4,747 Forum Posts by "Slizor"
Everything is never as bad as it seems once understand it. Of course no one wants to understand other the other person's view if it conflicts with their own. Case in point, Terrorism.When you understand the motivation behind most cases of terrorism, you will find it is actually worse.
What a strange, undecipherable comment. I think most people would find that they had a lot in common with the motivations of terrorists, but not the methods that they employ. Course it's the methods that anyone who wishes to portray terrorists as irrational that they focus on. I mean, honestly, do people really think that Al Qaeda is run by idiots who are trying to destroy everything? I think that generally people like to believe that there are things out in the world which are irredeemably evil and so, in setting themselves against it, can identify themselves as good.
Anyhow, I just thought that I'd post a useful website for people
http://www.tkb.org/Home.jsp
Use it as you will.
As determined by Judicial Watch:
"Judicial Watch, Inc., a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation, promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law. "
Always check where your sources are coming from. How the hell can anything be conservative and non-partisan? It seems like a thin definitional line to draw - we have (and promote) certain political views, but do not align ourselves to any party.
I always think that when people try to conceal their actual argument they should do so in an understandable way. To be honest, I think that the typo "Hypathetically" pretty much sums up the whole of the original post.
I'm certainly no huge bush fan; I never voted for him. However, I get REALLY tired of people blaming problems on just one person that are actually caused by system-wide corruption. Our blame fixes nothing.
Vote Obama.
I'm really not sure how you link these points. It seems to me that you're using some level of historical determinism in the first few posts in this thread, then move on to a kind of systemic determinism. Both positions would hold that the election of a certain individual over another is unlikely to produce much change in the outcome of the (historical or political) system. To put it another way, if the system is corrupt and constrains the action of Presidents, what is Obama, as President, going to do differently?
Sorry, killed the topic with him. It was Robert Nozick. Let's get this started again with an easy one (hint: it's not Santa Claus.)
That was an essay? THAT was an essay?
*goes off to cry about the work he has to do over christmas*
Trotsky.
How about this guy?
Quick question for all the blatent American nationalists. When did the US become a democracy? It looks like people are claiming that it was a democracy when it was founded, but that would be an insane point to argue.
The continuation of US hegemony will be subject to a number of different factors and issues. Firstly, the biggest issue for US hegemony will be the supply and consumption of oil by its military and economy. Extensive steps have been taken to secure supplies from a number of countries (particularly in the Caspian Basin) but the US will inevitably (if it continues its policies of increased consumption) come to the point where it must face the fact that the majority of oil is in the hands of countries that don't like them very much.
Secondly, the US will have to deal with the rise (and rise) of China and respond to the demands of having a direct competitor. Thirdly, the US will have to, in response to the rise of China, relegitimise and ensure the continuation of the global world order that it has shaped in the past 60 years. Organisations such as the WTO, the IMF, the UN, etc must either accomodate Chinese positions or face the possibility of the creation of a rival set of institutions based on Chinese power.
There are, of course, a number of other issues (predictable and unpredictable) that will challenge US hegemony. I think that it is likely that the US will continue as a hegemon, but that the nature of its hegemony will change.
See, I could continue this beyond its already ludicrous level but there may be another 7 pages of cellardoor's inability to answer a simple question and repitition of points already covered. The continued assertion that I need proof for my arguments that question the grounding of cellardoor's views, including the grounding of his sources, is, simply put, stupid.
You repeatedly failed to provide proof for the things you said, and completely avoided answering several questions that you couldn't.
What questions have you asked of me that I have failed to answer? What precious points of yours have I ignored completely (i.e. that it has presented something different from the rest of your screaming and ranting)?
What are your grounds for establishing the credibility of a source?
Where are yours?
I quote from myself a few pages back
"Credibility is about the expertise and trustworthiness of the author and of the sources that he utilises."
I've already answered my own question, you are yet to answer it.
You were asked repeatedly to provide a credible source, to prove that you yourself could provide evidence for your argument in the same manner, meeting the same criteria that you demanded.
No, I was asked to provide primary evidence of random things. I have not once required from you that you use primary sources, but that you use secondary sources that actually link to primary sources. You have repeatedly ignored and obscured this point in a manner akin to a screaming child or a religious zealot.
YOU COULDN'T
This is a bit besides the point considering the above passage, but you assume "couldn't", when the case is that I haven't.
After calling yourself a "very adept researcher" you fucking embarassed yourself by refusing to provide facts to your argument, all while scrutinizing into oblivion the facts that shattered your argument.
What is my argument? What are you defining my argument as? Because I've not really been big on the whole advocacy front in this thread, I've been questioning the logic and the bases of the view that you advocate. In doing so I have questioned your sources, I have provided the grounds for identifying a good source and I have found them to be nothing more than pigshit.
You're a coward who demands proof, yet can't provide any yourself.
No, I'm a critic who questions crazy off-the-wall theories. I do it with questions like this
"What are your grounds for establishing the credibility of a source?
Do you have any "evidence" that links the religious clergy who rule Iran (notice that does not include Ahmadinejad) to whole 12th Imam thing?"
You talk about me dodging questions, yet these questions remain (and the second one disappeared from your response.)
I didn't notice that cellar had actually responded for a while. Yet again when cellardoor has felt threatened by the possibility of answering some of the questions asked of his argument has he just completely turned off and ignored the entire post while calling me a coward for "hiding from the facts." So let's just restate some of the questions and see if we can actually get a straight answer.
What are your grounds for establishing the credibility of a source?
Do you have any "evidence" that links the religious clergy who rule Iran (notice that does not include Ahmadinejad) to whole 12th Imam thing?
I think these are the two main questions that we could nicely boil this down to. No doubt you will continue to ignore these long-standing questions and instead go off on about how I should prove some random other point by providing evidence the standard of which I expect from the secondary sources that you use. To be honest, I don't really care anymore. Your continual refusal to actually engage with arguments has made this a wholly unrewarding experience and your inability to make subtle deceptive arguments - ones that actually require analysis to figure out how the argument is wrong - has meant you have not provided a mental challenge.
But hey, if you want to bring this up in any thread I post in and talk about how I got owned then go on, it will probably work and you'll probably get yourself believing it. And then, hopefully, a few years down the line you'll actually be honest and answer the questions asked of you. Or even, at the most basic level, you'll admit when your sources were shown to be misused and unreliable instead of just deleting the responses about them. I doubt it though. You'll probably never be able to grasp any argument that doesn't have handles and says "place hands here".
Hey cellar, found a job for you! Their standards of evidence would be right up your street.
taken in IR that any number of analysts would take.Prove it with original sources, with a compressive list of analysts who make those direct original quotes.
Hahaha. I love how you're on this whole primary sources vibe at the moment, despite the fact that this point isn't something that requires primary sources. Any IR textbook will tell you that realism is the dominant theory in the field.
en't fulfilled your side of the bargain.
I provided facts, links, proof of the claims I've made.
No, you've provided non-attributed quotes from a number of commentators on dubious websites and then claimed that they're credible. What grounds are they credible on?
You haven't, and now you can't even provide proof for your side of the argument in the way you demand from me.
Of the way I demand of your sources. All I require is basic scholarly standards.
that they are yet to warrant me to provide such evidence.Provide evidence for your claim or your argument is moot.
