“ring wing op-ed”
That should’ve been: “right-wing op-ed”
Obviously, as always, readers can determine if testimony on February 8 2007, delivered to the House of Commons is, in fact, a “right-wing op-ed”.
Further they can puzzle out how such a mistake can be made when the header says “Speech (Address to British House of Commons)”, and the very first line of the text is “My lords, Honorable Members of parliament Ladies and Gentlemen, it is my great pleasure to be at the House of Commons.”.
Members of the peanut gallery can, as always, determine for themselves if that testimony to the House of Commons, from a woman who was in Iran at the time and was recounting her experiences there, would count as one of them thar primary sources.
Depends. What is the woman’s level of expertise? Simply being in Iran is a mite thin.
(Note to Finn: I’ve noticed before than many Dopers use the code “op-ed” to signify something that is largely a matter of opinion, whether or not that is opinion is delivered in a newspaper editorial, a speech in the House of Commons, or in this august company. Such a designation neither enhances nor detracts, unless the citation is offered as authoritative, in which case it implies mild skepticism, and does not necessarily mply that the Doper is intellectually dishonest or a liar.)
I’m glad you’re done with me FinnAgain but I’m not done with you.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
You cited… wikipedia? With a straight face?
[/quote]
More like with a cheeky grin but I have no qualms in linking to Wikipedia when the content is non-controversial. And it is. You’d be hard pressed to find a standard work that does not acknowledge these peace offers. How many do you want?
Liddell Hart’s History of the Second World War ISBN 0 330 23770 5. Page 93
Or if you want another online link try here for discussion of various peace feelers and initiatives in this period.
The BBC even happily relates on its own website how it announced the rejection of the German offer:
Its possible that Nazis are hacking all these works and hiding in the BBC biscuit-barrel I suppose. But seriously this is simple basic history of the period. We could have had peace with Hitler if we chose, the price of peace with him would have been turning a blind eye to his conquest and enslavement of Eastern Europe. We chose not to do so and rightly so. Hitler was a mad dog that needed to be put down.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Wow. When Iran peruses a country that’s already left its national territory, and is asking for peace, you say that Iran still has to win.
[/QUOTE]
I never said that “Iran still has to win” and you surely do like to distort people. I pointed out that Iran continuing the war despite an Iraqi peace offer is not so different from Allied conduct when faced with another aggressive dictator. The Russians didnt offer Hitler peace talks either once the Germans were out of their national territory. Since no one else liked or trusted Saddam why are the Iranians supposed to trust him? What assurance would they have had that he wouldn’t come back?
And you can cut the repeated snide insinuations that I’m a nazi propagandist, before I forget this isnt the pit
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
No. It would be noted that, even during the use of the official Nazi propaganda you’re repeating…
Anyways, we should probably get off this topic before you get a chance to echo any more official Nazi propaganda…
Ah, I see, you echo official Nazi propaganda… .
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Your own cite (which you didn’t even have the courtesy of reading before you cited it) says
That’s the second quote, from your own cite, that you deny. You didn’t actually read your own cite, did you?
I’m sorry, you’ve already made it very clear that you haven’t actually read your own cite.
Again, you are the one who hasn’t read your own cite. And again, you are caught having not read it, and accusing me of “making things up.”.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve read the cite. And you are the world’s most repetitive poster. You could halve your posts if you were more concise. It doesnt make an argument any stronger and just makes you look like a loon.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Let’s see if your cite does or does not say that at the end of 1983 the clerics chose human-wave tactics and the Pasdaran supported it..
[/QUOTE]
Actually the line you quote has the Pasdaran talking the clerics into the wave tactics rather then the reverse. Also be aware that while the attacks that we are discussing begin on February 22nd, that the Iranian offensive did not begin with them, it began a week earlier and is said to have involved human wave attacks.
My suspicion is it took some bloodletting to bring the Pasdaran to the point in the cite where:
Which is the entire point of the extract we have discussed.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
So what does your own cite say? Namely, that once Iraq retook the offensive, the Pasdaran’s only strategy was to charge..
Yet again… truth, or bullshit?.
