No error whatsover, I am staying on point as to what is relevant today. As for citing my claims, you may howl at the moon for all I care – I’ll keep doing it for as long as I think them pertinent.
Fact is, warmongering cries of Iran is in cahoots with AQ are just that; warmongering cries of the same kind that led the US to invade Iraq. Nonetheless, people who should know better continue to spin this line about Iran and al-Qaeda. And why not? It workedwonders the last time it was used.
Go ahead, click on the pretty links. They won’t bite.
I’m not really interested in debating whether they are or are not fanatics. The point is that Al Qaeda thinks that Shias are apostates, and has no qualms in killing them. Which is why it is extremely unlikely that Iran will work with them. Hamas, on the other hand, isn’t as hardline in their attitudes towards Shias. In this way, Iran and Hamas are more like rivals whereas Iran and Al Qaeda are mortal enemies. Iran will assist Hamas when it suits them, or they feel like they are getting a benefit from the relationship.
Iran hasn’t allied with the US or Israel in any meaningful sense of the word ally.
I’m not interested in going down this road either, because I suspect that this line simply is a semantical argument about the word fundamentalist, which I have no desire to get into.
If by no error you mean you’re entirely in error and you’ve posted a non sequitor, which was already pointed out to be irrelevant, and you’ve acted as if it was on point and relevant? Then yes. Otherwise, probably not. The fact that Iran was allied with Al Quaeda and attacked US troops on multiple occasions and that still didn’t meet a threshold at which the US would launch invasion or strikes on Iranian soil supports the fact that Iran would be completely safe in the absence of its continued belligerence and continued refusal to accept the Additional Protocols coupled with acts like bulldozing sites the IAEA requests access to. Pointing out that Iran does not support Al Quaeda today, which by the way is yet another strawman you’ve created as nobody at all in this thread every claimed it does, is irrelevant.
It’s not terribly difficult to understand why it’s a non sequitur to respond to “Even when Iran was allied with Al Quaeda or attacked US military forces, we didn’t treat that as a casus belli” with “Well, I’ll have you know that Iran is no longer allied with Al Quaeda!!!”.
You are in error about the very, very, very basic function of providing a cite in the first place; it’s to clear up factual matters, not show that there are other people online who have your subjective opinions. Nor is it to act as if quoting someone online who shares your opinion is somehow probative. Providing quotes from people who you want to act as your spokespeople, and doing so over and over and over again, is not the function of a cite in a debate. Nobody cares if other people share your subjective opinions and if you can’t support your opinions on your own, nobody cares what you have to say. Even in a debate about opinions, one is expected to actually write their own argument and not find a spokesperson and repeatedly provide posts whose semantic content is “Er… what he said!”
Your argument is now reduced to claiming that the 9/11 Commission Report was “warmongering”, (possibly the same or a similar Conspiracy Theory to the one Treis created but never elaborated upon). You have created yet another strawman about how anybody here has said that Iran is currently allied with Al Quaeda. Reliance on strawmen is one sure sign that an argument is utterly impotent. At this stage your argument is irrelevant, fallacious and fictional and it consists almost entirely of other people’s words that aren’t even germane to any factual analysis. Please work on writing down your own thoughts and creating a cogent argument instead of trying to find spokesmen’s opinions to +1.
[QUOTE=RedFury]
Guess some Americans are in dire need of yet another war – never mind that they’ve already bit quite a bit more than they can chew.
[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes:…
Have you noticed something, Red? Check out the year. It’s 2012 now. Still waiting for that vicious attack from the US on helpless Iran, ehe? Still…waiting…
I don’t think we should attack Iran, FTR. At least not until all diplomatic efforts have been tried, and despite that Iran continues to close in on making nuclear weapons. Ironically, your European comrades, at least those in charge seem to agree that letting Iran just blithely continue towards creating the evil things is a Bad Idea…and, at a guess, will support stronger measures if and when Iran continues to pursue building the things, despite nearly universal condemnation by the international community.
Far from your ridiculous attempt to paint the US as some blood thirsty country bent on another war, I’d say we’ve bent over backwards to try and reach a peaceful settlement…as have the Europeans. Huge economic bribes have been offered to Iran to give it up, as well as stick like disincentives (ironically most heavily from the Europeans) to cease. Thus far to no avail. But…still waiting for that imminent attack, right Red? How long has it been now…been hearing about this attack coming since before Bush left office (YEARS before)…and, still waiting…
Except you earlier claimed that they weren’t fanatics.
Look. It’s okay. You realize now that you made a mistake but you’re just too proud to admit you misspoke.
Just admit you made a mistake. No one will think the less of you.
They collaborated quite a bit, though obviously in secret, during the 80s when they had mutual interests, most notably Saddam Hussein.
I’d recommend reading Trita Parsi’s Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran and the United States. He’s one of America’s leading experts on Iran.
