Al Qaeda was no big deal when Al Qaeda become what it became. Those two things are potentially related.
What do your “suspicions” have to do with well, anything? Obama’s is know to be very precise with his speech. So I would think he wanted Iran to take him at his word.
Again, “not taking any options off the table,” simply cannot by parsed in any coherent way that excludes nuclear weapons. Unless the POTUS himself makes the exception. And he hasn’t.
Remember? Al Qaeda was “working with Saddam” too. Honest. The Government said so. And they never ever lie. Or stretch the truth to get public opinion on their side. Nope. Doesn’t happen.
Jebus! How easily some people forget.
I’ve explained quite clearly why you’re wrong. Of course, you have no rebuttal at all so you have again tried to change the subject with puerile insults and ad hominem nonsense. Do I really need to remind you of just some of your many unretracted errors in this thread?
-You claimed that multiple Al Quaeda operatives, on two separate occasions, were only one person. When you were shown that you were wrong, you changed the subject.
-You claimed that the one single AQ operative you had previously mentioned was given “unspecified training”. When it was pointed out that the training had indeed been specified as explosives, intelligence and security training, you changed the subject.
-You claimed that Iran not stamping passports “from Saudi Arabia” was used as the substantiation for the fact that Iran was “actively helping Al Qaeda.” You were wrong on the fact that it wasn’t all Saudi passports that they didn’t stamp, but AQ members going to and from Afghanistan on the Iranian border. When you were shown that you were wrong, you changed the subject.
-You claimed that it was the passport help that was the prime support for the fact that Iran was aiding Al Quaeda, despite the fact that you had been educated, repeatedly, on the fact that Iran helped train Al Quaeda in explosives, intelligence and security. When you were shown that you were wrong, you changed the subject.
-You implied that Ibn was so wrong about Iran not being a fundemantalist Shia state that you “stopped reading” everything else he had to say. When it was pointed out that not only is it not a fundamentalist Shia state but a Khomenist state, you changed the subject.
-You claimed that groups like Hamas and Hezbollah would never work together. When you were shown you were wrong, you first claimed that you were misrepresented. When it was shown that, in your very own words, you’d said that “a fundamentalist Shia regime is not going to work with a fanatical Sunni organization”, you then claimed that Hamas was not a “fanatical Sunni” organization. When it was pointed out that they are indeed an avowedly Sunni organization and are fanatical, you then tried to claim that what you’d really referring, all along, to organizations which are fanatical only about Sunni Islam. When it was pointed out that Hamas is fanatical about Sunni Islam, you changed the subject.
-Although not a mistake, technically, you engaged in JAQ’ing in order to alleged a Conspiracy Theory whereby “the conclusion that Al Qaeda and Iran were working together”, reached by the 9/11 Commission, was “done merely to support a stupid goal.” As you were just JAQ’ing, you never did explain what exactly that goal was, who was in on the CT, who ordered the CT, and so on. When shown that you had nothing to stand on there, you changed the subject.
-Then you claimed the " entire section" of the Report under discussion was “based on evidence from interrogations that likely were conducted using torture.” When you were proven wrong and shown that it was in fact based on corroboration between documents, interrogations and other testimony, you claimed that you were still right since they had “attempted to corroborate”. When you were proven wrong, yet again, and educated on the fact that “more certainty” requires degrees and interpretation, as is standard in the intelligence community, and is not in fact an absolute, you then actually implied that there’s not only a semantic difference between attempting to increase our level of certainty and acting in order to increase our level of certainty. Amusingly enough, you’d have us believe that the 9/11 Commission Report honestly and truly included a notification whose semantic value was “We tried to make things more certain but we totally failed, and we decided to put that stuff in anyways, ayuck yuck yuck!” Presumably the 9/11 Commission then threw pies at each other and lit up exploding cigars. But you would have us believe that’s what they meant by “attempted”. Not "to make an effort to do, accomplish, solve, or effect"which is the same semantic value as “to act in order to cause”… no, you’d have us believe that it’s the connotation of “tried and failed.”
-Of course, then you changed the subject again, this time first flaming me by saying that I “you look like a two year old” and then adding non-sense about how “[You] know exactly what words [You] used. [You] know exactly what those words mean. [You] know exactly what [You] meant.” Presumably this new shift in topic is designed to go back to your previous error about Hamas not being “fanatical”, or “fanatical in their Sunnism”, or some such. Errors which, when previously pointed out to you, led to the refutations being ignored and the topic being changed, again.
Your argument is a Möbius strip of error.
The statement meant that military force is an option. Nobody has threatened Iran with a nuclear attack.
‘You can’t trust this Iran thing! Remember when a different government said a different thing about someone else based on different evidence?’
I don’t think it’s splitting hairs. “Iran and Al Qaeda had an alliance” is a lot scarier than “20 years ago Iranian operatives and Al Qaeda had an informal agreement”.
I think you miss the point. For example, American flight schools provided flight training to the 9/11 hijackers. But does that fact prove some sort of relationship between Al Qaeda and those flight schools? Of course not. So similarly, Hezbollah may have provided training to Al Qaeda members. But that fact doesn’t really tell us very much about Hezbollah’s relationship with Al Qaeda, does it?
That’s the point. The entire case for an Iran-Al Qaeda alliance is built around innuendo and an invitation to connect the dots, not any hard evidence.
Perhaps a well-cited cite (lovely redundancy, no?) from professor Juan Cole – you know, the ME expert who just “happened” to get virtually everything right about Iraq? – might help:
No, Virginia, Iran isn’t in Bed with Al-Qaeda
From one of the above links: Documents show tense al Qaeda-Iran relationship
– all bolding mine.
There’s the “alliance” for you.
So can we drop this Iran/AQ meme now?
