Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 12/10/07 08:16 AM, Slizor wrote:

Furthermore of the 5 sources provided above there are a number of problems.

No they don't.

Firstly, 1 and 3 are, in fact, the same article.

Different article from different websites, but apparently they are the same writing.

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.

Thirdly, no. 4 is the article that the original source was questioning.

It's a credible article, because it states what other articles state. The first link I provided says it also, but it gives an OPINION about its authenticity without proof.

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.

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:

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.

---------

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?

You're a coward. You can't address the facts, you just scrutinize any thing, no matter what the actual source is.

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?".

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.

You really need to pay attention to what your sources actually say.

AHAHAHA, that's coming from YOU? You linked to an article that actually disproved what you claimed it said. The article I provided simply repeated a common quote from Khomenei, and gave an OPINION about its authenticity.

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.

We know Iran's leaders will not publicly associate their desire to bring about the return of the 12 IMam with nuclear weapons. Firstly they keep lying and refusing to acknowledge that they even had a nuclear weapons program in the first place. But as I already linked to, which you ignored, they seek for the return of the 12 Imam:

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.'"

---

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.

---

At 12/11/07 07:57 AM, Slizor wrote:

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.

Different article, same writing.

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 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?

Interesting.

Funny how your argument is so weak, that your only way of validating it in your own mind is to scrutinize all the proof I have provided... all while you provide absolutely ZERO evidence for your argument.

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.

Just because you don't want to accept it, and latch on to one opinion that is up against the opinion of several people who quote it as a reliable, factual quote, doesn't mean you cand isregard it.

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.

If I provided a video that showed Iran's leader saying it in English or something, you'd say "that's not an original source, it could be CGI".

And this is another example of how pathetic you are.

Because I value the source of a source?

Because you provide no sources, and disingenuously scrutinize any source that effecticely counters and shatters your argument.

Below is the full quote with the commentary I have already provided.

Which conclusively negated what you used the source for, yep.

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?

LOL no it doesn't. In fact it completely discredits your original point.

You try to pretend that the rule of the clergy doesn't matter, when in fact the only thing the opposing view of the civilian powers provides is the APPEARANCE of contradiction. Never mind the fact that it already stated the religious leaders have veto power, and are above reproach, therefore the appearance of contradictory policies is just that... appearance, which doesn't override the FACT that it is the religious clergy, the theocrats, that are running the show in Iran.

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.

---------

It's hilarious watching you squirm, trying to find some way of salvaging the purpose of the link you used, that in fact discredits what you claim it implies.

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.

"Unified Iranian policy". LOL!

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 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.

And....go.

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.

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.

ORIGINAL SOURCES mind you, you know, the kind that you keep emphasizing is absolutely necessary to establish its authenticity.

Have fun with that.

---

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

Um actually there is and you know it. You're fizing the criteria of the answer, making it so that I'd have to prove that leaders state their intent of getting nuclear weapons to begin a nuclear war. We all know that the Iranians wouldn't admit that in public eye. They can resort to loads of religious rhetoric, but connecting the nuclear issue with it would be stupid, especially given the circumstances right now.

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"

An Islamic theocracy, who has pursued nuclear weapons (maybe still seeks them), who has attacked the US before, dedicated a holiday to the idea of America being destroyed, and who seeks to facilitate the return of the 12 Imam... and you think that there is no reasonable connection.

You're not only dishonest, in that you use deception as the main pillar of your argument, but you also are apparently incapable of thinking objectively.

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?

Can you prove that Hitler pursued nuclear weapons to use in WWII?

Even though it's a simple fact, you can't PROVE it.

Even though it's quite obvious once the extenuating facts I've provided are applied, that Iran seeks a nuclear weapon due to religious purposes that I've outlined, it cannot be conclusively proven. Not only will Iran never admit it openly, but even if an Iranian leader did admit it openly, you would still scrutinize it and resort to your trademark idiocy. You would say that it wasn't an original source, that the opinion doesn't matter because maybe not all Iranians believe the same thing, or something similarly absurd.

Another sourceless quote. Can't even find another article that uses it.

WOW. Actually take a step back and look at how pathetic your argument is become. The sources I proved proved my case and disproved yours. You can't accept it, so you resort to pure deception and intentional ignorance as the entire basis of your argument.

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.

"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.

