Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 12/7/07 03:47 PM, chocolate-penguin wrote: I say you wait a while instead of instantly condemning the government based on a 2 page New York Times report.

It's the government that needs to do the waiting here, not the people.
Otherwise you end up with another Iraq and people down the line asking why we invaded under false pretenses.....again.....

It's my civic duty to not trust the competence of the government, isn't it?
It's what I was told when I got my selective service card anyways.....

You don't think anyone is a terrorist. You live in denial. You don't even understand the terrorists motivation or goals.

Not true. Al-Qaeda are terrorists. Unfortunately we're not fighting a war against Al-Qaeda, we're fighting a war against The Others.

and the terrorist's motivation is our own intervention in the Mid East. A large army invading a soverign Muslim country (that had nothing to do with him) was exactly what Osama wanted, his ranks swelled.

Their goal is to kill Americans, pure and simple. We made it a lot easier by sending contractors and troops into their backyard....

Invade another Muslim country and we'll spawn 1000s of Bin Ladens and 1000s of Al-Qaedas.

I think you're getting it wrong. I thought Al Qaeda was attacking us because we don't worship Allah and his cute little boy who resembles a teddy bear. Wait a minute OSHI--

Which is NOT the reasoning given by Michael Scheuer, the 9/11 Commission report, nor Bin Laden himself. You sir are wrong.

Tell me, if they're just attacking because of our "freedom" and prosperity, why haven't they attacked any other country in the same manner? Like Canada, Norway, Denmark, France, Germany etc?

The idea that they're attacking for religious reasons doesn't add up.

The idea that they attack because we pissed them off by being in Saudi Arabia, fucking with Iraq, and supporting Israel on the other hand.....

Wahhh, waaah. It's our fault, waaah.

Oh no, you're right. America is perfect, and her actions should never be questioned. They really just hate us because of our freedom, because they're bad bad men. The whole idea of blowback doesn't exist, what's the CIA know about this kind of stuff anyways?

When France gets bombed and Germany gets bombed, I'll believe your stupid idea of why they attack us. Until then, the evidence points to the opposite direction.

---

At 12/7/07 02:03 PM, Slizor wrote:

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

Wow.

Seriously, is that your only way to argue? Just ignore what I showed and pretend it didn't happen?

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."

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."

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.'

"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.'"

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.

Take an honest stance for once.

It specifically refers to it as "Death to America" day.

Sunday marked 'Death to America Day' where thousands of anti-US chanted and burned the American flag in front of the US embassy in Tehran.

--------

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.

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.

In short, everything you say has NO sources, and your words are absolutely irrelevant because you cannot provide a single shred of counter evidence. 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. 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.

That's pretty cowardly.

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.

Lol you're naive and dishonest.

Iran is ruled by an Islam Theocracy. This Islamic Theocracy is ruled by clergy who believe it is their duty to facilitate the return of their savor and cause the apocalypse. This country had a nuclear weapons program as recently as 4 years ago, and may still have one. It continues to develop technology for nukes, and has never disclosed it.

And you think that since there may or may not be disagreement, that this somehow erases it all. You are fucking naive.

"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.

They were playing a card. You know it, you just can't accept any bit of fact I provide because your argument rests purely on taking every single opposition you can, no matter how much it contradicts what you said before, and no matter how obviously beyond the mark it is.

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.

You have no intelligence, and no honesty.

"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."

And you ignore how it shows those differences don't matter due to the power of the religious leaders.

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 vet 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.

---------

So not only did you use a link that actually fortifies my argument and discredits your own, but you show, yet again, that you have no problem lying in order to lend to your argument.

At 12/7/07 02:37 PM, Slizor wrote: 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.

Haha, that's coming from the person who perpetually lies as the basis of his argument.

Interesting.

I could say exactly the same thing back to you.

And yet again you ignore what was said and retreat from the nuance of the argument.

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... the very one that YOU conjured up to lend to your argument.

Iran attacked the US through their terrorist proxies. You don't want to acknowledge that this lends to my argument Iran is a threat, especially a nuclear-armed Iran, so you intentionally change the subject over and over again.

