False Fears About Iran

Search

I'm from the government and I'm here to help
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
33,380
Tokens
Sure RT, keep comparing the ideals and thoughts of 21st century Western values to 7th century barbarism.

ideas and thoughts versus actions is what I'm talking about. Yes Iran might try to play a tough guy game but these barbarians have simply not been the aggressor toward another nation in 300 years like our modern war machine.

and yes, there's a Scott L in every country...doesn't have to be an internet forum patrolman just someone that believes everything they selectively read and that their life and the way they do things is superior to at least 6.5 billion other people that they've taken no time at all to understand.
 

powdered milkman
Joined
Aug 4, 2006
Messages
22,984
Tokens
what slightly amazes me (and for the record i think both sides here are full of bright guys).......is how some people will disregard their own countrys news/info/propaganda but yet embrace another countrys news/info/propaganda.......i being an American citizen am more likely to give my country the benefit of the doubt and side with them before siding with Iran/Korea/whoever

i know "picking" against the US is hip these days i just dont think its wise given the other option
 

powdered milkman
Joined
Aug 4, 2006
Messages
22,984
Tokens
and as for the Irans been an angel for 300 years crap....when you sponsor and aide in terrorism you dont get a free pass....hey i only drove my buddy to the bank and supplied him with the gun he went in and robbed and shot two tellers not me....murder one for both......you dont have to start wars when you get to actively participate then plead the 5th
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
What I eschew is living in ignorant bliss.

Agreed. It's chilling how many of my fellow Americans just sit by while China, the former USSR, North Korea & India flaunt their nuclear weapons. I think they should demand the U.S. military roll in to those countries immediately and start killing people for at least the next ten years or until those countries give up their nukes, whichever comes first.

We don't want to look back in the year 2015 and be asking ourselves why we allowed those countries to hold the rest of the world hostage
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
what slightly amazes me (and for the record i think both sides here are full of bright guys).......is how some people will disregard their own countrys news/info/propaganda but yet embrace another countrys news/info/propaganda.......i being an American citizen am more likely to give my country the benefit of the doubt and side with them before siding with Iran/Korea/whoever

i know "picking" against the US is hip these days i just dont think its wise given the other option

Reasonably stated.

I would submit it's far less about picking "the U.S." or "The other country"....Rather it's suggested that a fair-minded observer stand up and denounce ALL forms of unwarranted violence against innocent men, women & children in any country by any military force - whether that force be a ragtag collection of murderious browns or a sharply dressed, glittering red, white & blue murder squad
 

I'm from the government and I'm here to help
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
33,380
Tokens
and as for the Irans been an angel for 300 years crap....when you sponsor and aide in terrorism you dont get a free pass....hey i only drove my buddy to the bank and supplied him with the gun he went in and robbed and shot two tellers not me....murder one for both......you dont have to start wars when you get to actively participate then plead the 5th

yet our govt and most americans believe WE get a free pass for any of our own terrorism...convenient, isn't it?

We even go a step further and shout out the term "terrorist" to anyone that calls us out on it, especially if they're from a nation (IRAN) we've routinely fucked in the ass for the past 60 years.

Fairly certainly we can all agree that we funded radical Sunnis, although now refer to them as the Taliban, Iraqi insurgents, or al Qaeda, to fight their Russian aggressors and their Shia neighbors (Iran) so clearly we were sponsoring and aiding terrorism to an extent far and beyond the, maybe, $100M/yr in guns and ammo that Iran supplies to Hezbollah. Ironically the Sunni we were funding then turned on us and we now place them at the top of the terrorist heap as the big bad al-Qaeda and then we fund a different set of Muslims to continue to fuck with the Shia Iranians. So, we've gone from at least supporting one batch of fundamentalist Muslims (Sunnis) to basically declaring war on both sects which has conveniently given rise to a supreme Islamophobia highlighted in threads like these or in anything else that Scott L or FZit post
 

New member
Joined
Jan 9, 2009
Messages
18,212
Tokens
Agreed. It's chilling how many of my fellow Americans just sit by while China, the former USSR, North Korea & India flaunt their nuclear weapons. I think they should demand the U.S. military roll in to those countries immediately and start killing people for at least the next ten years or until those countries give up their nukes, whichever comes first.