Lol funny how you decide to yourself which one you will accept. You're pathetic.

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...

You can't even properly interpret the very quote you now decide you want to believe to make another one of your hilariously ignorant points.

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.

And...go.

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.

Here you go again.

It's iffy to you as long as it disproves your claims and fortifies mine.

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.

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

Wow, 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.

Keep going, you're entertaining.

---

At 12/9/07 08:41 PM, Imperator wrote:

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?

Yes. [97% muslim, 77% Sunni, 20% Shiite, Christians 1%, Hindu 1%, other 1%

I'm severely surprised though, i thought they would have more hindu's; guess not.

Is osama working for the Neo-Cons?

---

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 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.

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?

Can you prove that Hitler pursued nuclear weapons to use in WWII?

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.)

"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.

Lol funny how you decide to yourself which one you will accept. You're pathetic.

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.

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.

Here you go again.

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 case

Wow, 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.

---

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.

At 12/12/07 07:42 AM, Slizor wrote: Ooh, cellardoor has changed tact, guess I should do so too.

LOL

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'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.

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.

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/

Does this mean you are unable to respond or that you accept it and admit that your sources are not credible?

I know my sources are credible. You know my sources are credible, but as you've shown, you're incapable of taking a consistent or honest stance about anything that compromises your argument.

You've already lost, what you're doing now is an attempt to save face for your own personal interest.

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.

Funny, you throw out obviously difficult criteria for establishing facts, yet you accept facts that you yourself cannot establish under the criteria of your "method".

You're hilarious. You haven't provided a credible, consistent argument this entire time. You continually retreat form the points that shatter your argument, or just devolve into denial mode and intentionally and dishonestly scrutinize things into oblivion simply because you don't want them to be admitted to an argument that you're already losing, and have lost, apparently, due to your obivous inability to provide a single fact in your favor this entire time.

Ahh, how I love the constant attacks of cowardice and lying.

You're afraid to accept reality, that shows cowardice, and you lie in order to distort the facts and allow your already discredited argument to continue, that shows your tactic of lying. Pretty simple.

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.

LOL my interpretation? You know, where I actually quoted what was said which actually contradicted what you pretended the article you linked to implied?

That's not a matter of my own interpretation, that's what the facts were. Your interpretation consisted of ignoring enormous swathes of text in the article you linked to, and intentionally ignoring how those parts contradicted the stated purpose of you using that link in the first place.

Iran's leaders have veto power over the government. Therefore, in contrary to what you were claiming, the contradictory or apparent contradictory stances due to the differences between the civilian government and the clergy is IRRELEVANT. The clergy is running the show, period.

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.

AHAHAHA

I already proved they do. You know it. I know it.

Are you seriously wacky? Your only source of argument comes from blatant lies and outright ignorance of the facts that have been revealed right before your eyes?

WOW.

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.

I asked you to provide a similar quote with a direct source, and you have INTENTIONALLY ignored this because you know that your criteria for establishing facts is a total ploy to help you ignore the facts that compromise your argument.

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.

Your argument is hilarious.

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.

So I take it you can't.

Thanks for proving my point.

Since I have not written anything on Iran

You 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.

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.

If you think your arguments actually warrant me doing some research then you vastly over-estimate yourself.

Well I've proved my case, I've created a persuasive argument and have systematically destroyed yours... and you have not provided a single credible or applicable proof for anything you've said.

Now salvage your argument, put your money where your mouth is, and provide direct original sources for the things you claim.

Of course you can't, but of course you'll keep spewing shit left and right with no adherence to the same criteria that you demand form others when they make arguments.

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.

Thanks for proving AGAIN that you can't do what you demand other people to.

You're hilarious.

You just said that this argument doesn't warrant you doing research, but you also claimed you're a "very adept researcher".

Prove it.

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.

Thanks for humiliating yourself, hypocrite.

Oh, and please stop thinking that this is my view versus yours. Mine is a standard theoretical position

Prove that it is standard theoretical position.

And...go.

---

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.

And....go.

Do it then, and find the ORIGINAL sources from Grand Ayatollah Khomeini that professed Iranian nationalism.

Why bother?

YOU CAN'T DO IT!

AHAHAHA

You haven't fulfilled your side of the bargain.

I provided facts, links, proof of the claims I've made.

You haven't, and now you can't even provide proof for your side of the argument in the way you demand from me.