[/QUOTE]
Bullshit. The cite does not say their only strategy was to charge, you said this. Your quote is an out of context one that refers to the unsuitability of the Pasdaran for the difficult defensive operations that they were required to perform in the latter part of the war from 1987 onwards. They were disposed by temperament to the attack and not much good for anything else but this does not mean all they actually did was charge.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
First, as your own cite makes clear the Iranians attacked through the marshes, into overwhelming firepower first one day, then the next day, then less than a week later. That they did the same exact thing but hit a different point once they got there does not in any way contradict that. Again, from your own damn cite.
[/quote]
You repeat this same paragraph in almost exactly the same words multiple times throughout your post so for clarity I will respond to it here and delete the repetitions.
You really need to stop reading extra things into a text above what is there. In relation to the attack ‘one day later’ the only information you are given is this “One day later the Iranians tried again, striking at the line dividing the III and IV Corps”. You have made an unsubstantiated mental leap that it must be part of the operation the day before. You are wrong. This attack wasnt at the same location, it didn’t involve the same units, it wasn’t even in the same sector of the front. It was an entirely separate operation. The narrative passage is summarising very briefly multiple concurrent operations and you are conflating operations that were fought in different areas into one. When you write things like you earlier did that “they sent wave after wave to attack, via the same vector” you should be aware that in reality the Iranians were attacking along a broad front and that events you appear to be assuming were in the same general area are in reality dispersed along a long front. The attack frontage for some of these attacks was about two hundred kilometers long.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
And no mention of casualties? Driven back with “consdierable losses”, first time, Iran tried it again twice more within less than a month’s time… and then restaged the same exact thing the next year, with the result that the Iranian incursion was “eliminated”?
[/quote]
I stated, if you’d been paying attention, that there is a grand total of one mention of casualties in the extract we’re discussing which is correct. It is the word “considerable” in relation to one particular attack. You have attempted to extrapolate this to every attack including those of the following year which as I will discuss soon was a campaign of a different nature.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
First attack, through the Marsh, Iranians suffer “considerable losses”
[/quote]
Again quoting the one mention of casualties “considerable”
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
The very next day, they attack through the marsh, again
[/quote]
As discussed they attacked in an entirely different sector in a different operation.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Less than a week later, they attack through the marsh, again.
[/quote]
In a different sector.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
So the Iranians attacked, time after time, into dug in defenders who used superior fire power.
[/quote]
Distortion. First attack for instance displays no intention to attack into dug in defenders. The Iranians targeted and penetrated a lightly defended area. Ran into trouble because the local Iraqi general responded quickly and brought up armoured reserves. Iranian force driven back by Iraqi armoured counter attacks.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
February 22nd, Iranians attack via the marshes. They are driven back with “considerable losses”. The next day, they attack via the very same vector. Less than a week later, they attacked along the very same vector. Your own cite tells us that they were advancing against dug in defenders using overwhelming firepower. That you deny that the three series of attacks are three waves of attacks is, quite frankly, par for the course.
[/QUOTE]
The first half of your paragraph is pointless repetition, these events distorted as they are, refer to 1984. You are responding to my point concerning 1985 remember?
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
That you deny that they tossed another group of soldiers, at the same target, that was dug in, that had them beat with overwhelming firepower, and that “eliminated” them the fourth time they they tried the same exact thing…
[/QUOTE]
Ok 1985 lets discuss that. The grand total of the information you were given in the cite was this:
You chose to intrepet this as follows:
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Iran was willing to toss wave after wave of troops, at the same objective, using the same vector of attack, until the Iranian force was “eliminated”..
[/QUOTE]
There is no mention of this in the text and this was not how this operation unfolded. You have simply fabricated this because you have a preconceived notion that this was how the Iranians always behaved.
This campaign in 1985 “Operation Badr” was on a much smaller scale then previous Iranian offensives. The Iranians crossed the water, reached the highway and then dug in. They were not destroyed because they were launching “wave after wave of troops, at the same objective, using the same vector of attack”. They were destroyed when their entrenchments were over-run by Iraqi armoured counter-attacks as indicated in the original cite and as I have already explained to you.