I'm not entirely sure what you want of me here. All I've done in this thread is question your logic and your argument. A few pages ago I mentioned Iran wanting nuclear weapons for security reasons, but that is something that fell to the wayside a long time ago.
Provide it in the way that you demand I provide my evidence otherwise my links are entirely applicable, which they already are.
I've covered this above. I've required that your sources, when quoting, provide a citation of where that quote is from. Otherwise it is lower in levels of reliability than wikipedia.
In short, if you intellectually upped your game and stopped going on and on about sources that have shit-all credibility and instead presented some good sources that directly supported your argument then I would do likewise.I guess you can't provide any proof.
Hilarious.
Yup, a hilariously wrong guess. Unless you guess that I can't provide proof on the grounds that I can't be bothered to research it.
However, since you have failed to do so I see no reason for doing so and certainly will not be told to do so by someone who majors in Catholic and Classic studies.Wow you're reading comprehension is that bad?
I believe you mean "your".
I don't major in those things, the person I disproved in the links does.
Ah, okay. So you're just a loser who is "willfully unemployed" and spends all his time on the net.
Now I understand why you can't use sources! I just thought that the American education system was just really fucking bad and the academic standards in the toilet, but you've never been taught how to use them. Jesus, there
It's like talking to a brick wall.Talking to you is like talking to
Couldn't find a good insult?
You cannot provide proof, yet you demand proof in a way that is obviously designed to be impossible. You're asking someone on the internet to find an original source from a leader who said something 30 years ago in a foreign country, in a foreign language, knowind damn well that this original source is inaccessible.
Savage that strawman, go on savage him! As I said
"Do you actually have a source, which is backed up by tracable citations of primary evidence, where a leader of Iran states that their goal is to bring the return of the 12th Imam and to achieve this goal they will gain nuclear weapons and begin a nuclear war?"
Is that requiring you to find primary evidence? No. It requires you to find a secondary source that links to a primary source.
You know damn well that secondary sources that state things, if those sources are credible, are entirely applicable to the argument.
And, as such, the grounds for credibility are a matter of discussion. What are yours?
Meanwhile, your side of the argument is based purely on an argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy.
Oh dear dear dear. Don't go digging your hole any deeper now.
The way I decide is by putting the quote into google. It is an elementary form of cross-referencing.LOL coming from the person who says he is a "very adept researcher".
I'm not entirely certain what your point is here. Is it that using google to do it is sloppy and lazy? Why would I waste my time doing it properly on your points?
I can not provide a direct, original quote from George Bush saying something similar to armageddon.Bingo, yet you believed it and used it in the argument because you believe the secondary sources that provided it were credible.
No, actually because I hadn't looked at people writing about it in years and the lack of primary evidence that they cite.
So you use standard logic for things you want to accept, but you don't allow other people to do the same.
Actually I was applying the same logic. Those people who wrote about it had no links to primary evidence and so have no credibility. Therefore the argument would have had no grounds and so I retracted it. I expect the same of anyone else.
It's completely unimportant on the grounds of who said it.A religious leader in Iran said it. Iran is lead by religious clergy of the same faith. It's both important and applicable.
Same faith, so same beliefs? Interesting idea. Completely batshit, but interesting.
Nope, concede that your "points" were intentionally deceptive ploys that added intentionally high standards.
You asked me to find a source where Iran's leader say outright they want a nuclear bomb to bring about the return of the 12 Imam, everyone knows Iranian leaders will not say that outright.
And so your argument, even if we were to accept your appauling sources, falls by the wayside by lacking that crucial bit of evidence and drops into the world of conspiracy theories - where evidence is not available for the crazy theories because "they" do not want to reveal their evil intentions to the world.
What I have provided is proof that Iran at least had a weapons program as recently as 4 years ago, that they have leaders who believe in facilitating the return of the 12 Imam, and that traditional belief is that the reutrn of the 12 Imam will be preceded by chaos and destruction.
They have unimportant leaders (as the religious theocracy have veto power) who believe that. I haven't actually seen much on the return of the 12th Imam being preceeded by chaos and destruction. I would imagine that would be the case considering the significant links between Islam and Christianity, but where is the evidence of human action being required to start the chaos and destruction.
This creates an allusion to the intent of Iran, given the proof that they had a government sponsored nuclear weapons program, and given the fact that their government is lead by clergymen who adhere to the sect of Shi'a Islam have those beliefs.
Reverse a little bit would you? You did notice the point above that wiped out all your quotes? As we have now both accepted, Iran is ruled by a religious clergy and not by the government. All of your quotes, with the exception of a highly contested one from the dead Ayatollah, are from Ahmadinejad.....who is a member of the government and is, as we agreed above, unimportant.
This is a persuasive argument and you know it.
No, it's a shit argument and I know it.
But once again, after a long protracted period of you resorting to intentional ploys, you asked for proof that Iranian leaders themselves have directly revealed all this at once. Which is irrelevant.
Which is irrelevant? When trying to provide evidence of your views you think that one that would directly validate your stance is irrelevant?
Interesting.
Shall we move on to discussing other conspiracy theories?
How about this? There is a wealth of evidence on that site, all of it credible (on the grounds that I say it is credible and you, a well-known liar, say it is not credible.)
Lol slizor systematically dodged the facts, continues to lie, and refused to answer questions or oblige to inquiries that he knew he couldn't answer, that that would therefore shatter his argument. So hilarious.
HAHAHAHA. I haven't actually got a direct response from you in a good few posts. All you have done is ignored the point that I've made and repeatedly claimed the validity of your proof and your "victory".
It's a minor point and you won't concede, just like you won't concede the major points in this entire argument where you've been repeatedly proved wrong and have had your entire argument systematically shredded into pieces.Different article, same writing.This is such an amazingly minor point, yet you won't even conceed it. They are the same article on different websites, get over it.
Like here. Where is that addressing the issue that they are both "Iran's Obsession with the Jews" by Matthias Kuntzel.
That's not a response to what I have said. If you can not respond conceed the point.Funny how you ignored or disregarded every single thing I asked you to do to show that your criteria for accepting a source is hideously hypocritical and disingenuous. You cannot adhere to the same standards that you claim have to be met.
This is still not a response to "It means that atleast one of them is unable to pinpoint where the quote came from."
You haven't responded to my method of establishing credibility (in fact, you deleted it.)You haven't responded to the areas where I showed you that your method of establishing credibility is both wrong and hypocritical coming from you considering you have not provided any facts for anything you say
You haven't shown anything. You asked me to provide something that was not necessary for my position and I refused. I see no reason why I should look up transcripts in another language because your sources fail to do so.
I know my sources are credible.
Yet have yet to provide the grounds for your belief that they are credible.
Interesting.
But can't be traced back to its original point.And I asked you to trace things back to the original point and you haven't.
Look, cellar, really try and stay on topic. The quote can not be traced back to its original position, it is therefore unverified and thus untrustworthy.
You're hilarious. You haven't provided a credible, consistent argument this entire time. You continually retreat form the points that shatter your argument
I think I've conceeded two points in a change of tact. You, however, have ignored points where you have clearly been proven mistaken. They just disappeared.
Lots of stuff that is essentially cellardoor repeating himself.
All the sources you have provided have pointed to (with the exception of the one quote from the dead leader that was discredited by your original source) Ahmadinejad's views, not that of the current religious clergy that override his power so absolutely.The sources I provided were credible and you know it.
