DescentBB

Take a couple of minutes to watch vid of Admiral (Ret) James Lyons explain who and why we are where we are with the Iranian govt:

http://allenwestrepublic.com/2015/03/11 ... 3-minutes/

take a bit of time and see how many wars Admiral Lyons has advocated for in the past 25 or 30 years. He is a dangerous, warmongering nut, who has, at this time, completely sold out to the neocon nut fringe.

always the denigrator when someone doesn't toe the party line.

woodchip wrote:always the denigrator when someone doesn't toe the party line.

toe the line? This assclown has advocated for war with Iran on 5 instances, suggesting nukes once, as I recall. He has called for over 22 military attacks or outright wars since 1982. Thank goodness he was retired from active service. Nothing about party lines, the man is flat out dangerous. Read up on him. That neocon BS cost us nearly 2.5 Trillion and thousands of lives in mistakes to date, what credibility do they have at this point?

well slick, if its just money and blood...if we had done it his way the first time there most likely wouldn't have needed to be a 2nd thru 5th...probably not be a Hamas or Hezbollah...or a decades long stalemate between the Palestinians and Israel managed into bloody perpetuity by the likes of proxy Arafat and his replacements, etc. etc. Take back all the terrorist attacks caused by the religious nutmegs in Iran in numerous countries...
No war between Iraq and Iran....probably no Gulf War I or II....


So please fill out the other side of that balance sheet to subtract the lives and millions spent because we didn't do it his way to reconcile your rhetoric with reality please...

Will Robinson wrote:...if we had done it his way the first time there most likely wouldn't have needed to be a 2nd thru 5th...

Stupid.

Why don't we just preemptively eliminate everyone who might cause a problem in the next several decades, right now? I would save us a lot of trouble later if we take over the world today! Let's hear it for constant war! Hurray!

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:...if we had done it his way the first time there most likely wouldn't have needed to be a 2nd thru 5th...

Stupid.

Why don't we just preemptively eliminate everyone who might cause a problem in the next several decades, right now? I would save us a lot of trouble later if we take over the world today! Let's hear it for constant war! Hurray!

Hmmm I didn't realize they were just people who might cause trouble.

I thought of them as a radical fundamentalists who usurped a revolution and created a new age of terrorism the world had never seen. Pioneering the global terrorism enterprise and building the foundation for numerous hot zones we have today.

But I guess you can dumb it down like you did to make him 'just someone' and reduce your ability to use reason and logic until the only possible outcome for making sure he/they didn't take over would be to accept the premise it would create "constant war". Sure, you can adopt that ridiculous view if you want to.

Will Robinson wrote:I thought of them as a radical fundamentalists who usurped a revolution and created a new age of terrorism the world had never seen. Pioneering the global terrorism enterprise and building the foundation for numerous hot zones we have today.

I think you are confusing Iran with Saudi Arabia. Again. Can we bomb them too?

Why do you cling to this ridiculous denial of the nature of the Islamofascists running Iran today and their immense role in terrorism that has been going on for decades? It has shaped the general nature of the fundamentalist terrorism in the region, in the world in fact, going on from their beginning.

Do you simply do it because that rightwing rascal 'Will Robinson' has pointed at them so you are compelled to pretend the history and impact they are responsible for doesn't exist? No matter how foolish you have to be to adopt that position 'at least you opposed some 'right winger' on the internet ?!? Lol!

Or are you really that uninformed so as to genuinely not know the facts? It would require epic ignorance to be that uninformed! But you are and have stubbornly resisted educating yourself on the issue since I first told you of it? Because you don't dare discover you are wrong?

What is the root of your remarkable failure?

Will Robinson wrote:Why do you cling to this ridiculous denial of the nature of the Islamofascists running Iran today and their immense role in terrorism that has been going on for decades?

Why do you cling to this Idea that Iran is some wacko hub of terrorism? Please show how they are worse than our "ally" Saudi Arabia, who gave us Osama Bin Laden, 9/11, Al-Qaeda, and are currently funding the ISIS -- whom Iran is fighting against.

Will Robinson wrote:It has shaped the general nature of the fundamentalist terrorism in the region, in the world in fact, going on from their beginning.

Again, you are ignorantly confusing Iran with Saudi Arabia. Too much Conservative media for you I guess.