I’m not saying that I think Hamas are fanatical Sunnis. I’m saying that’s a debate that isn’t relevant, or frankly one I care much about. I don’t see the point in participating in it. If you want to consider Hamas fanatical Sunnis, I don’t care. As long as you acknowledge the key difference between them and Al Qaeda.
Would you care pointing to a specific example instead of an entire book?
I don’t remember the part in The Republic about forcing women to wear hijabs, executing homosexuals, or disallowing women in public without a male relative.
How lucky.
First you deny that Iran and Al Quaeda were allied prior to 9/11. Since, as everybody knows, [adjective] Sunnis don’t cooperate with [adjective] Shiites. Then you tell us that cooperation between Hamas and Hezbollah doesn’t count, because while Hamas are avowed Sunnis, theocratic, fanatical, and are fanatical about the imposition of Sunni Islam on others, they’re not ‘fanatical Sunnis’ or some such. As evidence is heaped on you, showing that you’re wrong, all of a sudden it’s no longer an issue that you care about or that’s relevant. That’s some good timing right there.
I completely fail to understand how, whether Al Quaida and Iran had a relationship of any sort prior to 9/11, it has any bearing whatsoever on whether or not to attack Iran now because of its potential to build a nuclear weapon.
That’s because it has nothing to do with that. Of course, some posters have been strawmanning heavily and I can understand why you might think that’s what the argument is. It isn’t. The point was raised in order to refute the claim that Iran somehow needs nukes or will somehow lesson its risks by building a nuke.
Wow, you really don’t know shit about Iran do you?
Please stop pretending you give a shit about them, because if you cared about them you wouldn’t stupidly declare that Iranian women aren’t allowed out in public without a male relative.
They are. They’re also allowed to drive and to vote. They also make up the majority of the universities.
We’re not the Saudis.
Beyond that, you’re obviously not familiar with either The Republic, the Iranian Government, or both, else you’d recognize the way the Ayatollah incorporated the concept of the Philosopher King and the Guardian Class into his design of the government.
I’d recommend reading Vali Nasr’s The Shia Revival, for further explanation.
Finally, again, I don’t mean to be cruel, but your reference to Iranian women being forced to wear Hijabs showed how little you truly understand about the region.
I know lots of westerners think Iranians and Arabs are interchangeable, but we’re not and Iranian women don’t wear Hijabs. They wear Chadors, and no, they’re not the same any more than a bowler hat and a cowboy hat are the same.
Please, if you’re going to make pronouncements about the country I was born in, learn a little about it first before shooting your mouth off and shooting yourself in the foot.
<response to off-topic remark>I don’t find your post cruel but rather pedantic and ironically, spreading false information as well if we are to believe what this WP correspondent writes from inside Tehran just this past July, 21st. Which I have no reason to (disbelief).
Hopefully you’re not as allergic to links as is our mutual friend, Finn.
1-This man, a professional journo based in Tehran, is “ignorant” due to the fact that he uses the word “hijab” and not “chador” as in your wont. Perhaps you should call the WP and express your outrage?
2-Your claim that “a lot of Iranian women” don’t wear the hibjab, is at the very least inaccurate if not right down false in light of what is plain for anyone to read. Of course, if you mean the ones that don’t mind being arrested, I retract. But you didn’t mean that, right? Because that would be idiotic beyond belief and you seem so…um…gifted.
3-In light of the above two points, I think Treis comes off looking as the (much) more knowledgeable of the two on this particular issue.
Imagine that. :eek:
PS-I specifically looked for a cite outside of Wiki (which concurs) due to your known distrust of same. Many, many more available upon request. Obviously, you are free to submit your own counter-cites and continue The Fight Against Ignorance. </response to off-topic remark>
Compared to the way Shamir and Bush’s dad went after each other. Hell no. Bush the younger is still viewed as a friend of Israel. Bush the elder, not so much.
A Chador covers the whole body. The Hijabs used in the Arab world, with real exceptions, are merely headscarves.
I’m not familiar with that journalist, but yes, most Iranians would object to his terminology.
FWIW, I believe Hijab in Arabic means “covering” which could theoretically refer to Chadors in the sense that “hats” could refer to both what Don Draper wears and what David Ortiz wears, but Iranian women don’t refer to the clothing they wear as Hijabs, but as Chadors.
Christine Amanpour, who is Iranian, has talked about this in the past.
Are you going to present yourself as if you don’t understand the difference between a link to substantiate facts and using someone else as your spokesperson to post subjective opinions that you merely +1 while not actually crafting your own argument? Are you really stating that you honestly believe that I have something against links? I am beginning to believe that you’re actually serious and you honestly don’t understand the function of a cite.
Of course, yet again,Treis is wrong on basic facts and ignorant about the topic he’s talking about, and Ibn is right. The hijab is essentiallya shawl, the Chador is a full body cover. You are at least doing better in that at least you found a “journo” who was reporting on a factual issue rather than whether he thought swiss was tastier than cheddar, but the idea that a “journo” being clueless is somehow noteworthy? That’s odd.
Most people in the world are pretty fucking stupid.