You miss the point. Ahmadinejad, the person you have quoted so many times, is not part of the relgious clergy. It is their view that is important, but it is not their view that they have covered.
I told you to provide a direct, original source for what you claimed Bush said, you have not done it. Hell, you haven't even tried to provide a direct source from what an Iranian leader has said either, even though you used a link to suggest something about them anyway... which was not an original source btw.
I've never suggested that the use of a secondary source is a bad thing. I've only required secondary sources, when using quotes (in particular), to provide a citation of where that quote is from.
So I take it you can't.Ok then... find an original source for any quote of any Iranian leader say... before 1985.Yawn, it's very basic standards of credible writing that you source quotes.
As I have already stated, it simply is not necessary.
Since I have not written anything on IranYou stated somethings about Iran, you also stated something about President Bush.
If you can't find original, direct sources for where these things were said or where these policies were outlined, then you cannot expect other people to meet the same criteria.
You're confusing the issue. I have not asked you to provide primary evidence, I have asked that your secondary evidence link to primary evidence. You are requiring me to actually find primary evidence, something I would do if I was writing an article or an essay, but something that you are yet to deserve.
I have not done extensive research and found original sources for quotes from Iranian leaders.Most people don't, and that is why such information is provided through mediums, like the ones I linked to, which you didn't except because you're a coward.
I don't accept them because they show no signs of having done original research - citations.
Now salvage your argument, put your money where your mouth is, and provide direct original sources for the things you claim.
See, you're requiring of me something I require of your secondary sources.
It's hilariously deceptive.
Or how about I continue sitting in my dressing gown eating cereal in the middle of the day instead of running around like a fucking lapdog for you.Thanks for proving AGAIN that you can't do what you demand other people to.
That I refuse to do it doesn't mean I can't. You assume can't, but the evidence does not back up your position.
You just said that this argument doesn't warrant you doing research, but you also claimed you're a "very adept researcher".
Prove it.
Okay, do you want my undergrad dissertation? Or any number of the essays that I wrote over the course of my degree? Or do you want some from my Masters in International Relations?
They all show a very high level of research. I think you'd like my dissertation, it was called "The effects of oil on US foreign policy." Brillant bit of work.
You make claims, you haven't shown your research for those claims yet you expect me to meet these criteria that you're proving you can't meet yourself.
No, I expect your sources to meet these criteria.
Oh, and please stop thinking that this is my view versus yours. Mine is a standard theoretical positionProve that it is standard theoretical position.
Ok. If you scroll down it's somewhere in the middle.
I have already proved Iranian leaders state it is their purpose to bring about the return of the 12 Imam. I have shown that Iran had a weapons program as recently as 4 years ago. I have shown that a prerequisite for the return of the 12 Imam is chaos and destruction. I have proved Iran supports terrorist groups that have attacked the US before, and has a national holiday entitled "Death to America day"
It's like talking to a brick wall. Questions remain about your so-called "proof", yet you rely on it so heavily.
Can you prove that Hitler pursued nuclear weapons to use in WWII?We know Iran's leaders will not publicly associate their desire to bring about the return of the 12 IMam with nuclear weapons.You accept, then, that you can not directly prove your point?
I'll accept that as a yes then.
Even though it's quite obvious once the extenuating facts I've provided are applied
And the facts are what is under question.
Ahmadinejad is quoted as saying:
"The government from now renounces its economic development policies that were based on materialism and secular liberalism. Instead, there will be an effort to raise expectations at the coming of the Mahdi, and domestic and foreign policy will work in that direction...this is the mission of the government."
You can't accept this simple truth, so you descend even deeper into denial, and grasp for any means necessary to perpetuate your false argument.
On what grounds do you trust the author of the work that you quoted this from? (And if you failed to understand the first time I called it a sourceless quote, the article provided does not point to its original source - not even to a respectable newspaper.)
Lol funny how you decide to yourself which one you will accept. You're pathetic."We must prepare ourselves to rule the world and the only way to do that is to put forth views on the basis of the Expectation of the Return," Ahmadinejad said. "If we work on the basis of the Expectation of the Return [of the Mahdi], all the affairs of our nation will be streamlined and the administration of the country will become easier."This one does actually appear to be real.
The way I decide is by putting the quote into google. It is an elementary form of cross-referencing.
It doesn't really say much, other than Ahmadinejad's views about his religious beliefs.LOL! He's saying that they must prepare themselves to RULE THE WORLD, and create views based on the EXPECTATION of the return of the Mahdi. He then says that if that is the basis, that government affairs will become more streamlined...
It doesn't say that he is seeking to hasten it, just that he expects it (kinda like George W. Bush and his views on armageddon.)PROVE IT.
Now let's see you put your money where your mouth is. Provide a DIRECT, ORIGINAL quote from the source about George Bush saying something similar about Armageddon.
I retract my statement. I can not provide a direct, original quote from George Bush saying something similar to armageddon. All I can do is provide links to opinion websites that mix quotes with opinions and interpretations. It would be against my standards of intellectual integrity to use these sources and so I will not lower myself to.
Here you go again.Ahmadinejad sees his main mission, as he recounted in a Nov. 16 speech in Tehran, is to 'pave the path for the glorious reappearance of Imam Mahdi, may Allah hasten his reappearance.'This bit is slightly iffy.
It's iffy to you as long as it disproves your claims and fortifies mine.
No, it is iffy on the grounds that I couldn't find it used in a reliable website when doing some elementary cross-checking.
This is completely unimportant.Nope, it's using a parable "when the students are ready, the teacher will come" in reference to the 12th Imam. He's saying that Iranians/Muslims need to prepare themselves, or make things ready for the return of the Mahdi.
It's completely unimportant on the grounds of who said it.
Anyhow, this is all besides the point. Ahmadinejad is just one man in the Iranian government and doesn't have direct responsibility for Foreign Policy (nor, being an elected official, is a member of the relgious theocracy that you have gone on about.) Also, none of the sources you provided directly supported your caseWow, now you're just further discrediting your entire stance. After you get proved wrong, you just ignore it immediately afterward and try to salvage your dignity by pretending that your argument didn't just get completely shattered, which it did.
Please respond to my points or conceed.
Keep going, you're entertaining.
Yes, it is entertaining to see someone who is good at what they do. Sadly I derive no entertainment from your continually poor arguments.
Ooh, cellardoor has changed tact, guess I should do so too.
No, the same article on different websites.Different article, same writing.
This is such an amazingly minor point, yet you won't even conceed it. They are the same article on different websites, get over it.
It means that atleast one of them is unable to pinpoint where the quote came from.Whatever you want to say to help you ignore a quote that shatters your argument.
That's not a response to what I have said. If you can not respond conceed the point.
That is not how you establish credibility.Coming from the person whose entire argument is based on his opinion... who hasn't provided a single applicable link this entire time?
You haven't responded to my method of establishing credibility (in fact, you deleted it.)
Interesting.
Does this mean you are unable to respond or that you accept it and admit that your sources are not credible?
And are you really going in to it offering proof? Are you really going to go there?Iran's leader said something that showed your argument is weak. It is proof, and it can be found from multiple sources.
But can't be traced back to its original point.
You're only disregarding it because as has been proved this whole time, you lose every single point you try to make. I provide links, these links discredit your argument, so instead of owning up to it you take the most cowardly approach possible and scrutinize anything that is provided.
Ahh, how I love the constant attacks of cowardice and lying.
