War! The fear mongering is here, again!

@H2O MAN,

I assume by AFG you mean Afghanistan. In which case you're wrong, the Sunni Taliban are behind most of the attacks, not the Shia Iranians. If you had bothered check out the facts you would be aware that the Taliban murdered Iranian diplomats. I fact prior to 9/11 Iran was far more concerned about the Taliban regime than America. In fact the Americans talked about doing business with them.

Quote:

December 4, 1997: Representatives of the Taliban are invited guests to the Texas headquarters of Unocal to negotiate their support for the pipeline. (Bill Clinton is President & George W. Bush is Governor of Texas at the time.) The Taliban appear to agree to a $2 billion pipeline deal, but will do the deal only if the US officially recognizes the Taliban regime. The Taliban meet with US officials, and the Telegraph reports that "the US government, which in the past has branded the Taliban's policies against women and children 'despicable,' appears anxious to please the fundamentalists to clinch the lucrative pipeline contract." A BBC regional correspondent says "the proposal to build a pipeline across Afghanistan is part of an international scramble to profit from developing the rich energy resources of the Caspian Sea."

http://www.heartson.com/Politics/background.html#Why were the Taliban invited guests to Texas in 1997?

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

I assume by AFG you mean Afghanistan. In which case you're wrong

Yes and no... you are wrong, it is the Iranians that are funding and supplying most of the opposition.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

Why let facts get in the way of dogma.

0 Replies

Spurt there, Waterboy, is almost completely divorced from reality. He is completely a creature of partisan rhetoric--in his case, reactionary lunatic fringe. My advice is not to waste your time.

Iran is the home of Shi'ism. The Taliban are Sunni, and are supported from the opposite side of the country from Iran, operating out of Waziristan, and supported from Pakistan, where the Shi'ites are persecuted

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Your reality is obviously drug induced, because it's not based on a shred of evidence.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

You talk about this as if it is hard. The A-bomb is an insanely simple device. The reason we devise our nuclear weapon to require everything "to work correctly in nanoseconds" is to prevent accidental detonation. If you aren't concerned about that, you can take two masses of enriched Uranium, each slightly below critical mass and slam them into each other. That's all it takes. Any decent machine shop can build the mechanism. Several scientists have killed themselves by causing small amounts of Uranium to go critical by accident thereby dosing themselves with high levels of radiation. It's not hard at all.

The reality is that any reasonably technical savy country that wants a nuc can build one. China build nucs fifty years ago. Pakistan and India have nucs. Japan made the decision not to build one but they easily could. South Africa developed the technology and then canceled the program. If Iran gets really, really serious about building a nuc, they will do it on the sly without telling the world about it. If you are so worried about radical Islamic countries having nucs then how do you feel about Pakistan?

I'm ok with sanctions and non-military means for curtailing Iran's growing extremism, but there is no way that an unprovoked military attack works towards either decreasing their chances of going nuclear or making the world safer for US interests.

2 Replies

@engineer,

Here, let's repeat this:

engineer wrote:

I'm ok with sanctions and non-military means for curtailing Iran's growing extremism, but there is no way that an unprovoked military attack works towards either decreasing their chances of going nuclear or making the world safer for US interests.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Agreed.

0 Replies

@engineer,

Lord you know nothing if you think that setting off a nuke is easy and it can go off by accident!!!!!!!

All the shapes charges around the core need to go off in a matter of nanoseconds in the correct order for Platinum bombs to work.

You can used a far simpler gun type trigger in uranium type bombs but still the warhead need to be intact for the weapon to go off.

If the materials in either type of bombs are not brought together to form a critical mass within a very narrow time frame and under the correct conditions the bomb will just fizzle.

All in all nuclear weapons are the safety type of weapon ever build by mankind as far as accidental functioning is concern.

0 Replies

Pakistan Official Says US Military Will Be Allowed to Return, Not Drones...
this reminds me of real events that are showcased in the movie Blackhawk Down.

Obama should decline the offer.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

What guys are you talking about? I don’t make reference to “the Islamic World” unless I’m quoting simpleton neo-cons and Republicans.

