Eye opener

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sun Mar 15, 2015 4:52 pm

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ ... da-in-iran.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sun Mar 15, 2015 5:33 pm

real sponsors of Al Qaeda there, CUDA. From an article written by a neo-con sympathiser:
"To be sure, the organization is no Iranian puppet. And the two have sometimes been antagonistic..."

not exactly what was painted, and the article goes on to show ZERO Iranian sponsorship, but merely a hands-off status in certain regions. The author would LIKE to show that Iran can call on Al Q to fight the US, but shows no proof at all.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sun Mar 15, 2015 5:47 pm

slick wrote:Iran has exactly ZERO involvement in terrorist plots outside their region

moving the goal posts again huh. You went from zero involvement. Which I just proved was wrong. To sponsoring terrorism. What's your next move the Ayatolla committing the acts himself?

everyone notice the demagoguery again. Try to discredit the source. " rules for radicals" classic

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Mar 15, 2015 6:06 pm

So far slick has produced zip zero nada to bolster his case. He must think if you post vapours long enough our thinking will go all foggy like.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Mar 15, 2015 6:39 pm

callmeslick wrote:the quote regarding Iran and al Qaeda is completely unsupported by facts.

Show me anywhere in this thread where I quoted ANYTHING, let alone made the connection you imply I did.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Mar 15, 2015 6:46 pm

Slick standard operating procedure:
make a response to the point that also contains a stipulation that eliminates the parts of the point that he can't overcome with facts.

In this case Iran is cited as a terrorist source in the region, he can't support his contention that Iran is not a factor to be concerned with compared to Saudi Arabia so he now wants to turn the discussion into 'proving Iran has any affiliation with Al Queda'

Lol.

vision · Post by **vision** » Sun Mar 15, 2015 11:50 pm

Spidey wrote:Yea….and the Obama team is kinda lucky the Republicans in Congress are idiots, because they now have great cover for a policy of failure in Iran.

Failure? This is the first administration to talk to Iran since the early 80's. Still, we could do more.

Spidey wrote:If the president wanted any real progress in Iran, they could start with telling the state department to take Iran off of the “state sponsored terrorists” list…Been 6 years…

Agreed. Except Iran actually sponsors terrorism, though you could say the same for the USA too. I would rather Saudi Arabia and other allies get put on the list for the sake of fairness. Or, just forget about some meaningless list.

Will Robinson wrote:If 'popular media' is repeating the characteristics I have attributed to Iranian leadership then they have good reason. Because Iran is well known for being responsible for those deeds.

How convenient that the media is right when you agree but wrong when you don't!

Will Robinson wrote:Just start with that example of Iranian State sponsored terrorism.....sponsored, funded, manned and commanded.

I never once claimed Iran was innocent, but it is truly the weak-minded who believe Iran is the bogey-man portrayed by popular media while ignoring Saudi Arabia and other allies who do even worse deeds.

CUDA wrote:http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ ... da-in-iran.

Interesting, but this only proves "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." I'm guessing you only read the headline and not the article because the article does not support the claim that Iran is a terror hub. Try again.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Mon Mar 16, 2015 5:52 am

Or as someone recently said.
the enemy of my enemy, is still my enemy.

and I never claimed Iran was a terror hub. I was responding to slicks Iran had "zero involvment" comment. Try and keep up.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Mar 16, 2015 5:59 am

CUDA wrote:Or as someone recently said.
the enemy of my enemy, is still my enemy.

that person isn't very well versed in reality, or at least diplomacy and foreign relations of the past few thousand years.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Mon Mar 16, 2015 6:02 am

Doesnt change the fact that my enemy is still my enemy does it.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Mar 16, 2015 6:30 am

in foreign affairs, one doesn't view matters so black and white, CUDA. Speaking of which, this little trip down neo-con lane made me remember what a soup sandwich we had during the neo-con years. Here, we get attacked by an extra-governmental entity(Al Q), yet declare Iran, Iraq and N Korea as the 'axis of evil'. What a piss-poor approach that was to running a foreign policy. Yet, if one goes back to the OP, that is exactly the sort of aggressive stance Admiral Wingnut advocates for. Do you wish to go back to that? If so, why?