You arguments and sources are so weak

Your arguments and your single source are weak, and have both actually ended up helping my argument even more.

that they are yet to warrant me to provide such evidence.

Provide evidence for your claim or your argument is moot.

Provide it in the way that you demand I provide my evidence otherwise my links are entirely applicable, which they already are.

You have no room to argue anymore, your entire argument has devolved into a complete mess of hypocrisy and lies.

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.

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 don't major in those things, the person I disproved in the links does.

At 12/12/07 07:58 AM, Slizor wrote:

It's like talking to a brick wall.

Talking to you is like talking to

Questions remain about your so-called "proof", yet you rely on it so heavily.

My proof is just that, proof. You have not provided proof for anything other than something that actually fortified my argument against yours.

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.

You know damn well that secondary sources that state things, if those sources are credible, are entirely applicable to the argument.

Meanwhile, you can't adhere to your own strict criteria, not only do you refuse to provide facts about your claims after you are asked for them, but you also did what you have accused me of. You linked top an article to claim something about Iran, yet it wasn't a direct source.

I'll accept that as a yes then.

I'll accept that as further proof you are incapable of accepting the fact your argument has become hilariously flawed and hypocritical, and further proof that you are woefully inadequate at doing what you expect other people do.

Even though it's quite obvious once the extenuating facts I've provided are applied

And the facts are what is under question.

The facts aren't under question to anyone but you.

Meanwhile, your side of the argument is based purely on an argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy. You consider your views to be given fact, which they are not, and your only way of validating them is by the lack of proof, or lack of what YOU consider to be proof by the other side of the argument.

You have not provided a single iota of credibility to your own argument. The only time you tried to was when you used a link that was non-credible according to your own standards, but if applied, actually contradicted what you used it for.

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".

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.

Now retract your entire argument, because it's equally as baseless.

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.

So you use standard logic for things you want to accept, but you don't allow other people to do the same.

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.

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

Wow, 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.

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.

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.

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.

This is a persuasive argument and you 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.

Keep going, you're entertaining.

Yes, it is entertaining to see someone who is good at what they do.

You're good at lying and losing arguments, yep.

---

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.

I'll be honest, I haven't weeded through the last page and 1/2 of bullshit that's been going on. That being said, does anyone have a link to where the original quote came from?

Like, with a time, date, and location kinda thing? Or a transcript or something? Something "official"?

Cause otherwise I feel this is like one of those misquotes that become popular and are never really debunked as a result.....

---

At 12/12/07 09:27 PM, Imperator wrote:

So you beleive Akmed never said those things at all?

---

At 12/12/07 09:31 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:
So you beleive Akmed never said those things at all?

I don't believe anything right now, cause all I've seen is two sides bickering.
But I'm guessing they are misquotes. He said something, and it was misquoted to what we have now.

Kind of like these

---

Well speak o the devil:

(from the wiki page):

"Israel must be wiped off the face of the map." -Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

* Ahmadinejad's statement literally translated says that the Zionist regime "should be wiped from the page of time" (%u0628%u0627%u064A%u062F %u0627%u0632 %u0635%u0641%u062D%u0647 %u0631%u0648%u0632%u06AF%u0627%u0631 %u0645%u062D%u0648 %u0634%u0648%u062F). According to Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, Ahmadinejad's statement should be translated as: The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).

---

At 12/12/07 08:33 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: everyone knows Iranian leaders will not say that outright.

case closed.

This creates an allusion to the intent of Iran..

correct spelling; illusion.

.

Yeh, sll this talk about "proof" over what someone already dead might have said 20 years ago, is in pretty strong contrast to the topic at hand, which is about lies and lack of proof over weapons that Bush is claiming Iran had only a month or two ago. The punative sanctions. The outright announcement that Iran's army is "A State Sponsored Terrorist Organisation". The likely threat of WW3, following from the imediate prospect of war against Iran ...all based on a lack of ANY physical evidence. Just like happened with Iraq.

Where exactly is the onus for the burden of proof? On Iran for defending itself, or America and Israel using unfounded rhetoric as the basis of another pre-emptive attack. That's the real issue here. An issue that Cellar is so desperate to hide beneath all this crap-load of nonsense.

.

---

At 12/12/07 09:40 PM, JudgeDredd wrote:

At 12/12/07 08:33 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: everyone knows Iranian leaders will not say that outright.

case closed.