You

Where did I ever say, “Until the Islamic World is united in condemning Israeli apartheid,” or “until neo-cons want to conquer the Islamic World,” or “until we have to monitor our words and deeds unless the Islamic World should grow it's disdain and hatred for us,” or even “until the Religious Right in the US wants to see the Islamic World and it's Korans burn in he'll fire”?

Quote:

Quote:
Damn, you should consider writing a novel. Sublimate your mental issues into something constructive.

Like I said, flights of right-wing, paranoid fancy. QED

I see. My assertions about the effect of a nuclear strike on Tel Aviv or Jeruselem is fanciful fiction. But then you're obviously correct. What's the big deal if Isreal is nuked? After all, a whole bunch of Jews will be killed and if some Palestinians are killed as well, at least their radiation deformed babies will get to grow up and hobble on flippers without suffering Zionist oppression.

Quote:
Well yeah, Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians is hideous and something to bemoan.

And much worse that some middling nuclear strike on an Israeli city.

A nuclear strike on an Israeli city would be a terrible, terrible consequence of Zionist intransigence, Finn, terrible. The best course of action would be for the people of Israel to dismantle their necessarily oppressive and discriminatory ethnocentric regime and replace it with one that enfranchises all of the peoples in Israel/Palestine in a more egalitarian and pluralistic form of government. With the disappearance of the Zionist regime, much, if not all, of the animosity towards Israel from its neighbors would subside.

Quote:

Quote:
Actually, I’m connecting Iran’s animosity towards Israel with Iran’s alleged quest for nuclear weapons. I’ve further provided the details of that animosity. Try reading the posts that you respond to before slapping together your knee jerk responses.

Oh, so that's what you're doing! What a huge difference!

It’s a detailed and nuanced explanation, something that goes right over the heads of simpleton neo-cons.

Quote:

"Alleged" quest for nuclear weapons? I guess you think the UAEA is a US or Israeli tool. That you adhere to this ridiculous argument is quite telling. Most of your confreres have moved to the "Well, the US and Israel is forcing them to get nukes" spiel. At least you remain true to the dogma. Bravo!

My confreres say, more specifically, that if Iran were to have nuclear weapons ambitions, then Israel/US would have forced it upon them.
The UAEA became an Israel/US tool after Mohamed ElBaradei resigned in 2009 and was replaced by the US tool, Yukiya Amano, who went on to present the dubious and suspect 2011 IAEA Report on Iran.

Quote:

I've read your posts. They are nonsense. If I read them again I may lose brain cells.

You certainly are entitled to your opinions, but like I’ve pointed out to others here about theirs, yours are irrelevant.

It behooves you to stop reading my posts to preserve the few brain cells you have.

Quote:

Quote:
However debatable their sincerity is, this does not negate the fact that the Iran’s theocratic regime ties the Palestinian issue to their animosity towards Israel’s Zionist regime. Their support of Hamas speaks to their tying of their animosity towards Israel’s regime with the Palestinian issue. Their support of Hezbollah speaks to their tying of their animosity towards Israel’s regime with the Palestinian issue as well because Hezbollah also ties the Palestinian issue with their animosity towards that regime, Set’s non-sequitur leap of logic conclusion in his comparison of Iran’s funding dollars between Hamas and Hezbollah notwithstanding.

So what you're saying is that even if they are lying, the mullahs are lying and you're going to believe their lies.

No, I’m saying that what they say is debatable, but their actions speak to their reasons for their animosity towards the Zionist regime.

Quote:

Their support of Hamas and Hezbollah speaks to their desire for regional hegemony and the understanding that Isreal is a potent barrier to that goal.

Ok, but that does not negate the fact that Iran ties-- to a certain, debatable extent--its animosity towards Israel’s Zionist regime with the Palestinian issue.

Quote:

America’s sincerity in their motives and nobility in their purpose like, for example, when the Cheney administration said that one of its reasons for invading Iraq was for the benefit of the Iraqi people is equally debatable.

See? There you go.

There I go? You aren’t being consistent. You first accused me of buying the Iranian mullah’s **** with my credibility, and not buying Americas. I then tell you that both of their **** is equally debatable, and you say there I go?

Quote:

Quote:
I have no idea what this means. Take your meds, you’re starting to babble.

Allow me to explain.

Your arguments are the programmed responses of an unthinking automaton.
Since I am reasonably confident that you are a human being, I need to reconcile your robotic replies with your apparent humanity.