You're hilarious.

---

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.

WOW

You are absolutely incapable of taking even a single honest stance.

LINK

"We must believe in the fact that Islam is not confined to geographical borders, ethnic groups and nations. It's a universal ideology that leads the world to justice."

"We don't shy away from declaring that Islam is ready to rule the world."

"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."

AND:

"There is no truth on earth but monotheism and following tenets of Islam and there is no way for salvation of mankind but rule of Islam over mankind."

"Nations today have no haven but religion."

The president said Islam belongs to all generations and Muslims should get ready for global mission of Islam.

------

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.

Yeah, they totally don't want something that is the basis of their faith, which is the basis of their theocracy.

I am left speechless by your stupidity.

I think you're speechless because you have absolutely no material to add other than insults and denial.

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.

In order to bring about the apocalypse, the US would either have to be converted to Islam or destroyed.

As would everywhere else.

The US is the biggest obstacle, because the US is the world's superpower and is the basis of political, military, and economic power of the west. The US is the "Great Satan" remember? That is why Iran focuses on the US.

So their policy is actually to bring the apocalypse, not "death to America".

Those two things are not mutually exclusive to them you idiot.

Jeez, just keep perpetually taking those arguments. You have nothing but mindless semantics.

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.

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".

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.

WOW, as if that matters.

It was also not in defiance of the UN Security Council when it passed this law.

Holy hell you love to lie a lot.

LINK:

Iran's parliament unanimously approved the outline of a bill Sunday that would require the government to resume uranium enrichment, legislation likely to deepen an international dispute over Iran's nuclear activities.

Separately, Iran's top nuclear negotiator said there was a 50% chance of a nuclear compromise with European nations, though he ruled out an indefinite suspension of key enrichment activities.

Shouts of "Death to America!" rang out in the conservative-dominated parliament after lawmakers voted to advance the nation's nuclear program, an issue of national pride that provides a rare point of agreement between conservatives and reformers.

Washington has pushed hard for Iran to drop its nuclear program, which Tehran maintains is for peaceful energy purposes. The U.N. nuclear watchdog is also pushing for Iran to halt its activities.

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?

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.

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?

---

Some one answer my question. What does a nation have to gain from wanting so adamantly [I hope it's already been established Iran is very open and front forth about hating the united states] to destroy it, but disarming it's nuclear weapons program as well as not having [Now, we are assuming in this [Assuming is important when you are creating a formal proof to prove or disprove the validity of a statement] that iran 1) has no nuclear weapons 2) is not a threat to the united states nor is it trying to be a threat 3) Isn't aiding others to harm another nation] the capacity to do so.

---

At 12/7/07 10:43 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Some one answer my question. What does a nation have to gain from wanting so adamantly [I hope it's already been established Iran is very open and front forth about hating the united states] to destroy it, but disarming it's nuclear weapons program as well as not having [Now, we are assuming in this [Assuming is important when you are creating a formal proof to prove or disprove the validity of a statement] that iran 1) has no nuclear weapons 2) is not a threat to the united states nor is it trying to be a threat 3) Isn't aiding others to harm another nation] the capacity to do so.

I have no idea to be honest. I mean, even if he had the weapons, what would it matter? He uses one and that's the last you ever hear of anything Iranian. But I mean, we seem to leave countries with nukes alone. We leave pakistan and Korea alone, never really bother them much. There seems to be a mixed message we send, in that if you want the US off your back, develop nukes, but simultaneously we try to get people to not have them......

Maybe there's not such a disconnect; the countries with nukes aren't as controlled by us. We lose hegemony every time a country gains a nuke.......

As Pat Buchanan once said, "You don't step on Superman's cape". There's no real logic to attacking the US, it's self-destructive.

They may say it to gain respect in the region. They're the brave guys standing up to the US in the region openly, and maybe that gets them a lot of respect. Even though they definitely seem to be paying in spades, they might be gaining what can be considered some very respectable battle scars. They're the guys who stood up against the "Tyrant".