Now you're trying to ignore that it doesn't matter whether or not there is a unified policy given the fact that Iran's religious clergy have veto power over policy.
I really shouldn't do this because your interpretation is ridiculously incorrect, but I can't be bothered going over this anymore so I conceed the point.
Now, we've established that Iran's religious clergy have veto power over policy, but are yet to establish whether the religious clergy believe in the coming of the 12th Imam. All the sources you have provided have pointed to (with the exception of the one quote from the dead leader that was discredited by your original source) Ahmadinejad's views, not that of the current religious clergy that override his power so absolutely.
I think a link to its original source, if it was not simply fabricated, will exist on the internet.Hah.
Ok then... find an original source for any quote of any Iranian leader say... before 1985.
Yawn, it's very basic standards of credible writing that you source quotes. Since I have not written anything on Iran I have not done extensive research and found original sources for quotes from Iranian leaders. If you think your arguments actually warrant me doing some research then you vastly over-estimate yourself.
It doesn't matter if its in a non-internet form I'm a very adept researcher.Then let's do a little experiment, how about you try and find an original quote from an Iranian leader that justifies your argument?
And....go.
Or how about I continue sitting in my dressing gown eating cereal in the middle of the day instead of running around like a fucking lapdog for you.
Oh, and please stop thinking that this is my view versus yours. Mine is a standard theoretical position taken in IR that any number of analysts would take.
Actually, because you're such a stubborn dickhead I would counter it with a large number of quotes where the Ayatollah professed Iranian nationalism.Do it then, and find the ORIGINAL sources from Grand Ayatollah Khomeini that professed Iranian nationalism.
Why bother? You haven't fulfilled your side of the bargain. You arguments and sources are so weak that they are yet to warrant me to provide such evidence. In short, if you intellectually upped your game and stopped going on and on about sources that have shit-all credibility and instead presented some good sources that directly supported your argument then I would do likewise. However, since you have failed to do so I see no reason for doing so and certainly will not be told to do so by someone who majors in Catholic and Classic studies.
I love how this just keeps on going. It really does point to how ridiculously stubborn cellardoor is. I think this could be his last attempt though because he's decided that a good defence is a good offence.
Firstly, 1 and 3 are, in fact, the same article.Different article from different websites, but apparently they are the same writing.
No, the same article on different websites. "Iran's Obsession with the Jews" by Matthias Kuntzel.
Secondly, the sources disagree as to when it was said. No. 1 (and 3) and 5. say 1980, no. 2 says 1979 and no. 4 doesn't actually say when.That doesn't mean anything.
It means that atleast one of them is unable to pinpoint where the quote came from.
Thirdly, no. 4 is the article that the original source was questioning.It's a credible article, because it states what other articles state.
That is not how you establish credibility. Credibility is about the expertise and trustworthiness of the author and of the sources that he utilises
The first link I provided says it also, but it gives an OPINION about its authenticity without proof.
A credible opinion as it is from a Professor of Middle Eastern history who has written (at least) 3 books on Iran.
And are you really going in to it offering proof? Are you really going to go there?
Fourthly, none of these can be considered "credible" sources. They're all opinion pieces on the web - the lowest form of source. For fuck's sake, anyone could have written them.And this is another example of how pathetic you are.
Because I value the source of a source?
You have not provided a single bit of proof this whole time. In fact, the what you linked to actually proved my case, because it stated that Iran's religious leaders hold the power... you were trying to make it seem that since there are disagreements between the civilian leadership and clergy, that this means the religious leaders' goals don't matter. Never mind the article you provided never really stated anything like that, but specifically states:
Below is the full quote with the commentary I have already provided.
A second set of government institutions, including the Supreme Leader (velayat-e faqih), oversight committees such as the Guardian Council and Expediency Council, and the security services, are dominated by a conservative clergy who are officially above reproach, essentially accountable only to themselves. These institutions have veto power over government policies and command a shadowy but potent network of influence that grew out of the the revolution, permeating Iran's national security structure and economy. The tension between these two unevenly balances centres of power affects Iranian policy at all levels so that, at times, Iran appears to be following different or contradictory policies.
Chimes very well with my original point, doesn't it? "Every state has got many different organs, interests and centres of power and, as such, rarely has a unified policy or ideology."
You can point to the domination of a conservative clergy, that I have not argued against, but you can not use this source to point to a unified Iranian policy.
And fifthly, as Elfer has stated above, none of them point to where the quote is originally from. This point requires repitition because it is by far the most important. You are trying to claim the authenticity of a primary source, but are yet to provide one - even indirectly.You think the primary source for something that was stated years before the invention of the internet, in a language we don't speak..is going to exist on the internet?
I think a link to its original source, if it was not simply fabricated, will exist on the internet. It doesn't matter if its in a non-internet form I'm a very adept researcher.
You're a coward. You can't address the facts, you just scrutinize any thing, no matter what the actual source is.
Its not a matter of addressing the facts yet, its establishing them.
If I somehow provided an original Farsi script of what the Ayatollah said, with a translation into English, you'd still question it and say "Um... how do we KNOW that is the real translation?".
Actually, because you're such a stubborn dickhead I would counter it with a large number of quotes where the Ayatollah professed Iranian nationalism.
You've been getting conclusively discredited this whole thread, and you know it. But you have to continue to try and perpetuate your false argument by going into denial mode, either completely ignoring the facts I provided, or questioning the source never mind the fact there are several sources that state the same thing.
Saying the same thing means nothing if none of them can point to their sources.
Okay, I think we can wrap it up here with one last question. Do you actually have a source, which is backed up by tracable citations of primary evidence, where a leader of Iran states that their goal is to bring the return of the 12th Imam and to achieve this goal they will gain nuclear weapons and begin a nuclear war?Nice deceptive semantics there.
There is no deception in that question, something you implicitly recognise by not explaining how it is deceptive. It is asking you to provide a credible direct source for your belief.
We know Iran's leaders will not publicly associate their desire to bring about the return of the 12 IMam with nuclear weapons.
You accept, then, that you can not directly prove your point?
Ahem:
"The government from now renounces its economic development policies that were based on materialism and secular liberalism. Instead, there will be an effort to raise expectations at the coming of the Mahdi, and domestic and foreign policy will work in that direction...this is the mission of the government."
Another sourceless quote. Can't even find another article that uses it.
And:
"We must prepare ourselves to rule the world and the only way to do that is to put forth views on the basis of the Expectation of the Return," Ahmadinejad said. "If we work on the basis of the Expectation of the Return [of the Mahdi], all the affairs of our nation will be streamlined and the administration of the country will become easier."
This one does actually appear to be real. It doesn't really say much, other than Ahmadinejad's views about his religious beliefs. It doesn't say that he is seeking to hasten it, just that he expects it (kinda like George W. Bush and his views on armageddon.)
And:
Ahmadinejad sees his main mission, as he recounted in a Nov. 16 speech in Tehran, is to 'pave the path for the glorious reappearance of Imam Mahdi, may Allah hasten his reappearance.'
This bit is slightly iffy. It could be real, although I wouldn't trust it to be (considering the websites that use it.) Anyhow, with a little bit of digging I can declare it decontextualised. From what I can gather this is an except of a speech he gave at a theological conference (i.e. he was not talking about government policy) and, more damagingly, the quote is (always) imcomplete. There is no source for the "Ahmadinejad sees his main mission", only for the last bit. The main mission part is the most important in supporting your argument because without it, it is similar to the quote directly above.