Will Robinson wrote:Do you simply do it because that rightwing rascal 'Will Robinson' has pointed at them so you are compelled to pretend the history and impact they are responsible for doesn't exist?

Good god, right-wing rascal? Hardly. You're a run-of-the-mill idiot. Again, please show me how Iran is a bigger influence on terrorism than our Mid East allies? Hint: It's a trick question. You can't. But please, by all means, bang the drum that the media puts in front of you.

Will Robinson wrote:No matter how foolish you have to be to adopt that position 'at least you opposed some 'right winger' on the internet ?!? Lol!

Just pointing out the facts, and how you don't know your history. Keep eating what the media shove down your throat, oh' enlightened one.

Will Robinson wrote:Or are you really that uninformed so as to genuinely not know the facts? It would require epic ignorance to be that uninformed! But you are and have stubbornly resisted educating yourself on the issue since I first told you of it? Because you don't dare discover you are wrong?

It is you who are uninformed, or rather, misinformed by the media you suck up every day.

Will Robinson wrote:What is the root of your remarkable failure?

Seriously, the amount of bull★■◆● you type on the forum is legendary. You are the perfect politician. Walls of text and no content.


Islamic terrorism is a worldwide cultural phenomenon that did not originate in Iran or any one country, but rather infected all of the Middle East. This concept is hard for simple minds, so the media has handed you some "bad guys" to make it easier to channel your manufactured outrage. Keep eating it up and whatever you do, don't think!

Vision you are so full of ★■◆● with your poor Iran, it's really Saudi Arabia's fault mantra. Ever hear of the Iranian Quds forces? No?:

"The Qods (Jerusalem) Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is responsible for extra-territorial operations, including terrorist operations."

"The IRGC-QF is the Government of Iran’s primary foreign action arm for executing its policy of supporting terrorist organizations and extremist groups around the world. The IRGC-QF provides training, logistical assistance and material and financial support to militants and terrorist operatives, including the Taliban, Lebanese Hizballah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/wo ... n/qods.htm

I suggest you take your pink glasses off and get a dose of reality.

Will Robinson wrote:

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:...if we had done it his way the first time there most likely wouldn't have needed to be a 2nd thru 5th...

Stupid.

Why don't we just preemptively eliminate everyone who might cause a problem in the next several decades, right now? I would save us a lot of trouble later if we take over the world today! Let's hear it for constant war! Hurray!

Hmmm I didn't realize they were just people who might cause trouble.

I thought of them as a radical fundamentalists who usurped a revolution and created a new age of terrorism the world had never seen. Pioneering the global terrorism enterprise and building the foundation for numerous hot zones we have today.

But I guess you can dumb it down like you did to make him 'just someone' and reduce your ability to use reason and logic until the only possible outcome for making sure he/they didn't take over would be to accept the premise it would create "constant war". Sure, you can adopt that ridiculous view if you want to.

really, are you THAT completely unaware of the dynamics of the middle east? Or, of the role of the monied Sunni nations relative to terrorism? How much utter failure, lost lives and higher taxes will you enjoy before you realize that the neoconservative ideal of pre-emptive war is bogus? It is a failure, can never be made to work unless we wish to subjugate the entire planet(at what ongoing cost) and makes the US look like a rogue state, which, eventually will isolate us completely from the rest of the planet.

oh, and the above answers woody's idiocy about focus on the evil Iran, too. Geezus, the nation realized Bush and Cheney were dangerously wrong, and Will and Woody still think that approach can work.

The only idiot is one who can't comprehend what he reads. I believe the point will and I made was if Jimmy "The Rabbit" Carter would have not failed to back the Shah, If he would of viewed the taking of our embassy as a act of war, we would not be dealing with Iran today and having to listen to the likes of you and vision making vaporous statements about how it is OK that Iran gets the bomb. In the words of another inept Democrat, "What difference does it make".

nice revisionist history. Short of 'backing the Shah' via a military invasion in the MIddle East, which we've all seen works out oh-so-well, and costs a crapload of money, nothing would have changed. You might wish to revisit us putting the Shah and his extended family back in power to begin with when the people of Iran wanted him out the first time.