They may say it because it creates a solidarity in the country. If there's one thing all Americans can agree on, it's Freedom. If there's one thing all Iranians can agree on, it's Hating the Great Devil.

---

At 12/8/07 12:50 AM, Imperator wrote: I have no idea to be honest. I mean, even if he had the weapons, what would it matter? He uses one and that's the last you ever hear of anything Iranian.

WOW

READ:

Ayatollah Khomeini
"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."

-------------

That's what Iran's SUPREME LEADER said.The highest ranking person in Iran's government, whose words are revered. The founder of the same government that:

- Specifically directed a nuclear weapons program.
- May or may not still have a weapons program
- Has hidden it all this time, never disclosed it.
- Continues to develop nuke technology, including technology for military applications of nuclear weapons.

And this is of course according to the VERY REPORT that you take an isolated piece of to try and validate your invalid argument.

And you're pretending like Iranians can be deterred! You're pretending they are just some rational country?

We leave pakistan and Korea alone, never really bother them much.

1) Pakistan already has nukes, and it has not used them because it is controlled by rational, secular leaders.

2) We HAVE bothered North Korea!

- Never mind several 6-party talks.
- Never the UN security council meetings that ended up with the UN sanctioning the FUCK out of North Korea, after the US proposed them.
- Never mind harsh unilateral sanctions against North Korea.

And this is all after you've criticized the US for the "Axis of Evil" speech. And yet... you forget that North Korea was part of it... and now you're saying we don't "bother" them.

Hahaha, this is so hilarious.

What are they putting in your water at the UMich?

---

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 Imam

Wow.

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?

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.

Take an honest stance for once.

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.

---

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?

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.

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".

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.

WOW, as if that matters.

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.

---

Yep, since when have this administration taken intelligence seriously?

If they don't want to hear it, they'll put their hands over their ears. If they want to hear something, they'll be damn sure that they get someone to say it to them.

---

At 12/8/07 11:22 AM, TheRoyalEnglishman wrote: Yep, since when have this administration taken intelligence seriously?

Well they seemed to believe it wholeheartedly when it gave them a case to enter Iraq......

That turned out marvelous by the way, let's do it again with Iran!!

If they don't want to hear it, they'll put their hands over their ears. If they want to hear something, they'll be damn sure that they get someone to say it to them.

Unfortunately it won't be the American people. We've got such an apathy over here sometimes it just seems like we like it up the ass.....

---

At 12/8/07 02:40 PM, Imperator wrote: this is Sparta!

So ignore iran because we now know without reasonable doubt that iran has no nuclear weapons?

---

At 12/8/07 04:45 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: So ignore iran because we now know without reasonable doubt that iran has no nuclear weapons?

Not what I'm saying. I'm saying don't jump the gun, and do something that cannot be reversed. If we had started bombing Iran, which it appeared we were quite close to doing,we would have stated down a path that was no longer in our control.

Let's stick to discussions until it's 150% clear we're ready to take on Iran, and take on Iran in full force. I'd rather not have Bush be making decisions while saying alea iacta est any time soon....

---

At 12/8/07 02:40 PM, Imperator wrote: Well they seemed to believe it wholeheartedly when it gave them a case to enter Iraq......

That's what I meant. They looked for someone to give them a case to enter Iraq, because they wanted to. Never mind if the intelligence was dodgy.

---

At 12/9/07 04:14 AM, TheRoyalEnglishman wrote: That's what I meant. They looked for someone to give them a case to enter Iraq, because they wanted to. Never mind if the intelligence was dodgy.

The problem wasn't actually the intelligence, it was the foreign policy: Pre-emptive war.

It's a policy that basically says you're not gonna wait and think things out, you're gonna go in, shoot first, shoot last, and then when everyone's dead try to ask questions......

If you simply take away the bad foreign policy, we might make some bad diplomatic moves, screaming about threats that don't exist, but you have the time where new intelligence can reveal itself and save a war from occurring.

I wonder just how far off we were to bombing Iran, because it seemed around the corner. And waiting that one extra day made all the difference in the world.....