We don't want to look back in the year 2015 and be asking ourselves why we allowed those countries to hold the rest of the world hostage

Who is advocating any of what you just said, not me. I do say, there is a time and a place to assert force when all else fails. Negotiation is not a term the Middle East excells in. You have to judge them by their actions. I will say this though, who knows what will happen between now and the year 2015, do you.
 

Life's a bitch, then you die!
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
28,910
Tokens
I would love to see your reaction of a battle ship and air craft carrier from Iran were heading to Louisiana to do some trolling along the pan handle and gulf coast... of course respecting the 3-mile territorial sea boundary. If i was Amajizzamoff thats exactly what i would do too. I would muster up all the navy i could and patrol the US boundaries. Imagine on vacation and your swimming with your family and you have to explain to you kids why their is war ships roaming the beaches? People would be fucking out raged!!!!!!! Hilarious, the double standard we enjoy here as Americans

According to barstool that already happened and surprisingly I had no reaction at all.
 

powdered milkman
Joined
Aug 4, 2006
Messages
22,984
Tokens
Reasonably stated.

I would submit it's far less about picking "the U.S." or "The other country"....Rather it's suggested that a fair-minded observer stand up and denounce ALL forms of unwarranted violence against innocent men, women & children in any country by any military force - whether that force be a ragtag collection of murderious browns or a sharply dressed, glittering red, white & blue murder squad
im a pacifist........but it looks like we dont get to pick that one....so ill choose our rhetoric over "theirs"
 

New member
Joined
Oct 20, 2005
Messages
9,282
Tokens
what slightly amazes me (and for the record i think both sides here are full of bright guys).......is how some people will disregard their own countrys news/info/propaganda but yet embrace another countrys news/info/propaganda.......i being an American citizen am more likely to give my country the benefit of the doubt and side with them before siding with Iran/Korea/whoever

i know "picking" against the US is hip these days i just dont think its wise given the other option

Nobody is picking sides and nobody i can see trusts another nations news or opinions over our own (whatever that means). Its called being objective, i know, not practiced much these days so i can understand why it seems foreign to you. You are completely off base with this statement. Unless you are willing to be specific this comment means nothing.
 

Life's a bitch, then you die!
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
28,910
Tokens
Nobody is picking sides and nobody i can see trusts another nations news or opinions over our own (whatever that means). Its called being objective, i know, not practiced much these days so i can understand why it seems foreign to you. You are completely off base with this statement. Unless you are willing to be specific this comment means nothing.

:):)
 

powdered milkman
Joined
Aug 4, 2006
Messages
22,984
Tokens
Nobody is picking sides and nobody i can see trusts another nations news or opinions over our own (whatever that means). Its called being objective, i know, not practiced much these days so i can understand why it seems foreign to you. You are completely off base with this statement. Unless you are willing to be specific this comment means nothing.


foreign to me?..........as usual you know nothing about anyone ...... you think you are mr forum cop with his im smarter than you bullshit( the fact you dont know then from than notwithstanding)......... every 4 years when the chief heaves the water cooler through the window you guys come rolling out with the Ron Paul savior nonsense....then after that wears off and you guys are back under nurse ratchetts care you then make every single post as confrontational and smarmy as possible......get fucked asshole
 

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2006
Messages
24,884
Tokens
[FONT=verdana, sans-serif][FONT=verdana, sans-serif]Iranian Website: "Kill All Jews and Annihilate Israel!" - Lee Moran
The conservative Iranian website Alef, with close ties to Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has published a doctrine detailing why it would be acceptable to kill all Jews and annihilate Israel. The article, written by Khamenei's strategy specialist Alireza Forghani, warned that it would only take nine minutes to wipe out Israel.
It said Iran would be justified in launching a pre-emptive strike against Israel because of the threats against its own nuclear facilities. It added Israel would need U.S. approval and help to carry out such an attack, and that because of a current passive climate in America, the time for Iran to strike was now. Since Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and Haifa contain more than 60% of the Jewish population, it noted that Iranian Shahab 3 ballistic missiles could easily kill everyone. (Daily Mail-UK)