Actually, I’ve given much thought and research into my responses, your opinions thereof notwithstanding.
My replies as to the Iranian regime’s animosity towards Israel are factual. My opinions as to what Israel’s best course of action would be are debatable, but I stand by them in their humanitarianism.

Quote:

My only answer for such willful ignorance is that you feel pleasure every time you make one of your idiotic charges, and this is enough to keep you spewing the party line of whatever anti-Israel party you've become a member. Opiate addicts are known to do some very stupid things if they will lead to a high.

Where the pleasure rewards come from was the subject of my question.

Willful ignorance of what, exactly?
It is merely your opinion that my “charges” are idiotic, and as I’ve said previously, yours are irrelevant amounting to nothing.
I’m a member of my own anti-Zionist party, thank you very much.
What opiate addicts do is as relevant as your opinions in regard to the issues at hand.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Don't flatter yourself, I hardly require or crave your support of my argument, and Infra-Blue has made it pretty clear that citing your comments only makes me less credible in his mind.

Perhaps that's because you can't debate in this forum without childish name calling that pisses everyone off.

1 Reply

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

The problem with bombing Iran is that currently there are no Iranians trying to kill any US citizens. No Iranians in 911, no Iranians in Al Qaeda, no Iranian suicide bombers. The US is a cartoon villian in Iran, one that the government likes to rail against but one where there has been no meaningful contact (positive or negative) in thirty years. You are condoning an action that would turn the US into a very clear villian and move 74 million people from "leave us out of it" to "the Islamists are right about the US". Exactly how does that make us in any way safer?

No? Tell that to the dead and maimed American soldiers in Iraq who have been the victims of Iranian IEDs.

I believe we need to do whatever it takes to retard if not eliminate the Iranian quest for nukes.

I prefer sanctions, sabotage and assassinations to military strikes, but predict and condone the latter if the former fails.

Where did you come up with the idea that 74 million people (presumably Muslim) have taken a "leave us out of it" position?

The majority of Muslims blame the US and its policies for their nations' lack of prosperity. A lesser percentage blames their own corrupt governments.

No matter what we do or don't do Islamists see us as their enemy. The notion that we have to be careful of stepping on Muslim sensibilites is not one that I hold in high regard.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2011/07/21/muslim-western-tensions-persist/

Iran with nukes is a greater threat to American interests than a growth in the number of angry Muslims who hate us.

I don't think it's at all likely that if Iran gets nukes that one will find its way to our shores, but consider how altogether ballsy they have been without nukes and imagine how they will be with them.

If it weren't for oil and Israel I couldn't care less whether the Iranians subsitute their dictitorial regime for all the others operating in the Muslim states in the region.

I have to laugh at the confidence some people have in the rationality of the Iranian regime.

They would never threaten or actually deploy nuclear strikes.

Before they overran our embassy and kept our diplomats hostage for over a year, the same people were confident that they would never do such a thing.

The same people, prior to 9/11/01 would have sneered at the idea that Muslim terrorists could bring down the World Trade Center, tanked our economy and profoundly altered the foreign policies of the Western nations.

The same people find it impossible to imagine that everyone in the world doesn't think like them or share their values (unless of course they are conservative Americans).

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

You're a legend in your own mind. You're a liar, too. Cite a single post in my exchange with IBlue in which i called him a name. Don't quote my posts again, as you clearly don't get what i'm saying or why i'm saying it.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

The same people, prior to 9/11/01 would have sneered at the idea that Muslim terrorists could bring down the World Trade Center, tanked our economy and profoundly altered the foreign policies of the Western nations.

The same people find it impossible to imagine that everyone in the world doesn't think like them or share their values (unless of course they are conservative Americans).

9/11 happened because of Bush's incompetence. He was warned by the outgoing Clinton administration of the dangers of Al Qaida but he chose to ignore it. Considerably more Americans get killed by Moslems when Conservatives are in charge, because they think Islam is something that can be beaten.

1 Reply

Poor Finn . . . if he didn't have liberal straw men to castigate, he'd have no one to rail against except the Muslims.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

engineer wrote:

The problem with bombing Iran is that currently there are no Iranians trying to kill any US citizens. No Iranians in 911, no Iranians in Al Qaeda, no Iranian suicide bombers. The US is a cartoon villian in Iran, one that the government likes to rail against but one where there has been no meaningful contact (positive or negative) in thirty years. You are condoning an action that would turn the US into a very clear villian and move 74 million people from "leave us out of it" to "the Islamists are right about the US". Exactly how does that make us in any way safer?