"People are anxious to know when and how will He rise; what they must do to receive this worldwide salvation," says Ali Lari, a cleric at the Bright Future Institute in Iran's religious center of Qom. "The timing is not clear, but the conditions are more specific," he adds. "There is a saying: 'When the students are ready, the teacher will come.'"
This is completely unimportant.
Anyhow, this is all besides the point. Ahmadinejad is just one man in the Iranian government and doesn't have direct responsibility for Foreign Policy (nor, being an elected official, is a member of the relgious theocracy that you have gone on about.) Also, none of the sources you provided directly supported your case - that Iran's goal is to bring the return of the 12th Imam and to achieve this goal they will gain nuclear weapons and begin a nuclear war.
Stop spewing.
Y'know, I just watched some clips on YouTube from Fox, NBC, etc and have come to a conclusion about the America media.
It's full of crazy batshit individuals, personal attacks and general poor reporting, regardless of political bias.
WOW.It's an "irrelevant opinion" that is apparently based on research and looking into the background of the quote.
He still said it, the article is an OPINION that stated it was bogus but the quote still stands, especially considering there are myriad sources that state the Ayatollah said it: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
The first article I linked to states the common quote, yet gives an irrelevant OPINION about its authenticity.
The other sources simply spew the quote with no reference, and no information as to when he said it, where he said it, who heard it, or anything of that nature.
Furthermore of the 5 sources provided above there are a number of problems.
Firstly, 1 and 3 are, in fact, the same article.
Secondly, the sources disagree as to when it was said. No. 1 (and 3) and 5. say 1980, no. 2 says 1979 and no. 4 doesn't actually say when.
Thirdly, no. 4 is the article that the original source was questioning.
Fourthly, none of these can be considered "credible" sources. They're all opinion pieces on the web - the lowest form of source. For fuck's sake, anyone could have written them.
And fifthly, as Elfer has stated above, none of them point to where the quote is originally from. This point requires repitition because it is by far the most important. You are trying to claim the authenticity of a primary source, but are yet to provide one - even indirectly.
You really need to pay attention to what your sources actually say. To take but one of the many examples you have already provided, this does not support your claim that "their national slogan, as articulated by their Supreme leader, is "Death to America"" as it clearly states that it was from "one unidentified speaker". Nor is it a reliable source, being from "The National Council of Resistance of Iran".
Okay, I think we can wrap it up here with one last question. Do you actually have a source, which is backed up by tracable citations of primary evidence, where a leader of Iran states that their goal is to bring the return of the 12th Imam and to achieve this goal they will gain nuclear weapons and begin a nuclear war?
READ YOUR FUCKING SOURCES. The quote there is that "Islam is ready to rule the world" through the arrival of the 12th Imam. Your source does not state that they believe Islam should rule the world, but that it is ready to and will rule the world at some approaching time.
Yeah, they totally don't think Islam should rule the world, not at all. So just resort to mindless semantics and the irrelevant terminology. Never mind that it is entirely obvious they think Iran SHOULD and WILL rule the world, and ouf course they want it to considering they believe it is necessary for mankind to receive salvation.
I'm not even sure if your argument is that because it is "widely known" that Iran was responsible for the Beirut Barracks Bombing that their direction can be proven, or that they give "implicit support" to these groups and thus direct them. Neither argument makes sense.Iran was responsible for the Beirut Barracks Bombing.
You have no evidence to the contrary.
I'm not even debating that. I'm questioning the logic. How does their being responsible for, mean that they directed?
WOW, as if that matters.Okay. On one point I apologise. I didn't understand your typo - "changed" instead of "chanted". However, the article still didn't say what your originally said. There were shouts of "Death to America" when they passed the law, but it was not done by the leader of the government.Um... they continued enriching uranium, in defiance of the international community (i.e the UN). In this meeting that this took place in Iran's parliament, they chanted "Death to America".Don't you find it odd that their government leader changed "Death to America" when they decided to defy the UN security counsel and enrich uranium?Urm....no. The article you linked to said nothing of the sort. It didn't say anything about "Death to America" being changed or that the enrichment of uranium was in defiance of the security council.
You're denying the importance of who said it? It's a rather large thing when assessing a quote.
It was also not in defiance of the UN Security Council when it passed this law.Holy hell you love to lie a lot.
The U.N. nuclear watchdog is also pushing for Iran to halt its activities.
Yes....it's a lie that the UN security council and the UN nuclear watchdog are not the same body.
My proof that Iran, as a state, will act to ensure its survival?And once again you show how ridiculous your argument is. So which is it? Is Iran not looking for a nuclear weapon, or is it just to ensure its survival nevermind the FACTS.
Which is it? Between what?
Ayatollah Khomeini, the revolutionary founder whose words are considered authoritative still in Iran:
We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world
----
Hmm...
How can you possibly twist this, yet another enormous blow to your already crippled argument?
WOOHOO! You've actually provided a source that directly backs up your position. That's fabulous. If only you read the rest of the article which goes on to talk about how the quote you just used is a fabrication.
You know what, that last source has cheered me up a bit. I think I may keep going with this absolutely pointless argument.
Okay, this is actually the last time that I can bring myself to go through this argument over the same crappy sources and your shit deceptive little arguments.
I'm interested about this. Do you actually have a source where a leader of Iran states that their goal is to bring the return of the 12 ImamWow.
Seriously, is that your only way to argue? Just ignore what I showed and pretend it didn't happen?
Hahaha. You responded only to part of my question and then claim that I ignore things? That is truely pathetic. What I asked you was
"Do you actually have a source where a leader of Iran states that their goal is to bring the return of the 12 Imam and to achieve this goal they will gain nuclear weapons and begin a nuclear war?"
Somehow that and part got lost, didn't it?
It wouldn't be that you actually lack a source that says this, is it?
Take an honest stance for once.Never mind, you know, that Iran has a HOLIDAY called "Death to America" day. (btw that source is Al-Jazeera, hardly a western media source.The day is actually called Student Day....and you really should actually pay attention to the sources that you post.
It specifically refers to it as "Death to America" day.
The source does, but it is not actually called that by Iran's government and so is fairly fucking irrelevant when you're talking about the opinions of Iran's government. It has been labelled "Death to America day" by other people, not the government.
Seriously, is your argument becoming so completely baseless that your only way of continuing it is to just lie? Lies are the foundation of your argument. That has to be bad for your self-esteem.
Yawn. You must get bad marks for lack of attention in your High School classes.
In short, everything you say has NO sources, and your words are absolutely irrelevant because you cannot provide a single shred of counter evidence.
Did you read anything from the authors I provided? Regardless of that, counter-evidence is required when good evidence is presented by the other side. I could counter you with a simple google search on the words "Iran is not a threat" but what's the point? They're not good sources.
Then, when a credible source entirely SHATTERS your argument, you just question the source, no matter how credible, because that is all you have left.
Could you please provide me with your definition of credible? I think I've already outlined why they were not credible (to which, you have not responded) but you continue to use the word. Strange.
You base your argument on scrutinizing the proof on the other side so you can pretend your argument is correct by default, meanwhile you have absolutely zero proof for your side.
My side is questioning your argument. The only view I have advanced is that Iran, similar to all states, puts its survival first and foremost.
And you think that since there may or may not be disagreement, that this somehow erases it all. You are fucking naive.