Dude, you don’t even know the difference between “corroborated” and “attempted to corroborate”. You have no standing to parse my statements with a magnifying glass to come up with imagined contradictions.
Had I actually said they had the same attitudes towards the Shia you’d have a point, but I didn’t so you don’t.
You earlier claimed that Hamas shouldn’t be considered “fanatical Sunnis” since they didn’t engage in much of the extreme moralistic behavior associated with religious fanatics.
After Finn pointed out they do, when it comes to women, closing down liquor stores via force, threatening to hurt people if they dress “immodestly” as well as other assorted behavior you’ve once again decided to shift the goal posts and proclaim they can only be considered “fanatical Sunnis” if they also hate the Shia as well.
Anyway, all I can say is that if you don’t think that they are religious fanatics then all I can say is you really know nothing of this region of the World you’ve been expressing such passionate arguments about with few, if any, facts to back up your wild claims.
They call themselves The Islamic Salvation Front(which in Arabic is an acronym for “Zeal”) and have proclaimed that their goal is not only to “liberate” Palestine and slaughter the Jews, but to establish an Islamic state across all of Palestine. It is also an offshoot the Muslim Brotherhood who would take it as an extreme insult if you told them they WEREN’T fanatical Sunnis.
Perhaps they don’t call for the slaughter of Shia, but they certainly discriminate if not outright persecute Christians, which is part of the reason why nearly half the Christian population of the West Bank and virtually the entire Christian population of the Gaza Strip has fled since Israel “withdrew” from those territories.
Moreover, they’re violently anti-Semitic.
In their charter specifically blaming the Jews for both World Wars, the Russian and French Revolution, as well as other assorted atrocities and proclaim that the Jews used their pawns, “such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others in different parts of the world for the purpose of sabotaging societies.”
Of course, they also openly proclaim in their charter.
The above is from a rather controversial Hadith which is generally only quoted by violently anti-Semitic Muslim fanatics.
Now, perhaps you think that Sunnis who persecute Christians, beat women who refuse to wear the Hijab, tell video store owners they’ll have their stores burned down if they rent out porn, claim that Allah commands they kill all Jews(not Israelis or Zionists. Jews), rant about Jews using the Masons, Rotary Clubs and the Lions to control the world, and want to establish an Islamic state ruled by strict Sharia law aren’t “fanatics”, but no one else does.
Sorry, but you were clearly wrong when you foolishly proclaimed that it was “common sense” that Iran would never ally with a “fanatical Sunni organization.”
Moreover, you have yet to explain why it’s “common sense” that the Iranian government which was willing to ally itself with both the Great Satan(the US) and the Little Satan(Israel) wouldn’t ally itself with a group it hated far less and which was far less of a threat.
Please do so.
Thanks
Gee, I wonder which point out of your long statement is most important to whether a Sunni and Shia group would work together. Hmmm. Here are my two statements on the matter:
It’s crystal clear why I think Al Qaeda are fanatics, and it’s crystal clear why I think them being Sunni fanatics precludes them from working with Iran. If you want to try and twist my words so you and FinnAgain can high five over finding some ridiculous “error” then go ahead. If you actually want to have a debate, you need to take my words with the most logical meaning. If you are confused about what that is, then feel free to ask.
Ok, so please explain why you think that Hamas aren’t “Sunni fanatics” since you’ve explicitly claimed they’re not.
Moreover, please explain why you think that the Iranian government which would be willing to ally itself with the US government and the Israelis would not do so with a group they have far less reason to hate and far less reason to fear.
So far you’ve shown an extremely superficial understanding of the Middle East and ignore that in the Middle East, enemies regularly become temporary allies.
Perhaps you would consider it “common sense” that a Zionist terror group headed by a future PM of Israel wouldn’t collaborate with Hitler, but for those of us familiar with the history of the region it’s, well “part of the history of the region.”
Please do so.
Thanks.
Considering the fact that you earlier rather foolishly proclaimed that Velayet-e-faqih is a “fundamentalist” it’s not clear you understand much of the region.
Of course if you want to try and explain why Velayet-e-faqih, which I strongly doubt you’d even heard of before today, is a “fundamentalist” belief then go ahead.
Treis already tried to substitute post-9/11 Iranian actions for pre-9/11 Iranian actions and acted as if he was addressing the same time frame which was being discussed. You’ve not only repeated the exact same error, but also used someone else’s words to do it.
And you change the subject when you’re proven wrong. Again. Back to a previous error of yours. Again. As you are tacitly admitting that you don’t have an actual rebuttal and can only return to old errors of yours, I’ll just requote the refutation of your silly claims. A refutation which you cannot gainsay, which is of course precisely why you’ve again changed the subject.
Iran is going to have a nuclear weapon one day. It’s just that simple.
Might be tomorrow. Might be a century from now. But they will eventually have one.
Maybe, just maybe, it might not be a good idea to continually antagonise them and constantly portray them as a bunch of ignorant fundie savages who’ll use it at the first opportunity. That’s just asking for a self-fulfilling prophecy, IMHO.
Face it, if you were an Iranian leader you’d have to be an idiot not to pursue the goal of having the ultimate deterrent to the belligerence of your enemies.
And if you have a problem with my use of the word “belligerent”, imagine how Iranians must feel when they look at the posts on American message boards and see how often Americans use the term “glass parking lot” to describe their countries possible fate.
Wouldn’t you want to have the same deterrent capability as North Korea if you were in Iran’s shoes?
I’m not saying Iran having the bomb would be a good thing. It wouldn’t be. I’m just saying that it’s a fact of life that it will happen eventually, and the more their country has been bombed, and even invaded, the more likely it is that its foes will see their nightmares come true when it happens.