You can read a contemporary account of this engagement here:
No mention of “wave after wave of troops, at the same objective, using the same vector of attack” and you have totally mischaracterised this operation.
You appear to have read every passage in our cite as if it has an extra bit written in invisible ink that says “wave after wave of troops, at the same objective, using the same vector of attack”. You have fetishized this. It doesn’t seem to matter to you what was actually happening on the ground or what the Iranians were attempting to do. The Iranians might be attacking along a long front, to you this is “wave after wave of troops, at the same objective, using the same vector of attack”. It doesnt seem to matter to you that attacks were actually occurring in different areas. They might be infiltrating marshes. They might be fighting a defensive battle from trenches. It doesnt seem to matter to your understanding whether an Iranian formation was destroyed in a counter-attack by Iraqi armour or whether it was destroyed while on the offense. To you its still “wave after wave of troops, at the same objective, using the same vector of attack”.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Despite your obfuscation about what point they hit once they advanced along the same exact vector, your own cite uses only one arrow to represent the attacks in both February and March and the attacks in the next year. Since they used the same vector."..
[/QUOTE]
Heh. You shouldnt be so simple-minded. The ‘attack arrow’ on the rather generic map in the cite is a general direction of advance across the waterway. It isnt literal, which should be obvious to you since you have been given the debarking points of Qurnah in 1985, and the arrow doesnt actually point towards it. As for the same vector angle that you’re trying yet again the cite also indicates Beida not Qurnah was the debarking point of the year before. So we have a different location as well as a year apart in time.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
You then go on to reject historical analysis from Singer as if the only valid cites are primary ones, ignore that he mentions keys but doesn’t give a total for all the keys ordered… you have a direct first hand accounts from a woman who was there in Iran, but it’s no good because it was an “ring wing op-ed”, you ignore that Kuntzel has indeed document his claims, which the cited “right wing blog” only quoted, and that was an excerpt for a longer, fully cited, analysis that Kuntzel has on his own website, free of charge.
[/quote]
If you have these fully cited sources just reveal them already. God its like getting blood out of a stone.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
You then repeat Iranian propaganda (evidently Nazi propaganda got old) in which they claim “Pro-Zionist Jews are claiming that the Iranian government used the children to clear mine fields.” Evidently calling the MKO “Pro-Zionist Jews”. You say it is “odd” to consider that Iran would be bullshitting..
[/quote]
Blah, blah, blah. A quite striking claim is made, it is noteworthy whether the claim is acknowledged or denied, and it would be intellectually dishonest to suppress knowledge of the denial. Its part of the story itself, the denial is either true, or false (in which case the denial itself becomes part of the story), or its some shade of grey in between. If you can establish its propaganda just do so. You might also want to knock off the insinuations I’m a Nazi or an Iranian agent lest I think you are a reborn December. I do like to rip the legs off kittens though, thanks for asking.
The 500,000 plastic keys for children mine detonators.
I note that despite a lot of finger-pointing and self-righteous bluster that you have again dodged the issue of presenting primary evidence. I suppose I could ask a third time but instead I’ve been doing your work for you. I started thinking who would know of these keys, and if anybody it would be the Iranians themselves surely. So I looked through Iran Defence Forum to see what I could find. And buried among a lot of islamic blather that sorely tests my good old athiest heart I find a mention. Someone asks about the 500,000 key story and an Iranian says they were just id for soldiers.
With this glimpse I go a -googling. Sure enough not hard to find. Stripping aside the metaphor the “keys to heaven” seems to be simply and quite literally an army dog-tag.
a. purchasing 500,000 plastic keys for children to be used as mine detonators
b. just buying dogtags for their army
c. without actual evidence we cannot say
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
When, again, your own damn cite, which you could have actually read, says “The Iranians herded hundreds of children (some no more than 12 years old) into the combat zone to detonate concealed mines.”
[/quote]
You dont say!!! Well I never! That’s probably why I mentioned that line here dont ya think:
[QUOTE=Eolbo]
My cite mentions “hundreds” of boys were used in this role
[/quote]
Seems I can read better then you can.