Ahh, to be woefully misunderstood time and again. How many times are you going to just restate your case before recognising its pitfalls? There are always disagreements between people over ideas. It may be the case (as in, if we accept this point to demonstrate the logic) that Ahmadinejad believes in the imminent coming of the 12th Imam and that human action can advance his coming through the use of nuclear weapons but it does not follow that all the other centres of power in the Iranian government would agree with either his view on the imminent coming or his policy perscriptions for advancing this coming.
"As irrational as they appeared before" - great line. As irrational as they were portrayed before.Mhmm... they launched a missile over Japan to get people's attention.
Shall we ignore the fact that your source points to something that happened around 5 years before the time I was talking about? Back to my original point. Prior to gaining nuclear weapons there was opposition to North Korea gaining nuclear weapons on the grounds that the leader was mad and would irrationally attack South Korea or Japan, regardless of the consequences. However, this did not happen because the North Korean government did, in fact, act rationally and did not want to jeopordise the survival of the state. This situation and the arguments are similar (in fact, almost fucking well the same) as to Iran.
And you ignore how it shows those differences don't matter due to the power of the religious leaders.
It does, really? The whole quote is this -
A second set of government institutions, including the Supreme Leader (velayat-e faqih), oversight committees such as the Guardian Council and Expediency Council, and the security services, are dominated by a conservative clergy who are officially above reproach, essentially accountable only to themselves. These institutions have veto power over government policies and command a shadowy but potent network of influence that grew out of the the revolution, permeating Iran's national security structure and economy. The tension between these two unevenly balances centres of power affects Iranian policy at all levels so that, at times, Iran appears to be following different or contradictory policies.
Chimes very well with my original point, doesn't it? "Every state has got many different organs, interests and centres of power and, as such, rarely has a unified policy or ideology."
You can point to the domination of a conservative clergy, that I have not argued against, but you can not use this source to point to a unified Iranian policy.
You ignore that Iran attacked the US, and start talking about your feckless analogy. When that analogy backfires in your face, you criticize me for the inapplicability of that analogy
No, I argued against your application of an analogy that had nothing to do with Iran. It was, as I have already said, an example of capability not being a threat in itself.
Has what Iran has done to the US the same as one individual assaulting another? No, it is not because it is very fucking low-scale.
So they're acting rationally?They are still irrational, but they aren't stupid.
Being able to lie and deceive to achieve your goals doesn't mean that they are rational in the areas I already discussed, and which you intentionally disregard the nuance of to perpetuate your dimwitted argument.
Man, you can't even recognise the obvious argument there. How thick are you? Instead of just talking bullshit about the "nuance" of the word "rational", you clearly could have made a distinction between acting rationally and having irrational goals. But no, you're too bloody thick to even attempt an intelligent argument.
Holy hell, take an honest stance for once in your life.Iran supports proxy terrorist groups such as Hezbollah (who has terrorist cells in the US btw, and Islamic Jihad who have attacked us. Iran was responsible for the 1983 Beirut Barracks bombing that killed 241 Americans, which was conducted by these terrorist groups Iran supports.It's not really similar to a man assaulting another, now is it?
I could say exactly the same thing back to you.
Iran supports terrorists, proved. Iran provides weapons and training for terrorists who have attacked and killed Americans, proved.
Therefore it is reasonable to conclude, given their goal of the destruction of America for religious purposes,
Which is the point we keep on returning to and which you are yet to make a valid, supported case for.
Give the FACT that Iranian leaders believe Islam should rule the world
READ YOUR FUCKING SOURCES. The quote there is that "Islam is ready to rule the world" through the arrival of the 12th Imam. Your source does not state that they believe Islam should rule the world, but that it is ready to and will rule the world at some approaching time.
Um actually it's not considering it is widely know Iran was responsible for the Beirut Barracks Bombing, which was conducted by terrorist groups whom they give their implicit support to.Um... attack, through terrorist organizations that Iran funds, supplies, and directs.Directs? Bloody hell that would be hard to prove.
I am left speechless by your stupidity. I'm not even sure if your argument is that because it is "widely known" that Iran was responsible for the Beirut Barracks Bombing that their direction can be proven, or that they give "implicit support" to these groups and thus direct them. Neither argument makes sense.
I never tried to justify Iran's actions.Um actually you did, and have. LOL that is the foundation of your entire argument.
Jesus man, can you miss the point of an argument by any greater distance? Are you really this bad at thinking?
If their aim is death to America and they could only hit the US with one nuke....then I think most people would consider that a fail.One nuke is all it takes to set off a nuclear war.
In this day and age? With the support that Iran has? With Iran being the first to strike?
You're having a fucking laugh.
Can we please get something straight. Is Iranian policy "death to America" or is it to bring this apocolypse?In order to bring about the apocalypse, the US would either have to be converted to Islam or destroyed.
As would everywhere else. So their policy is actually to bring the apocalypse, not "death to America".
Um... they continued enriching uranium, in defiance of the international community (i.e the UN). In this meeting that this took place in Iran's parliament, they chanted "Death to America".Don't you find it odd that their government leader changed "Death to America" when they decided to defy the UN security counsel and enrich uranium?Urm....no. The article you linked to said nothing of the sort. It didn't say anything about "Death to America" being changed or that the enrichment of uranium was in defiance of the security council.
Okay. On one point I apologise. I didn't understand your typo - "changed" instead of "chanted". However, the article still didn't say what your originally said. There were shouts of "Death to America" when they passed the law, but it was not done by the leader of the government. It was also not in defiance of the UN Security Council when it passed this law.
Back to the original point, do I find it odd that there were (unsourced) shouts of "Death to America" when this bill was passed? Nope, not really. Nuclear power is a matter of Iranian national pride, as is their continued defiance of the US on this matter. It could be interpreted in your way, but it is by no means THE way to interpret it.
Oh, and one more thing cellardoor6. Don't even bother responding if all you can come up with to support your argument is random news articles.Meanwhile you can't and haven't come up with any proof for anything you say, funny.
My proof that Iran, as a state, will act to ensure its survival? Hmm..... How about you start at the works of Hans Morgenthau? You'll probably actually agree with his position more than I do, but he's fundamental to understanding IR theory. You could then maybe try Robert Keohane or John Mearsheimer.
It would be easier if you just went away and actually read some books on International Relations before responding. I say 2-3 years of reading and you'll be about able to begin to argue on the matter. I'll see you then.
Iran's leaders specifically state their goal is to bring the return of the 12 Imam. And you just ignore it because its inconvenient to your shallow little views.
I'm interested about this. Do you actually have a source where a leader of Iran states that their goal is to bring the return of the 12 Imam and to achieve this goal they will gain nuclear weapons and begin a nuclear war?
Is there a source that actually says what you are saying?
Death to America is still our slogan, and we consider any thoughts of a dialogue with The Great Satan as futile
Said one unidentified speaker.
Shall we also ignore the fact that you tried to portray them as primary sources?Shall we ignore that we don't speak Farsi and probably won't be able to get a primary source from Iran?
So, in lieu, we should up the supposed validity of secondary sources? I think not. A lack of actual primary evidence
Never mind, you know, that Iran has a HOLIDAY called "Death to America" day. (btw that source is Al-Jazeera, hardly a western media source.
The day is actually called Student Day....and you really should actually pay attention to the sources that you post.
Never mind that the sources you want to devolve into an denial mode over completely obliterate your argument.