See also The Nature of the Islamic Republic - Elliott Abrams
This call for genocide is acceptable discourse in the Islamic Republic. It is a reminder of the evil nature of the regime, and helps explain why Israelis say it is unacceptable for that regime to possess nuclear weapons.
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
 

New member
Joined
Jan 9, 2009
Messages
18,212
Tokens
^^^^^^^^^^

Exactly - these people do not think like us. It is basic to understand they have a different mind set. They have customs and traditions that are centuries old. They do not accept us, they hate us, and they think about no one but themselves. They would rather clone a camel than manufacture a sports car.
 

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2006
Messages
24,884
Tokens
Fletcher Re Post #80:

I'm not going to keep arguing who is a sponsor of terrorism and who isn't. Neither of us is moving on this issue. In response to your claim that if Iran is a threat it will be dealt with by its neighbors I'll offer this, which points out that the US can wait longer than Israel to decide upon whether to attack, and that only a US attack is likely to cripple the Iranian program. Of course you are likely to say we still shouldn't do it and you are entitled to your opinion:
[FONT=verdana, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, sans-serif]Obama's Dangerous Game with Iran - Daniel Klaidman, Eli Lake and Dan Ephron (Newsweek)[/FONT]


  • [FONT=verdana, sans-serif] In discussions with Israel about Iran's nuclear program, the U.S. administration is asking for "the time and the space for the sanctions to work," says a senior administration official. "Not only have we put in place the most robust economic sanctions ever, but we've just started to move on the energy sector."[/FONT]
  • [FONT=verdana, sans-serif]The head of Israel's Mossad was recently in Washington for meetings on Iran. According to an American official who was involved, Tamir Pardo wanted to take the pulse of the Obama administration and determine what the consequences would be if Israel bombed Iranian nuclear sites over American objections. Pardo raised many questions, according to this source: "What is our posture on Iran? Are we ready to bomb? Would we [do so later]? What does it mean if [Israel] does it anyway?"[/FONT]
  • [FONT=verdana, sans-serif] "The rhetoric from the United States today is different from what it was a year ago," says an Israeli in Netanyahu's inner circle. "Today, when you listen to Obama...you get the feeling the Americans are ready to attack if worse comes to worst."[/FONT]
  • [FONT=verdana, sans-serif] Israeli officials say that the U.S. thinks it can afford to wait until Iran is on the very verge of weaponizing, because U.S. forces have the capacity to carry out multiple bombing sorties and cripple the Iranian program at that point. Israel, however, would not be able to carry out such a sustained attack and would need to hit much sooner to be effective - before Iran could shelter much of its program deep underground.[/FONT]
  • [FONT=verdana, sans-serif]One former Israeli official tells Newsweek he heard this explanation directly from Defense Minister Ehud Barak: "If Israel will miss its last opportunity [to attack], then we will have to lean only on the United States, and if the United States decides not to attack, then we will face an Iran with a bomb." [/FONT]
 

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2006
Messages
24,884
Tokens
ideas and thoughts versus actions is what I'm talking about. Yes Iran might try to play a tough guy game but these barbarians have simply not been the aggressor toward another nation in 300 years like our modern war machine.

and yes, there's a Scott L in every country...doesn't have to be an internet forum patrolman just someone that believes everything they selectively read and that their life and the way they do things is superior to at least 6.5 billion other people that they've taken no time at all to understand.

Your oft-repeated rhetoric about Iran and 300 years is ridiculous when charted side by side with Iran's activities of the last 3 years. These nutty clerics think the Mahdi will save them from any retaliation to their actions...... The US is ruled by the people. In Iran a few million people are ruled by a gang of thugnutters.
 