Now I know the claim has been made, depending on your age I’ve probably known it longer then you. But is it true?
[QUOTE=Eolbo]
I’m glad you’re done with me FinnAgain but I’m not done with you.
[/quote]
Maybe you should have just let it alone.
I’ve already issued Warnings in this thread for personal insults, and here you feel the need to make two more:
So, now I am Warning you that personal insults are not permitted in GD.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
You mean, like, for instance, “liar”?
[/QUOTE]
“Liar” was given a pass in this Forum* long before I became a moderator and I have allowed posters to call me “liar” withourt comment (aside from demonstrating the error of their claims). So what are you going on about?
In common parlance, “liar” (personal description) tends to be used to mean “you have told a lie” (attacking the argument) rather than “you are in the habit of lying.” There were some rudimentary boundaries that were established when “liar” was first accepted as a not personal insult that had become a bit blurred by the time I became Mod.
If you wish to outlaw “liar” on the grounds that it is an insult, start a poll of other GD denizens and we’ll consider it.
[ /Modding ]
[QUOTE=elucidator]
No shit? Well, OK, didn’t know that, always assumed “liar” was a direct insult. You say it isn’t, then it isn’t.
[/QUOTE]
I think that a cylinder-like glass tube with liquid in the bottom is calling you. So, you should prob’ly let this rest and give Ol’ Tom a break. Modding is a pretty much thankless job that eats up your free time with the antics of nitwits, idiots, miscreants, malcontents, and egregious grousers.
Have a heart.
[suckup] tomndebb,
You’re a good and patient mod.
[/suckup]
[QUOTE=PatriotX]
Modding is a pretty much thankless job that eats up your free time with the antics of nitwits, idiots, miscreants, malcontents, and egregious grousers.
Hey, just a second there, Pat! I sincerely believed that “liar” is a direct personal insult, as written in the Book of Board. And maybe I’m the only one who didn’t know that it isn’t. Seems to me that if would have been bandied about with much more regularity, but I been advised, I was wrong. I have no reason to believe that Tom isn’t giving me the straight, ah, poop.
That post wasn’t snark, just a shrug. So you’re riding gallantly to defend someone who isn’t being attacked, you skewer the dragon and he gives you a pained expression and says “Hey, dude? I mean, dude? What the fuck?”
I took your advice and checked the thermometer. Its fucking cold as shit. Which I knew. But thanks, I guess.
(The boy’s pretty sensible, for a Republican, but damned if he don’t have some funny suggestions…)
For what it’s worth, I do remember that we started allowing the use of “liar” in GD some time ago. But you’re right, it doesn’t seem to be used much. I think it came down to recognizing that if we allow people to say “that is a lie”, then we might as well allow them to say “you are lying” or “you are a liar”. Slippery slope and all that…
Well, since we are all bearing our breasts here about the whole ‘liar’ thingy, I for one would actually side with 'luci on this…I think calling someone a liar is pretty much an insult. Might be my Hispanic roots, but calling someone a liar is about one step from your hand dropping to the knife in your pocket or popping a cap in someone.
I understand Tom’s assertion that this was a rule (I recall what John Mace is talking about when this was discussed and decided), but if we were voting on it I would vote against calling someone a liar in GD. Save it for the Pit.
That said, I can see why Finn is so frustrated…to me it was like a bunch of puppies trying to drag down a wolf, with little in the way of allies on his side.
[QUOTE=xtisme]
That said, I can see why Finn is so frustrated…to me it was like a bunch of puppies trying to drag down a wolf, with little in the way of allies on his side.
-XT
[/QUOTE]
Well sure. Being dodgy, shrill, and calling everyone arguing with you a liar will kind of do that. Being lone does not make one a wolf.
If you guys want to invest in seven more pages of quibbling and misunderstanding, you’ll need to start a new thread. This one seems talked out and It’s getting hard to search for the citations for stuf that has not been said in it.
Closed.
[ /Modding ]
(And I am open to the suggestion of making “liar” a direct insult, but I want a sense of the mob before I reverse that evolved state by fiat (or volvo).)