How to say this.....your sources aren't worth the internet space that they take up. I can give a short, but by no means exhaustive list of why. Firstly, they are not sources that are reviewed by any body nor point to where their information is from. Secondly, they are the product of private companies and are open to the biases that those companies have. Thirdly, they do not directly support what you are saying. Fourthly, they do appear to have just been googled and not actually read.
Are you really going to insist that it was their supreme leader who said that "Death to America is still our slogan..."?
Um and your point is inapplicable and false. Iran is lead by Islamic fundamentalists, they override politics.
Ah, so Islamic Fundamentalism is the only concept in the world that is not disputed by its proponents? You honestly think there is no level of disagreement between them? You are really fucking naive.
Actually, that is proof of my logic. North Korea is acting rationally in responding to US pressure and is not acting as how the fairy tales would expect.North Korea also values its existence! North Korea doesn't have the goal of bringing about the apocalypse. As irrational as they have appeared before, they still have the goal of self-preservation at the forefront of their ideology.
"As irrational as they appeared before" - great line. As irrational as they were portrayed before.
Sadly your idea of Iran being similar to a suicide bomber doesn't work.Actually it does and you know it. Iran emphasizes martyrdom, they believe it is someone's highest calling. Their leaders also believe, as I showed
I wonder what would help them facilitate this, in their belief? Probably a nuclear bomb, which we know they tried to develop as recently as 4 years ago, which we knew they are still developing technology for.
And here we go, a supposition. You don't actually have any proof of this, you assume it even though its vital to the cohesion of your argument. It also indicates that you are, in fact, lacking a source which directly supports your position.
This is a slightly lazy use of a source by me but read this page.Lol... all that is stating is that Iran has both civil and religious leaders. What you ignore about your own fucking source is that it states the conservative clergy that rule Iran are above it all.
You have no subtlety. "The tension between these two unevenly balances centres of power affects Iranian policy at all levels so that, at times, Iran appears to be following different or contradictory policies." Doesn't really support your view that there is one power centre that is completely dominated by one ideology?
That is where the nuke comes in. It makes Iran's weak forces irrelevant because having a nuke is an equalizer, a small country with a relatively weak military can still inflict enormous blows on any country no matter how powerful its military is.
Using a nuke would help Iran achieve its goals. Seriously, use your brain.
Use your brain....hahaha. Making a jump, are we?
Because they know that in their current state they don't have the capability or capacity to achieve their goals. They know that if they were to attack the US, triggering a full-scale war, they would lose. That is why they want a nuke.
Who cares? There would be a time of death and destruction in the world when the 12th Imam will return and bring justice to the world - it is you who interprets (and makes logical jumps from) your crappy sources as to support the view that they want to start a nuclear war.
Oh and Slizor... one other thing about Iran.
Do you actually think Americans are overreacting about Iran's nuclear ambitions, when their national slogan, as articulated by their Supreme leader, is "Death to America"?
As articulated by a guy on the street?
""Death to America is still our slogan, and we consider any thoughts of a dialogue with The Great Satan as futile," one unidentified speaker said, as the crowd chimed in with the revolutionary war cry, "Death to America."... "
Don't you find it odd that their government leader changed "Death to America" when they decided to defy the UN security counsel and enrich uranium?
Urm....no. The article you linked to said nothing of the sort. It didn't say anything about "Death to America" being changed or that the enrichment of uranium was in defiance of the security council.
believe their national goal is to bring about the return of the 12 Imam and cause the apocalypse and threaten to wipe countries off the map.
The national goal as proven by links to news agencies reports about a radio programme?
You people need to use your brains for once. Your desire to bash the US causes you to defend countries that are indefensible. Your desire to bash the US causes you to cease thinking objectively and turn into complete ignoramus with no sense of reality.
Says the person who thinks that one country is intent on destroying America and devotes all its time towards that goal. Why do they even bother with an economic policy, why do they co-operate on such things like the Iran-US Claims Tribunal?
Oh, and one more thing cellardoor6. Don't even bother responding if all you can come up with to support your argument is random news articles. If that's the best sources that you can muster you should wonder about the foundations of your argument.
Yeah, about this line of reasoning - that Iran follows a different worldview that would make them launch a nuke - is bull.Actually it's true, you just don't want to accept it.
You know, it's not like the words of the Iranians themselves lend to the belief.
That's your proof? HAHAHAHA. Bloody hell. I knew it would be crap, but that crap? I mean, 5-6 stories from Western news agencies about such things as a radio series or political rhetoric. Wow.
Shall we also ignore the fact that you tried to portray them as primary sources?
And Iranian opinion as a unified whole is irrelevant because their country is controlled by a religious theocracy
Which will have disagreements within itself. Which was my point.
It was the same with North Korea when they were developing nuclear technology. Everyone went on and on about how Kim Jong was mad and how as soon as North Korea gets nukes they'll attack South Korea, regardless of how stupid a move it is. What happened?Um the Bush administration that you are attacking for criticizing rogue states
This is a complete and utter red herring. I am not attacking the Bush administration or even US policy. I am "attacking" your "argument" that Iran is a threat.
There's where your logic breaks down even further. On one hand you say the US makes up fairy tales, and yet you fail to realize that North Korea is disarming based on US pressure
Actually, that is proof of my logic. North Korea is acting rationally in responding to US pressure and is not acting as how the fairy tales would expect.
Then there's the matter where at one point you'll use US intelligence for your argument, and then you'll use the fact that it has been inaccurate before at the same time.
I haven't used any US intelligence for my argument or even mentioned the report.
Fucking well nothing because every state sees the logic in survival.Some people would say that every man sees the logic in survival. But that would be incorrect and you know it, just at is incorrect when trying to rationalize the actions of Iran.
Sadly your idea of Iran being similar to a suicide bomber doesn't work. Every state has got many different organs, interests and centres of power and, as such, rarely has a unified policy or ideology.
This is a slightly lazy use of a source by me but read this page.
Iran is a country RULED by that very kind of ideology. They emphasize martyrdom as a foundation of their existence, religion pervades their government, a religion which teaches that people should blow themselves up just to kill infidels in the process.
This view doesn't appear to be consistant with your earlier claim of Iran waiting to get the bomb. In fact, it makes the issue of nukes fairly irrelevant. If Iran follows this idea of martyrdom and are stopped from getting nukes then they will just attack with conventional forces anyway. Why haven't they done so already? The crazy religious theocracy that rules Iran has had 28 years in which to carry out its policy of death to America....yet has devoted very little time to this policy.
And the capability is not a threat in the hands of a rational, allied, friendly country. Or for that matter an unfriendly country that happens to not seek for the end of the world.Secondly, no. It's pretty simple. The UK and the US are two democracies that can and do coexist. There is no fundamental belief in either country that they other country needs to be destroyed for one.The question was about capability being a threat.
So the very crux of the matter is if Iran is rational or not.
They can't destroy the US or Israel, or cast the world into chaos, without a nuke because the Iranian military is not powerful enough. That's why they are biding their time. They may be religiously motivated fundamentalists, but they aren't stupid. They know that they won't be able to achieve their goals right now, given the military superiority of the US and Israel.
So they're acting rationally?
Iran supports proxy terrorist groups such as Hezbollah (who has terrorist cells in the US btw, and Islamic Jihad who have attacked us. Iran was responsible for the 1983 Beirut Barracks bombing that killed 241 Americans, which was conducted by these terrorist groups Iran supports.