New member
Joined
Oct 20, 2005
Messages
9,282
Tokens
foreign to me?..........as usual you know nothing about anyone ...... you think you are mr forum cop with his im smarter than you bullshit( the fact you dont know then from than notwithstanding)......... every 4 years when the chief heaves the water cooler through the window you guys come rolling out with the Ron Paul savior nonsense....then after that wears off and you guys are back under nurse ratchetts care you then make every single post as confrontational and smarmy as possible......get fucked asshole

I only know what i see people post about themselves, and honestly i dont know about you. I will gladly admit so. I dont honestly think i have even ever conversed with you. And the reason i dont know about you and the reason i havent conversed with you is because i dont know where you stand on anything. Period. I never really gave it much thought until you posted what im now responding to. I have never really seen you take a stand on anything in this fourm, but im not here everyday, so maybe i missed it?

As far as being smarter then you or being the forum cop... im a terrible speller and not much better with grammar as its been pointed out quite often, so for me to somehow think im above anyone would be irrational on my part with my obvious weaknesses. Im not irrational, im quite logical so maybe your thoughts of me being smarter then you or what not is more something inside your head as opposed to what most of the consensus is here.

I have been touting Ron Paul on here isnce 2007. Bump a fucking thread, or i will if you like. Confrontational? Im being confrontational to you because im asking you for examples of something you posted? If you dont have examples but feel something and you think, that i think im smarter then you but in reality im no different then that average poster here then that onus clearly lies at your feet. Hence the nasty language to me at the end. But hey, at least you took a stand.
 

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2006
Messages
24,884
Tokens
yet our govt and most americans believe WE get a free pass for any of our own terrorism...convenient, isn't it?

Fairly certainly we can all agree that we funded radical Sunnis, although now refer to them as the Taliban, Iraqi insurgents, or al Qaeda, to fight their Russian aggressors and their Shia neighbors (Iran) so clearly we were sponsoring and aiding terrorism.... Ironically the Sunni we were funding then turned on us and we now place them at the top of the terrorist heap as the big bad al-Qaeda and then we fund a different set of Muslims to continue to fuck with the Shia Iranians. So, we've gone from at least supporting one batch of fundamentalist Muslims (Sunnis) to basically declaring war on both sects which has conveniently given rise to a supreme Islamophobia highlighted in threads like these or in anything else that Scott L or FZit post

Wow, talk about simplistic. Just because we pick one side vs another doesn't mean it's for evil intent. Can you forecast the unintended consequences of every one of your choices in life? How many NBA teams cut Jeremy Lin?

We sided with bin laden's fighters vs the Russians to stop Russia from taking over Afghanistan, as we perceived AT THAT TIME it was a threat. Maybe it was a poor choice but AQ turned on us years later because they were angry the Saudis called in Bush The Father for protection instead of them when Saddam got nasty in Kuwait. That doesn't make us terrorists.

Your delusions and misinterpretations regarding the steps your own nation's takes to protect itself far outpace any fear of Islam you falsely attempt to smear upon me.
 

New member
Joined
Oct 20, 2005
Messages
9,282
Tokens
Fletcher Re Post #80:

I'm not going to keep arguing who is a sponsor of terrorism and who isn't. Neither of us is moving on this issue. In response to your claim that if Iran is a threat it will be dealt with by its neighbors I'll offer this, which points out that the US can wait longer than Israel to decide upon whether to attack, and that only a US attack is likely to cripple the Iranian program. Of course you are likely to say we still shouldn't do it and you are entitled to your opinion:
attack, then we will face an Iran with a bomb." [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

Think of it this way, Iran getting a nuke would piss of the Saudi's forcing them to go nuclear as well as someone else brought up. That would be a great deterrent to Iran right there. What is Iran to do, attack the holy land of all of Islam? Not likley. Also, Iran couldnt nuke Israel because there is another group of people in Israel that are the "joan of ark" of all the arab world, the Palestinians. Iran nuking Israel would have serious effects on Palestine as well, that isnt likely to sit well with the arab world as well. Also, an Arab attack would mean a volley of attacks from Israel. Iran would be wiped off the map, Israel would lose a city. Doesnt seem like a fair trade to me if im Iran. Also, do you suppose China and Russia wants this potential sudden influx of radiation in their backyard? Or neighboring Nuclear Pakistan? Or India? Its doubtful those nations over there would ever let that fly. We need to allow them to go online and then sit down that whole region and work out a proliferation agreement. I think in the end Iran wants power and they want to be at the big boy table. patronize them, dont attack them. Iran is no threat to anyone over there with a nuke, and they are surly not a threat to us.
 