---

At 12/9/07 04:14 AM, TheRoyalEnglishman wrote: That's what I meant. They looked for someone to give them a case to enter Iraq, because they wanted to. Never mind if the intelligence was dodgy.

Cheers. I just realized we're on exactly the same page.....

Yeah, it's late, I'm tired, and clearly can't read....... :)

---

I believe that country that executes Homosexuals because they are, Chop off children's fingers when they steal, beat up their wifes on a regular base and officially call for the destruction of USA & Israel -
Must be stopped from getting nuclear technology, and we must do something to stop them, even if there is slight chance that they can get the technology.

---

WOW.

Slizor gets his argument discredited, and yet keeps claiming things that have already been disproved.

Me: "The sky is blue"

Slizor: "no"

Me: "proof: the sky is blue"

Slizor: "who said that? Oh.... Um... that source doesn't count because I don't want it to."

---

At 12/9/07 05:40 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Me: "The sky is blue"

Slizor: "no"

Me: "proof: the sky is blue"

Slizor: "who said that? Oh.... Um... that source doesn't count because I don't want it to."

A more honest version of events;

Cellar: "The sky is blue"

Slizor: "No, light is blue."

Cellar: "Wow (LINK) ...'Leading figure says translated scripture states that the sky ISinfact blue'."

Slizor: "Who.. wha?? Look, what color is the sky at night? Why is the sky not blue at night? Explain that to me if you can! If you can't, then just drop it."

Cellar: "Wow, you can't even accept the sky is blue! What kind of ignoramous hippy liberal dipshit illogical debate is this? I even have more reputable famous persons who also state "the sky is falling", but you're a terrorist sympathizer, so sadly you'll only believe what other anti-American extremists believe."

.

---

At 12/9/07 04:58 AM, zoolrule wrote: I believe that country that executes Homosexuals because they are, Chop off children's fingers when they steal, beat up their wifes on a regular base and officially call for the destruction of USA & Israel -
Must be stopped from getting nuclear technology, and we must do something to stop them, even if there is slight chance that they can get the technology.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/w orld/war/index.html

There are bad people doing bad things throughout the world. Why aren't we solving all those conflicts? Why aren't we doing regime changes to those countries?

Why didn't we stop Kim from getting a nuke, if that's what's so important here (which it isn't)?

what's that old maxim? If the conflict isn't about white men and oil you'll never hear about it?

2.) If Iran gets a nuke, can it even reach the US? If not, what's the big deal?

3.) North Korea HAS nukes, and we're sitting on our laurels. There's no talk about war against NK, so why is there talk about war with Iran when they don't even HAVE nukes, and won't have them for over a decade?

---

I'd just like to know Imperator, how you would handle foreign affairs, if the control switch was in your hands at this very moment.

---

At 12/9/07 07:28 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: I'd just like to know Imperator, how you would handle foreign affairs, if the control switch was in your hands at this very moment.

Pull most of our troops out of the world, start shutting down bases, especially the completely unnecessary ones.

That includes most if not all of our troops in South Korea, Japan, and Germany.

Pull out of Iraq asap. Let em have their trial by fire. Babying them is what's taking so long, not anything else.
Bolster our forces in Afghanistan.

Put all the troops that we now have at home on our southern border. Defend OUR borders instead of everyone else's.

Stop giving boucoup bucks to Israel. They can defend themselves. They don't need our help.

Negotiate with Korea, Iran, Syria, etc.
Negotiate with Pakistan to let us look for Osama there.

Use the billions saved to work on domestic things. Instead of paying for the bombs, paying to rebuild the Iraqi bridges, paying to fix their power grids, spend the money on OUR infrastructure. On OUR people, on OUR problems.

Novel concept really. Making the US government work for the US people.

---

At 12/9/07 07:12 PM, Imperator wrote::

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/w orld/war/index.html

There are bad people doing bad things throughout the world. Why aren't we solving all those conflicts? Why aren't we doing regime changes to those countries?

Why didn't we stop Kim from getting a nuke, if that's what's so important here (which it isn't)?

what's that old maxim? If the conflict isn't about white men and oil you'll never hear about it?

2.) If Iran gets a nuke, can it even reach the US? If not, what's the big deal?