Just what did I revise?

the whole 'since we didn't back the Shah' narrative. Plus, as vision has tried to patiently point out to you, Iran has exactly ZERO involvement in terrorist plots outside their region. Not so Saudi Arabia, UAE, Yemen and the other Sunni states on the Arabian peninsula who have both exported the radical ideology and FINANCED it. Remember, if you will, that Clinton's CIA had Bin Laden dead to rights at a meeting in 1998, but they were restrained from pulling the trigger. Why? Because they would have killed a Saudi prince and some other guys from Kuwait and Egypt and were afraid of blowback from our 'allies'.

The claim that Iran has zero responsibility for terrorism outside their country is probably the singular most idiotic thing ever written on this forum!
I urge anyone who has any doubt to simply invest 5 minutes searching for material that proves that claim as false. They will be rewarded with reams of recent history chronicling the international religious fundamentalist enterprise of terrorism the the 'supreme leaders' of Iran have built.

Once anyone who doesn't know it now does that quick check they will join the rest of the world in knowing Iran is the 'A' team that ISIS aspires to be the equal, competing brand, to.

Saudi Arabia is the home of bin Ladin, yes.
But Saudi Arabia as a 'State' banished him for his radical Islamic plans! So other than a birthplace Saudi Arabia didn't "give us bin Ladin".

The Royals there are stuck between their own desire to be stereo typical rich-oil-sheikhs and the religious nutbag leadership (wahabi/Sunni brand) in the country that could stir up trouble for their comfortable lifestyle. They often have turned their attention away from the radicals to keep from starting an uprising but they have not openly engaged in State sponsored terrorism the way Iran has.

That is the difference between the nutbags being in control versus being a faction within that is at odds with the leadership of the state.
And contrary to the way slick and vision are trying spin this conversation, I'm not trying to suggest Saudi Arabia, or any other player, has no part in the problem I'm stating the obvious: Iran is a major player in the Islamofacist movement that is the root of the terrorism we have seen.

Woody's post touched on some of the well known areas Iran has been the source of terrorism.
Slick and vision need to show us the history books are wrong if they want us to stop believing in reality. So far they have offered attitude.

Will Robinson wrote:The claim that Iran has zero responsibility for terrorism outside their country is probably the singular most idiotic thing ever written on this forum!

it's lucky, then that NO ONE SAID THAT. I made a comment regarding 'outside their region or sphere of influence' on a couple occaisions. And, I'll stick to it. There is NO proof that Iran has sponsored any of the major groups or even any minor ones that targetted the West, or any place outside of the Middle East. NONE.

Saudi Arabia is the home of bin Ladin, yes.
But Saudi Arabia as a 'State' banished him for his radical Islamic plans! So other than a birthplace Saudi Arabia didn't "give us bin Ladin".

utter nonsense. Several members of the royal family continued to give him money, well into at least 2005.

First off, you are wrong about the reach of Iran, they have had a hand in attacks outside the region. But instead of making you continue to move the goal posts I'll keep it relevant to this conversation you are trying to disrupt:
Since when would not attacking targets "outside the sphere of their influence" remove them from scrutiny? How would that make them a non-player in a discussion about Syria, Lebanon, Palestinian territory, Iraq and Israel? Those places are smack in the middle of their 'sphere of terrorism'!

Second, how much money did this Royal Saudi family member give bin Ladin? Was it to keep him from stirring the pot at home? You need to qualify your assertion with some details instead of making a vague reference and then drawing lots of specific indictments from that murky pool...

Imagine if Pat Robertson was elected president and he interpreted the Bible to say he had the power to kill atheists, jews, muslims, Buddhists, etc.
Imagine his followers were out in the streets rounding up and killing dissenters. He would be the equivalent of Irans current leadership.
At that point, for the work he did outside the country to support 'fellow christian' groups...or those he established in other countries and directed...you would have no problem identifying the U.S. leadership as a terrorist threat and you would have no trouble attributing the deaths caused to him.

Hell, right now you have no trouble attributing all sorts of death and destruction to the US for our 'meddling in the region'. You wouldn't demand the fundamentalist nutbags in Iran see it otherwise because there are people like you and vision here. You wouldn't demand the US be exempt from the tally of destruction because of people here in the US that contributed to the muslim brotherhood or any other number of islamist causes...

You are doing that dance again, trying to run between the raindrops. And you are all wet.

Of course he's wrong, but thats nothing new. Facts are a nasty thing.