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2006
Messages
24,884
Tokens
Think of it this way, Iran getting a nuke would piss of the Saudi's forcing them to go nuclear as well as someone else brought up. That would be a great deterrent to Iran right there. What is Iran to do, attack the holy land of all of Islam? Not likley. Also, Iran couldnt nuke Israel because there is another group of people in Israel that are the "joan of ark" of all the arab world, the Palestinians. Iran nuking Israel would have serious effects on Palestine as well, that isnt likely to sit well with the arab world as well. Also, an Arab attack would mean a volley of attacks from Israel. Iran would be wiped off the map, Israel would lose a city. Doesnt seem like a fair trade to me if im Iran. Also, do you suppose China and Russia wants this potential sudden influx of radiation in their backyard? Or neighboring Nuclear Pakistan? Or India? Its doubtful those nations over there would ever let that fly. We need to allow them to go online and then sit down that whole region and work out a proliferation agreement. I think in the end Iran wants power and they want to be at the big boy table. patronize them, dont attack them. Iran is no threat to anyone over there with a nuke, and they are surly not a threat to us.

Do you realize you just said a nuclear arms race in the ME would be a good thing?
You also demonstrated great naivete toward the culture of martyrdom. Haven't you seen what Palestinian children are taught? Who they name town squares after? The genocided Palestinians would all be shaheeds blown straight to paradise in the great Islamic victory over the pigs and monkeys. With respect Fletcher, you really don't get this region and the irrational thinking of people who value death over life. See Below:

[FONT=verdana, sans-serif]Former Pentagon Analyst: Regime Change in Iran Is the Only Answer - Oren Kessler (Jerusalem Post)[/FONT]

[FONT=verdana, sans-serif] Harold Rhode, who served for decades as an analyst of the Islamic world's culture and politics in the office of the U.S. secretary of defense, knows all of the Middle East's four major languages: Arabic, Persian, Turkish and Hebrew. A university student in Iran in 1978 on the eve of the Islamic Revolution that ousted the Shah the following year, Rhode has obvious affection for Iran's culture and people, but pulls no punches in denouncing the tyrants who now run its government.

"I believe regime change is the only answer," he said in an interview. Any successor regime would be preferable to the current theocracy. "One can't think of anything more extreme." Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, he continued, "hated the people who are now in power. He kept them away from government because he feared they would lead Iran to its destruction."

He said there was no reason to publicize the West's next move by talking about it unnecessarily. "You don't want to show your cards to the Iranians; you want to use your cards to win."
According to Rhode, Iran's current leaders "believe that if they provoke a conflagration, their hidden imam, the mahdi, will return to save them. So Mutually Assured Destruction - MAD - that we used effectively with the Soviets is an incentive and an inducement, not a deterrent."

"There's unfortunately no such thing as a win-win situation in the Middle East. Confidence-building measures are interpreted as weakness. You talk after you've won; if you do so beforehand, it is seen as weakness." "In the languages of the Middle East, the concept for compromise doesn't exist - at least not as we understand it....Instead, one who compromises is said to have brought 'aib, or shame, on himself. That's why the Middle East is always in a state of tension," he explained.
[/FONT]

[FONT=verdana, sans-serif] See also The Sources of Iranian Negotiating Behavior - Harold Rhode (Institute for Contemporary Affairs-Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs)

See also Ex-CIA Spy in Iran: History of Failed Negotiations Shows Iran Won't Deal - Reza Khalili (Christian Science Monitor)
[/FONT]
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,115,105
Messages
13,521,755
Members
100,233
Latest member
Gogh
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com