3.) North Korea HAS nukes, and we're sitting on our laurels. There's no talk about war against NK, so why is there talk about war with Iran when they don't even HAVE nukes, and won't have them for over a decade?

I believe all of us know that the muslims are pretty crazy, and they might do anything for the name of allah.
I think it would be the first muslim country getting nuclear, right ? Thats the reason its different.
its not just bad people doing bad things, its fucking nuclear man, its not a joke.
they live in like the 17th century, A tv show that teaches how to beat your wife ? Homosexuals executed ?
I dont want to repeat myself. They might actually nuke USA / Israel, or any other country that "degrades" the prophet of muhamad, that crazy pedophile.

---

At 12/9/07 08:35 PM, zoolrule wrote: I believe all of us know that the muslims are pretty crazy, and they might do anything for the name of allah.

Guess I'm out of the loop then.....

I think it would be the first muslim country getting nuclear, right ? Thats the reason its different.

Is Pakistan considered a Muslim country?

its not just bad people doing bad things, its fucking nuclear man, its not a joke.

They won't be getting one tomorrow, so why the rush to attack them? War is not a joke either son.

they live in like the 17th century, A tv show that teaches how to beat your wife ? Homosexuals executed ?

And people have the balls to deny we're fighting a moral war?
Two word response: American Empire.

I dont want to repeat myself. They might actually nuke USA / Israel, or any other country that "degrades" the prophet of muhamad, that crazy pedophile.

1. I don't even know if they'd have the capability to hit the US if they got nukes.
2. You really think Irsrael wouldn't blow them to shit at the first sign of them having a nuke prepared for launch?

The Republican neo-cons have got you so scared that you're actually afraid of a nuclear war? keep being afraid and playing right into Osama's hands son.

---

At 12/9/07 08:41 PM, Imperator wrote: playing right into Osama's hands son.

Sounds sexy.
Towards the topic now, at this point and time I just don't care anymore.

---

At 12/8/07 02:11 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: WOW

READ:

Ayatollah Khomeini
"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."

WOW READ.

This is at least the second time you've used an article where you've pulled "evidence" from the first paragraph, but the rest of the article goes on to discredit the information.

You've got some problems, and I feel bad for you son. I got ninety-nine problems, but doing this ain't one.

Hit me.

---

At 12/9/07 09:37 PM, Elfer wrote:

Hit me.

WOW.

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.

---

At 12/10/07 12:27 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 12/9/07 09:37 PM, Elfer wrote:

Hit me.

WOW.

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.

It's an "irrelevant opinion" that is apparently based on research and looking into the background of the quote.

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.

---

WOW.

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.

It's an "irrelevant opinion" that is apparently based on research and looking into the background of the quote.

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?

---

"that state the Ayatollah said it"

At 12/10/07 08:16 AM, Slizor wrote:
Firstly..
Secondly..
Thirdly..
Fourthly..
And fifthly..

Sixthly, (and this is critical to the originality of it's source) ..IT'S TRANSLATED!

Fatwas (fat%u0101w%u0101) are almost exclusively issued native language; Arabic. Anything proclaimed under the order of Islam is done in Arabic. Likewise, the Qur'an has been translated into many languages, but they all refer back to the original Arabic text. Although natively, 90% percent of the world's Muslims do not speak Arabic, the language is still used in everyday prayer and such.

Authenticity around the study of Islam is all about having the original in Arabic. Any "official translation" would almost certainly be expected to source the original speech, and give evidence to the person (or persons) who did the translation. Citing a proclaimation of this type without also being able to cite an original text (or in this case more likely a transcript of an original recording) is just asking for trouble.

.

---

At 12/10/07 04:59 PM, JudgeDredd wrote: Fatwas (accented ascii) are almost exclusively issued native language; Arabic. Anything proclaimed under the order of Islam is done in Arabic.

^However, i'm not a scholar of Imam or Shia Islam by any means, and all of Khomeini's speeches might have been in Persian (Farsi), Dari, Tajik, or Klingon for taht matter, but my point (about source and translation) still stands.