Al Qaeda and Iran formed an alliance during the 1990s in which Hezbollah trained al Qaeda operatives. After the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, Iran evacuated hundreds of al Qaeda personnel from Afghanistan, allowing the formation of an al Qaeda "management council" on Iranian soil

interestingly I seem to remember a certain local attack that was conducted by Al Qaeda

source for that claim, please, CUDA? I notice you posted it, unattributed.

I notice you post most of your comments “unattributed”.

It’s a quote…you can look it up.

no, it's from Wikipedia entry, as best as I can tell. No one EVER proved that, although neo-cons used to suggest it a lot. Then again, neo-cons told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, etc,etc,etc.

Slicks post are most always unattributed yet he has the gall to ask others to do so.

you apparently cannot read, as the VAST majority of my quotes are from cited references. Feel free to find divergences to back up your little
guesses. Anyway, to return to the 'eye opener', can any of you tell me how following Admiral Loony-tune's suggestions would have made our lives better, and feel free to show examples of when such policies have worked for the US.

Libya stopped seeking the bomb after we invaded Iraq for a quick reply

woodchip wrote:Libya stopped seeking the bomb after we invaded Iraq for a quick reply

sure, they did.......seeking markets for their oil had nothing to do with that, huh?

I hear slick cut a deal with Richard Branson to use Virgin Galactic to move some goalposts to the moon.

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.

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.

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…

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.

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.
Tell me vision, do you have anything other than your imagination to refute the history books that document Iran's sending thousands of Iranian National Guard troops, financial backing, Ayatollah Fazlollah Mahallati along with other Iranian clerics from the ranks of the Iranian National Guard to oversee their efforts to make Hezbollah what it is today? That was in the early 1980's and I believe an Iranian General was killed in Syria in an airstrike by Israel about a month back. Seems like they are still doing what they have been for decades.

Just start with that example of Iranian State sponsored terrorism.....sponsored, funded, manned and commanded.
Give me some reason to believe that never happened or try to spin it into something benign and irrelevant to discredit the assertion I made that Iran is balls deep into exporting their terrorism enterprise. Go ahead, show us what you are made of.

and Hezbollah is a threat to us, how? As I said myself, Iran IS a player in the region, especially among predominantly Shia groups. They are helping
lead the fight alongside Iraqis to defeat ISIS, in an exactly similar role. I sure as hell don't want my tax monies, nor family members, put at risk to attack Iran for being involved with their region, when some of my own countrymen welcome my nation meddling in the entire planet. The hypocrisy of that situation reeks. If Israel feels uncomfortable, they can deal with that on their own. Perhaps things might progress were that the case, or at least Israel might start acting in a different fashion.

slick if you keep moving those goalposts eventually you will create a field short enough that even though you are just falling on your face you can appear to score a touchdown. For anyone who likes that kind of game you can be a star!

I haven't moved one thing. I stated at the outset that Iran was only a player in it's region. YOU misread that as me claiming nothing outside the national boundries. I didn't. Then, you all managed to CHARGE Iran with some role in Al Qaeda, using a quote long proven false, that no one seems to wish to attribute to a real human being or source of anything past Wikipedia. And I'M moving the goalposts? How, pray tell, and I'd suggest you spend far more time getting your facts straight and coming in with an explanation why you'd ever accept the proposed foreign policy that the OP suggests.

callmeslick wrote:I haven't moved one thing. I stated at the outset that Iran was only a player in it's region. YOU misread that as me claiming nothing outside the national boundries. I didn't. Then, you all managed to CHARGE Iran with some role in Al Qaeda, using a quote long proven false, that no one seems to wish to attribute to a real human being or source of anything past Wikipedia. And I'M moving the goalposts? How, pray tell, and I'd suggest you spend far more time getting your facts straight and coming in with an explanation why you'd ever accept the proposed foreign policy that the OP suggests.

First off Iran is not to be mitigated down to "only a player". Iran is "THE" player.
Instead of using you vaporous comment, "using a quote long proven false". Why do you not provide links backing up your assertion? Can't? Then don't accuse Will of what you are the one doing.

How about tell me what 'quote' I used?!
I have cited very well documented history.

Please put up or shut up.

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

Awww slickster, you don't have any links refuting Wills assertions so why don't you just stop shooting yourself in the foot.

I was asked to find the attribution. The statement comes from Wikilinks with no source. It is unproven. How can I disprove something never publicly supported by anything?