is a pretty direct insult, which is also prohibited in this Forum.
And THIS (post) is an official Warning to each of you to resist the urge to tromp over the rules in the future.
EVERYONE, (including FinnAgain) needs to back off on all the claims that one’s opponents are being dishonest. A failure to appreciate one’s world perspective is not an act of dishonesty and all such accusations do is ratchet up the level of heat without actually moving the discussion forward.
Did the Taliban goverment in Afghanistan have any idea of what was going to happen the next day?, I thought it was Al Qaeda that planned and executed the attacks.
If there´s any cite saying that the Taliban leadership of Afghanistan took part on the 9/11 attacks I´d like to see it.
After all Taliban =/= Al Qaeda.
If aQ does something, that means that the Taleban would do the same thing.
If the Taleban does something, that means that Iran would do the same thing.
If Iran does something, that means that Syria would do the same thing.
If Syria does something, that means that Saudi Arabia would do the same thing.
If Saudi Arabia does something, that means that Jordan would do the same thing.
If Jordan does something, that means that Turkey would do the same thing.
If Turkey does something, that means that Greece would do the same thing.
Analysis:
Greece is likely to attack the US. we can tell this because al Qaeda attacked the US.
No problem, you’re the mod. Thank you for your even handed and fair analysis.
In any case, I’ve already made my point.
I think most members of the peanut gallery can determine for themselves if supporting and/or directing groups that have a specifically stated intention, history, and fanatical ideology that supports murdering Americans makes one a threat.
Or if actively engaging in and/or supporting the murder of Americans is a threat even if it doesn’t have a chance of toppling or doing severe damage to the nation.
At the point where posters are arguing that groups like Al Quaeda in specific aren’t or weren’t a “real” threat, I think the debate is pretty much over and a fork can be stuck in it.
Sorry, Tom. The pun was too easy to pass up, and as such, was low and unnecessary.
FinnAgain’s inadequacy speaks for itself.
Whether I am right or wrong about 1984, about Argentina, or about any of the specifics of any attacks is a sideshow. I would be happy to discuss them in another context, but I still maintain that they are irrelevant to the actual substance of this issue. I do not have FinnAgain’s appetite nor his leisure time.
How many straw men have you brutally sacrificed in this debate?
The rhetorical question I posed was whether the Iranian leadership would commit suicide themselves by launching an attack on the US. Your “plastic keys” response (Iran using teenagers to clear minefields during the Iran-Iraq war) only proves just how much these leaders wish to hold onto their power-- which actually underscores my point. Attacking the US on its own soil would mean the destruction of Iran’s regime, and likely their own deaths. The “plastic keys” episode shows just how much they don’t want that to happen.
No, you haven’t – not in this, nor in any other MENA-related thread in which you have yet at great length posted. You would be well advised to stay out of all such in the future. You can accomplish nothing but to get your position laughed at, whatever it might be and whatever its merits.
I thank **FinnAgain **for providing his unrelenting stream of text, though fragile and confused, upon which the more eloquent and erudite posters here can attach solid arguments which clearly highlight that the US reaction to Iran is greatly disproportionate to the threat.
My scrolling finger may be numb, but I am all the better for it.
Whatever. Forgive me, but you’re pretty long-winded, so it’s tough to flesh out exactly what you’re ranting about sometimes. So then what you’re telling me is that you’re not nitpicking the media for using “NIE says X” instead of “NIE finds X plausible”, but rather are nitpicking someone on a message board for using “NIE says X” instead of “NIE finds X plausible”. Oh, yes - that’s a much more valid complaint. :rolleyes:
The plastic keys is largely hyperbolic in any case. Obviously any child lost in war is a child too many and many teenagers were killed but the Iranians didnt sacrifice 500,000 children “just to clear mines”. They didnt lose that many killed in total, let alone in children, let alone in children deliberately sacrificed to clear mines. When it came down to it the Iranian republic opted out of its war with Iraq when the human cost approached in eight years about a quarter of what similarly sized European nations incurred in only four years in WW1. We can thus express Iranian fanaticism, bloodlust, and willingness to sacrifice their children as being about 1/8th the rate of European civilisation.
Fortunately for some of us, some opponents do a very competent job of highlighting and emphasizing their own debate related shortcomings. As such all that is necessary is to keep giving them rope until boredom sets in (or they start crying hysterically - whichever comes 1st).
For the rest, I guess the name calling is needed to… well to do something. I’m not sure what.
Its probably proportional, like if you post 100,000 words, and six of them are offensive and insulting, then you got a rate of .0006, but if you post 100 words and one of them is offensive, you get 1%. And that’s a paddling.
No text was modified in the quote. Sevastopol has, indeed, expressed a desire that Israel be eliminated on more than one occasion. In this particular instance, I would judge that based on Sevastopol’s previous actions, FinnAgain drew a conclusion about the statement that was not fully supported by the text, but he did not modify the text.
Can’t any of you folks argue the discussion without making the discussion personal?