Nope, because as Slizor ignored, leaders will not say it outright, nor could it be sourced directly regardless.

That's why I told him to provide a direct source of Hitler saying that Germany's nuclear program was itended to be used in WWII.

This is a commonly held fact, that cannot be sourced directly. Therefore

This creates an allusion to the intent of Iran..

correct spelling; illusion.

Correct word: allusion.

passing reference or indirect mention

Yeh, sll this talk about "proof" over what someone already dead might have said 20 years ago, is in pretty strong contrast to the topic at hand, which is about lies and lack of proof over weapons that Bush is claiming Iran had only a month or two ago.

Which I've already shown how weak your argument is about that as well. Both you Imperator ignored the posts where I specifically outlined what was stated in the intelligence report, which came out AFTER what Bush and Cheney said, which was based on previous intelligence which stated that Iran had a nuclear weapons program.

Where exactly is the onus for the burden of proof?

Once again, you're using the report to selectively. You use one thing that states Iran currently isn't seeking a nuclear program in order to make a point. At the same time you ignore the other parts of the report that show Iran had a nuclear weapons program as recently as 4 years ago, that it was directed by their government, that its only somewhat certain they stopped all their nuclear weapons programs, and that they continue to research and develop technology that is used for military use of nuclear bombs.

Meanwhile, Iran has admitted to none.

It is obviously hiding something, of course, according to the report... which you use one part of for your own benefit, but ignore the rest of.

On Iran for defending itself, or America and Israel using unfounded rhetoric

You mean reasonable language against a country that is obviously a threat?

K.

Funny how after ignoring the whole process of this thread you made, after you meticulously ignored all the posts where your entire argument was shattered to pieces, you come back with some more of your OWN unfounded rhetoric.

An issue that Cellar is so desperate to hide beneath all this crap-load of nonsense.

If Iran is no threat and has no bad intentions, why did they develop a nuclear weapons program, why do they continue to hide it, why do they develop technology for the use of nuclear bombs, and why have they supported terrorist groups that have attacked both Israel and the US?

This is an issue that as you've shown in this entire thread, you try desperately to hide from because you are only capable of repeating mindless propaganda. All while you ignore that the very report you're basing your argument on actually discredits your argument and fortifies mine.

Why don't you go back, and respond to all the posts where I provided links in response both your mindless bullshit, as well as Imperators. Both of you show that you have to ignore it, and yet you just keep stating things that were already addressed and conclusively discredited.

---

At 12/12/07 09:27 PM, Imperator wrote: I'll be honest, I haven't weeded through the last page and 1/2 of bullshit that's been going on. That being said, does anyone have a link to where the original quote came from?

Find an original quote of anything that was said by Ayatollah Khomeini.

You CAN'T do it.

Like, with a time, date, and location kinda thing? Or a transcript or something? Something "official"?

Find anything that was said by him, with the original source, original quote,

Cause otherwise I feel this is like one of those misquotes that become popular and are never really debunked as a result.....

Otherwise it's quite obvious your argument is just your attempt to side with Slizor because you've already been humiliated and repeatedly proved wrong by me in this thread.

Go ahead.

Find something that was said by Ayatollah Khomeini, ANYTHING, with the original source, time, date and location.

Otherwise shut up.

---

At 12/12/07 10:05 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:
Find an original quote of anything that was said by Ayatollah Khomeini.

You CAN'T do it.

How about all the shit
he wrote. That "official" enough?

Or quotes from an

Iranian scholar?

Ah, I forgot, that's just someone's "opinion". Just like how that "opinion" Elfer pointed out that you discounted was also (if I remember correctly) from an Iranian scholar.....

Well, you can always just ask these guys about their sources, if you were really feeling the need....

See? These are called "books", which often aren't available online. So when you ask for "proof" or transcripts from Khomeini himself, I give you this, a whole page of them.

Otherwise it's quite obvious your argument is just your attempt to side with Slizor because you've already been humiliated and repeatedly proved wrong by me in this thread.

One, I haven't even read half of what Slizor wrote. You two flying off the handle at each other bores the fuck out of me.

Two, you've been talking to yourself up to this moment. I didn't think it was that hard to catch, but I've been giving you the third degree. Sorry but I just didn't have the time to put up with you.