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Mar 16, 2015 6:57 am

moreover, who needs to plan for war with this sort of idiot putting his two cents in?:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/03/15 ... ran-video/

heard that yesterday,and couldn't believe he was THAT stupid. But, yes, he was. You see, if some folks can't even grasp simple reality and don't even know what Iran's capital city is, maybe we should keep a bit of distance from meddling any further.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Mar 16, 2015 7:12 am

vision wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:If 'popular media' is repeating the characteristics I have attributed to Iranian leadership then they have good reason. Because Iran is well known for being responsible for those deeds.
How convenient that the media is right when you agree but wrong when you don't!

It isn't 'convenient for me' that the media has reported that water is wet.
Neither my position nor my disposition is affected one way or the other. It is uneventful.
Maybe what you are subconsciously relating is you feel inconvenienced to have to be faced with all that well documented history and current involvement that you have tried and failed to relegate into something equally uneventful.

It is interesting though that you finally concede the scope of Irans involvement in decades long international terrorism at the very heart of the 'middle east' conflict.

What changed your mind? Or was that a slip on your part? I still want to know if you are wilfully and belligerent wrong or just truly uninformed. Did you just surrender realizing the facts were too obvious or did you finally inform yourself and only now have you discovered the weight of Irans involvement in numerous acts of terrorism outside their borders and their deep involvement in perpetuating the source of so much of the regions violence by pouring money and manpower into it like gasoline on a fire?

vision wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:Just start with that example of Iranian State sponsored terrorism.....sponsored, funded, manned and commanded.
I never once claimed Iran was innocent, but it is truly the weak-minded who believe Iran is the bogey-man portrayed by popular media while ignoring Saudi Arabia and other allies who do even worse deeds.

Trying to pull the slick maneuver?
If you look you will see I never suggested Saudi Arabia is innocent. And I'm the one who was schooling you on Saudi Arabias textbooks containing 'kill the infidels' lessons etc.
So I'm not one who has ignored the presence of a terror threat in that kingdom.

I did point out the stark difference between the threat of a Terrorist State that is committed to the destruction of others by mandate of their God/law, that being Iran, and a State that has assisted us in our fight against such players...Saudi Arabia.

The difference between the Islamo-Fascists being in control of all the States weapons and resources and a State that is ruled by people who are considered far too moderate and cooperative with us westerners by those in the Islamo-Fascists movement. Saudi Arabia let us build a military base in their country to fly out of to attack from...Iran wouldn't even let us fly over their territory. Differences.

That is the distinction that lets Saudi Arabia set itself aside from Iran. That is a part of the dynamic you claim to be so aware of...
That is the inconvenient truth you are up against now.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Mon Mar 16, 2015 7:33 am

The only meaningful distinction between Saudi Arabia and Iran is…oil.

(in regards to how we treat them, not the other things like modernity, etc)

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Mar 16, 2015 7:52 am

fair observation, Spidey.

vision · Post by **vision** » Mon Mar 16, 2015 10:59 am

Will Robinson wrote:It is interesting though that you finally concede the scope of Irans involvement in decades long international terrorism at the very heart of the 'middle east' conflict.

Every country is involved. None are innocent. None are terror hubs. They all sponsor some degree of state terrorism. All of them. It's ridiculous to single out Iran for anything and makes you look small-minded and unable to see the larger picture.

Will Robinson wrote:I did point out the stark difference between the threat of a Terrorist State that is committed to the destruction of others by mandate of their God/law, that being Iran,...

How vague and unconvincing. There are so many problems with this statement I don't even know where to begin.

Will Robinson wrote:I...and a State that has assisted us in our fight against such players...Saudi Arabia...Saudi Arabia let us build a military base in their country to fly out of to attack from...Iran wouldn't even let us fly over their territory.

So, the deciding factor of whether or not you are considered evil by the United States is the what degree you allow us to walk over you? Sounds about right.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Mar 16, 2015 1:58 pm

vision wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:It is interesting though that you finally concede the scope of Irans involvement in decades long international terrorism at the very heart of the 'middle east' conflict.
Every country is involved. None are innocent. None are terror hubs. They all sponsor some degree of state terrorism. All of them. It's ridiculous to single out Iran for anything and makes you look small-minded and unable to see the larger picture.