No? Tell that to the dead and maimed American soldiers in Iraq who have been the victims of Iranian IEDs.

I believe we need to do whatever it takes to retard if not eliminate the Iranian quest for nukes.

I prefer sanctions, sabotage and assassinations to military strikes, but predict and condone the latter if the former fails.

Where did you come up with the idea that 74 million people (presumably Muslim) have taken a "leave us out of it" position?

The majority of Muslims blame the US and its policies for their nations' lack of prosperity. A lesser percentage blames their own corrupt governments.

No matter what we do or don't do Islamists see us as their enemy. The notion that we have to be careful of stepping on Muslim sensibilites is not one that I hold in high regard.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2011/07/21/muslim-western-tensions-persist/

Iran with nukes is a greater threat to American interests than a growth in the number of angry Muslims who hate us.

I don't think it's at all likely that if Iran gets nukes that one will find its way to our shores, but consider how altogether ballsy they have been without nukes and imagine how they will be with them.

If it weren't for oil and Israel I couldn't care less whether the Iranians subsitute their dictitorial regime for all the others operating in the Muslim states in the region.

I have to laugh at the confidence some people have in the rationality of the Iranian regime.

They would never threaten or actually deploy nuclear strikes.

Before they overran our embassy and kept our diplomats hostage for over a year, the same people were confident that they would never do such a thing.

The same people, prior to 9/11/01 would have sneered at the idea that Muslim terrorists could bring down the World Trade Center, tanked our economy and profoundly altered the foreign policies of the Western nations.

The same people find it impossible to imagine that everyone in the world doesn't think like them or share their values (unless of course they are conservative Americans).

Well said!

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Assuming it's true, how is it relevant?

Whether or not Clinton was at fault for not seriously going after Osama during his eight years in office, or Bush was at fault for not heeding the warnings of an administration that couldn't take care of business while in power, the same usual suspects would have sneered at the idea that Muslim terrorists could bring down the WTC, just as they now sneer about concerns that Iranian nukes pose a threat to the US.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

A reliable measure of how deeply I have gotten under someone's skin is the number of times they respond to a single posting I've written. It's particularly obvious when they post in succession as you have done in the past.

You pompous ass, I'll quote your posts when I please regardless of whether or not you approve. More times than not, I will be doing so to point out your errors and childish behavior. Every now and then I will do so because I agree with what you've posted. If you don't like it, suck it.

The proof is in the pudding: Find a thread where members from the Left and Right have weighed in to attack Finn and his manner of participation in this forum. You won't, but you will find at least one that Setanta actually started and in which he took a shitstorm of criticisim from both the Right and the Left.

Joe From Chicago is hardly an ally of mine but he delivered a rhetorical blow to your nasty ass ways that garnered double digit thumbs up.

You're a bright and knowledgable fellow but you have a malignant personality. Were you a picked on fat-boy when you were young? This would be in keeping with the pathetic post you made some time ago suggesting that you have grown up strong and could beat me up.

(If I were you, I would utterly dismiss the above comment and demand that I produce a cogent link. Since the exchange was on Abuzz, a link is impossible. I'm happy to stipulate for all our fellow A2K members that I'm full of **** on this one...but you know that I am not.)

Before you go there, I don't really care whether or not you think I am bright and knowledgable. I recognize that you are so insecure that you can never acknowledge that your opponents may be anything but lying cretins. I pity you for this as the crippling degree of insecurity it reveals is quite sad.

I don't really expect you to answer, but what do you do for a living? How are you making your way in the world and capitalizing on your intelligence and knowledge?

I'm able to post in this forum at anytime during the day because I own my own company and am subject to my own rules. Considering how often you post, can I assume the same about you?

Thank God for A2k on behalf of Setanta, without it, his spleen would have exploded long ago.

I have to believe ehbeth has tried to work on this nasty side of you. Try listening to her.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

who is under whose skin here...?

and this after banging on Cy about humility...

0 Replies

War! The fear mongering is here, again!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know