Three, you tell everyone you debate against that they've been "humiliated" by you "proving them wrong". How many times are you gonna repeat that people's arguments have been "systematically destroyed" with "facts" before you realize you're the boy who cried wolf?

Otherwise shut up.

Temper temper.
Apparently ignoring you has made you quite pissy.....
So I think I'll continue the trend.

---

At 12/12/07 10:32 PM, Imperator wrote:

You CAN'T do it.

How about all the shit
he wrote. That "official" enough?

That's not an original source with time, date, location.

(in fact there aren't even any quotes there)

Or quotes from an

Iranian scholar?

That's not an original source with time, date, location.

Ah, I forgot, that's just someone's "opinion". Just like how that "opinion" Elfer pointed out that you discounted was also (if I remember correctly) from an Iranian scholar.....

Ahaha what? You mean an Iranian journalist?

The word of an Irania journalist vs. the word of Matthias Küntzel, a political scientist, who actually is a scholar.

Nice try though, Imperator.

Three, you tell everyone you debate against that they've been "humiliated" by you "proving them wrong". How many times are you gonna repeat that people's arguments have been "systematically destroyed" with "facts" before you realize you're the boy who cried wolf?

Why don't you actually read the thread, read how the things you said were actually disproved. This whole thread you've been ignoring it because you're a coward.

You make this almost psychotic rant against the US, feeding off the ignorance of Judgedredd, talking about the US doing all these horrible things against Iran, against international sentiments and so forth. Nevermind the evidence that was provide AGAINST Iran came form the very report you were using as the basis of your argument, nevermind how I showed how the countries that were with us before are still with us against Iran.. Nevermind how your points about the US supposedly not "bothering" other countries with nukes except Iran was proved wrong.

You just ignore all things that have shattered your arguments and basically made a complete example of how hilariously flawed your entire take on this issue is.

And then, you replied once so far, just now when you thought that your links actually rebutted me, which they didn't at all because they are not what were original sources in the way that has been described.

I still request that you find an original source, with the date, time, and everything. Because you know that you can't. You'd have to find the original script, in the original language, with undeniable, irrefutable evidence of its authenticity in order for it to fit the criteria that Slizor demands of my sources.

Otherwise shut up.

Temper temper.
Apparently ignoring you has made you quite pissy.....
So I think I'll continue the trend.

Lol you continue to ignore it when you get proved wrong, and you only enter the debate when you think what you said worked out for you, which apparently it didn't.

---

That's not an original source with time, date, location.

(in fact there aren't even any quotes there)

Governance of the Jurist
(Velayat-e Faqueeh)

"Islamic Government"
by Imäm Khomeini

Publisher:
The Institute for Compilation and Publication of Imam Khomeini's Works (International Affairs Division)

Copyright © Iran Chamber Society

It's a book written BY Khomeini, and you think it doesn't have his "quotes" in it......
The entire THING is his "quotes"......it's about as direct as you can get!

Epic fail Cellardoor. Goodbye.

---

Damn the iranians! It appears that book is NOT a work by Khomeini himself, but rather a collection of speeches by Khomeini on the subject.....

What the hell? Books print the title, then the author below. The Iranians are screwing with my head.....

---

The word of an Irania journalist vs. the word of Matthias Küntzel, a political scientist, who actually is a scholar.

Idiot.

"It now appears likely that this quote is bogus. Iran scholars have investigated the claim-which strikes the nose as odd right away, since Khomeini had shown streaks of Iranian nationalism many times elsewhere. The furthest back the source could be clearly traced was a book by Amir Taheri, an Iranian-born journalist."

In other words, the source that "Iran can burn" was made by a journalist, and SCHOLARS disproved it.
Like I said, MISQUOTE.

Nice try though Cellardoor.

---

At 12/12/07 11:34 PM, Imperator wrote: Copyright © Iran Chamber Society

It's a book written BY Khomeini, and you think it doesn't have his "quotes" in it......
The entire THING is his "quotes"......it's about as direct as you can get!

Epic fail Cellardoor. Goodbye.

LOL THERE ARE ZERO NO QUOTES IN THE PAGE YOU LINKED TO.

---

At 12/12/07 11:51 PM, Imperator wrote: Damn the iranians! It appears that book is NOT a work by Khomeini himself, but rather a collection of speeches by Khomeini on the subject.....