It's not really similar to a man assaulting another, now is it?
Um... attack, through terrorist organizations that Iran funds, supplies, and directs.
Directs? Bloody hell that would be hard to prove. Funds and supplies, yeah I can see that (although your proof - a US district court judge - is laughable) but directs? To what extent are we talking here?
Your logic is so fucking hilarious.
- First you justify Iran getting nukes because they may want them for defense
I never tried to justify Iran's actions. I was putting forward a different view to yours about Iran's intentions.
- Then you emphasize the intelligence report to suggest Iran isn't trying to get them.
Where have I done that?
- And now you're suggesting it wouldn't be a big deal if they had them and used them because they might not be able to completely destroy the countries they wish to attack.
No, I said that they would not be able to achieve their goals through the use of them. If their aim is death to America and they could only hit the US with one nuke....then I think most people would consider that a fail.
Can we please get something straight. Is Iranian policy "death to America" or is it to bring this apocolypse? Which of their aims is their primary one? Are they a threat to the entire world, or are they only a direct threat to the US and Israel?
It would appear to be considerably over-estimating the relevative strengths of America and Iran.And YOU were the one who created that simile now weren't you? Lol are you so disingenous in your argument that you criticize me for faulty logic that was actually exuded by YOU, and that I was just addressing?
I was using an example to illustrate my point about capability not being a threat. It was you who decided to apply it to Iran and the US. Please don't fuck about and then blame me when I question that.
International Law is not something that is set in stone.
Yup, and Iran knows that. And that is why they have no problem resorting to ploys to make idiots like you in the west think they are complying with those laws.
Pay attention. I have not actually said anything about the intelligence report or about Iran's compliance with the NPT. My point, which you missed, is that it is not correct to say that "Iran is not supposed to develop a nuclear weapon for any purpose" on the basis of their international law commitments.
I could put this in a more complex way, but you would miss the point again.
Funny how your argument contradicts itself over and over again. You herald Iran for signing the treaty, yet you now defend them because they want nukes for defense, never mind the treaty is for countries who want nuclear power, and who promise not to develop nukes.
I tire of your ceaselss strawmanning. I didn't herald Iran for signing the treaty nor did I defend their actions.
Because Brits never, ever gloat about their Pound being worth a lot now do they?
Never.
Nope, they go on holiday to the US and get everything at really bloody cheap prices. We don't gloat, we revel in it and then come back and find that the things we bought are incompatible with British systems.
However, this would clearly be stretching the idea of "threat" too far because it is looking at the possibilities of future action, not current action.Um no. Iran is hostile to the US not just in the current political situation, but due to fundamental differences in how Iran sees the world, and sees its place in the world.
Iran is a threat, they are a theocratic state with a religious leadership that adhere to an interpretation of Islam whose apocalyptic goals and perceptions make then a threat.
Yeah, about this line of reasoning - that Iran follows a different worldview that would make them launch a nuke - is bull. Truly and fundamentally...bullshit. There are grounds for this view - such as your sources of information being Western-centric, your view attributing a high level of stupidity to all levels of the Iranian government and requiring Iranian opinion to be a unified whole - but I prefer to reject it purely on the grounds that it is a completely and utterly made-up fairytale that seeks to portray the "enemy" as unreasonable.
It was the same with North Korea when they were developing nuclear technology. Everyone went on and on about how Kim Jong was mad and how as soon as North Korea gets nukes they'll attack South Korea, regardless of how stupid a move it is. What happened? Fucking well nothing because every state sees the logic in survival.
Secondly, no. It's pretty simple. The UK and the US are two democracies that can and do coexist. There is no fundamental belief in either country that they other country needs to be destroyed for one.
The question was about capability being a threat. Clearly, you agree that capability, on its own, does not constitute a threat.
Should I feel threatened by a tall muscly stranger who walks past me in the street?If that man was sworn to your destruction, assaulted you before, and had been shown to have tried to acquire a weapon with which to kill you... yeah.
For a country sworn to the destruction of America (or Israel), Iran is being very fucking lax about actually doing the destroying. The "assaulted you before" is also quite contentious - I mean, what war was that? Or is it that you're talking about a far more low-scale affair than "assault"? And lastly, if Iran got nukes and attacked the US or Israel, what would happen? Could they, in fact, kill either state?
I find it interesting that you were willing to cast Iran as a tall muscly stranger. It would appear to be considerably over-estimating the relevative strengths of America and Iran.
If that man believed that it was his religious duty to kill you, and had no qualms whatsoever about going to prison or being executed, absolutely you should be frightened and you should probably do whatever you can to prevent that guy from getting the chance to do that.
Again with the portraying of Iranians as unreasonable.
Mhmm.. that's not a very good argument to make. Iran is not supposed to develop a nuclear weapon for any purposeIf Iran had no ill intentions, firstly they never would have had a nuclear program, secondly they would have disclosed their former weapons program by now and admit to it, which they haven't.Nuclear weapons have traditionally been, and remain, desirable for security reasons.
On the basis of a treaty that they signed up to and could leave if they so desired. International Law is not something that is set in stone. It is still subject to the issue of state sovereignty - states decisions remain above international law in most areas, including this.
so emphasizing the fact that they may want it for defense, even though the goal is to prevent them from attaining a nuke first and foremost... that's not a very wise argument.
That wouldn't go over very well.
It's an argument based on premises that pretty much any policy-maker could agree with and any state, regardless of their propaganda attempts, would see the logic in. Its also the reasoning that states that do have nuclear weapons (but don't use them) have advanced when creating nuclear weapons.
I think, at this point, we can get down to the rub. What opinion seems more likely and is more persuasive? Is it that Iran is an unreasonable state that desires nuclear weapons and will use nuclear weapons as soon as they acquire them, regardless of MAD. Or is it that Iran, if they were to develop nuclear weapons, would do so to ensure the security of their state and increase the prestige and power of the state.
One last point, I find it interesting that no-one is arguing the US policy-maker view. Anyone here capable of developing a position based on US desires other than a crude analysis of threats to national security?
I just had to highlight these sections because they are so entrenched in an American preventative war frame that it is like another language.
It is basically irrelevant. Iran is still a threat, and enriching uranium after having had a covert weapons program - that they still haven't even disclosed - fortifies it.
How is Iran a threat?
I imagine the answer would be on some lines like "They could give nukes to terrorists" or "They could nuke Israel". However, this would clearly be stretching the idea of "threat" too far because it is looking at the possibilities of future action, not current action. Should Britain feel threatened by the US because the US could possibly nuke the UK? Should I feel threatened by a tall muscly stranger who walks past me in the street?
If Iran had no ill intentions, firstly they never would have had a nuclear program, secondly they would have disclosed their former weapons program by now and admit to it, which they haven't.
Nuclear weapons have traditionally been, and remain, desirable for security reasons. Iran is motivated by the same things as other states - it wishes to continue its existence and it wishes to secure its existence. The actual use of nuclear weapons would endanger the continuation of the state, whereas the possesion of nuclear weapons would secure it against attacks from an aggressive world hegemon.
Not that I would encourage anyone to use Freedom house's ranking system, but if you are going to look at the website above then you have to look at the methodology section.
I wonder if this will stop people calling him a dictator. I mean, how many Western "democracies" have held referendums recently? And how many "dictatorships" actually pay attention to stuff like that?