No one did what you are arguing against. I suggested they are a big part of the problem and supported my case with well documented facts. You have tried to declare them a non-factor and now, conceding they are you are trying to suggest I singled them out as the problem...you claim I cited them as 'the hub' of terrorism. I did not.
You are having a hard time arguing against your fabrications no wonder you have to be so dishonest, dealing with the reality would be completely overwhelming to you.

vision wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:I did point out the stark difference between the threat of a Terrorist State that is committed to the destruction of others by mandate of their God/law, that being Iran,...
How vague and unconvincing. There are so many problems with this statement I don't even know where to begin.

Your inadequacy is no excuse. You joined the conversation voluntarily.

Most people would recognize you quoted only one half of a simple two sided comparison. So maybe you are the victim of your own limitations..or...maybe you did that on purpose so your charge of "vague and unconvincing" might not stand out as ridiculous to a casual observer. I doubt it will though, the comparison was plain and straightforward enough for almost anyone.

Are you really that mentally handicapped to not grasp it? Or genuinely that bad at obfuscation?

vision wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:I...and a State that has assisted us in our fight against such players...Saudi Arabia...Saudi Arabia let us build a military base in their country to fly out of to attack from...Iran wouldn't even let us fly over their territory.
So, the deciding factor of whether or not you are considered evil by the United States is the what degree you allow us to walk over you? Sounds about right.

Well there is the other half and although you made a pathetic attempt to recharacterize it so you could concoct an incorrect premise to attribute to me it certainly proves you actually did grasp it.

So the good news is you aren't quite as mentally deficient as you appeared. The bad news, for you, is you have confirmed you are a terrible but unashamed liar on multiple levels!

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Mar 16, 2015 2:28 pm

you can tell Will is coming up intellectually empty when he goes to three paragraphs essentially saying nothng but insults at vision.
Nothing to see here, folks!

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Mar 16, 2015 2:34 pm

callmeslick wrote:you can tell Will is coming up intellectually empty when he goes to three paragraphs essentially saying nothng but insults at vision.
Nothing to see here, folks!

nothng is spelled nothing. If Will is saying nothing then he is doing a far better job at it than you are,

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Mar 16, 2015 3:23 pm

Fixed it for you:

A guy who knows vision is drowning wrote:you can tell Will is coming up against an intellectually empty opponent when that opponents cohort-in-spin pops in with the lame defense of
"Nothing to see here, folks!"

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Mon Mar 16, 2015 4:13 pm

callmeslick wrote:saying nothng but insults

something you've never done. not once huh??

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Mon Mar 16, 2015 5:32 pm

hey look at that, it's another black/white i-know-you-are-but-what-am-i topic. awesome!

I'll get my popcorn.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Mar 17, 2015 12:19 pm

vision wrote:ITT: Right-wing slaves who can't mentally grasp the complexities of Middle East culture and foreign policy so instead simply digest what the popular media tells them.

Here, grasp this:

“Any deal in which the real representatives of Iranian people are not present and human rights are ignored, is basically a deal between President Obama and Khamenei’s agents, and Iranian people will not consider it to be legal,” 21 Iranian political prisoners wrote in an open letter to Obama that was translated from Persian for the Washington Free Beacon."

Maybe vision it is you that has no clue as to what is going on.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Tue Mar 17, 2015 3:21 pm

I thought we weren’t supposed to make deals with terrorists or their sponsors.

Eye opener

Re: Eye opener

Re: Eye opener

Re: Eye opener

Re: Eye opener

Re: Eye opener

Re: Eye opener

Re: Eye opener

Re: Eye opener

Re: Eye opener

Re: Eye opener

Re: Eye opener

Re: Eye opener

Re: Eye opener

Re: Eye opener

Re: Eye opener

Re: Eye opener

Re: Eye opener

Re: Eye opener

Re: Eye opener

Re: Eye opener

Re: Eye opener

Re: Eye opener

Re: Eye opener

Re: Eye opener