In addition to one of your links not including any quotes whatsoever.

What the hell? Books print the title, then the author below. The Iranians are screwing with my head.....

Yeah, everything seems to do that with you.

At 12/13/07 12:05 AM, Imperator wrote:

The word of an Irania journalist vs. the word of Matthias Küntzel, a political scientist, who actually is a scholar.

Idiot.

OMG liek AD HOMINEM

"It now appears likely that this quote is bogus. Iran scholars have investigated the claim

According to a journalist.

-which strikes the nose as odd right away, since Khomeini had shown streaks of Iranian nationalism many times elsewhere. The furthest back the source could be clearly traced was a book by Amir Taheri, an Iranian-born journalist."

In other words, the source that "Iran can burn" was made by a journalist, and SCHOLARS disproved it.

Find an original source of Iranian schollars disproving it.

And...Go.

Like I said, MISQUOTE.

Which you do all the time.

Nice try though Cellardoor.

Nice try Imperator.

---

Dudes, how about this:

The intelligence indicates that Iran has discontinued their nuclear weapons program, so it would certainly be imprudent to go to war right now. However, continued surveillance is appropriate.

---

At 12/13/07 12:43 AM, Elfer wrote: Dudes, how about this:

The intelligence indicates that Iran has discontinued their nuclear weapons program, so it would certainly be imprudent to go to war right now. However, continued surveillance is appropriate.

How about this:

Intelligence indicates that Iran has discontinued their nuclear weapons program, however due to certain factors, namely:

1) Iran's history of supporting terrorist groups, and supporting terrorist attacks on the US and US allies.
2) Iran's history of prior as well as continued deception about their nuclear weapons program, and overall lack of transparency.
3) Uncertainty in the intelligence community about whether Iran has stopped all its weapons programs.
4) Intelligence that Iran continues to research and develop technology that is useful for the creation and/or use of a nuclear weapon.
5) Iran's government's Islamic fundamentalism as the driving force in its ambitions as a nation.

... this new intelligence does not negate the threat Iran poses, nor does it indicate Iran's halting of its nuclear program was anything but a temporary reaction due to international scrutiny created by former US intelligence and US-sponsored action against Iran.

Therefore, it is prudent that all means to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, or the ability to develop a nuclear weapon should be pursued, including:

1) Unilateral sanctions
2) UN Security Council action
3) UN-sponsored sanctions
4) Cooperative, coordinated sanctions in conjunction with allies.
5) Surgical air strikes against Iranian nuclear assets.

If 1-4 fail, then military strike should be deemed both necessary given the risk a nuclear-armed Iran poses, which transcend the possible negative economic and political events that may result after the strike.

---

At 12/4/07 08:34 AM, bcdemon wrote: Apparently the Israelis are calling your intelligence community liars. In Israels "opinion" Iran is still trying to build nuclear weapons.

What I am more concerned about are those poor lil Americanos who have been fed a bowl full of nuclear lies for years now. How do they feel? Do they feel betrayed, or do they feel the intelligence community is "fucking wacked" in thinking Iran can do something peacefully?

It's obvious how Imperator feels, I'm waiting for others to display how they feel now.

I'm pissed about the bullshit. Good enough for you? Bullshit is all it is and I swear it never gets better, I'm with Imperator. This idiotic shit has got to end, if representatives of all the "buddy" nations of us showed up at a party...well it'd be a very boring and stupid party.

---

At 12/12/07 10:01 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: If Iran is no threat and has no bad intentions, why did they develop a nuclear weapons program,

Same as Nth Korea.. to defend against America. They don't want to be invaded like Iraq and Afghanistan have been. 2 of their neighbours as it happens.

Also future security against any number of questionable nuclear neighbours; Israel, Pakistan, India, Russia, China, to name a few.

why do they continue to hide it,

Why does Israel?

why do they develop technology for the use of nuclear bombs.

Why does Pakistan?

Why isn't America pushing for all these countries to give up their WMD and or Nukes?

---

At 12/13/07 04:59 AM, JudgeDredd wrote:

Dredd, your arguments are so weak,evading, and stupid.
And it seems like you think you are smart.

---

At 12/13/07 05:19 AM, zoolrule wrote:
Dredd, your arguments are so weak,evading, and stupid.
And it seems like you think you are smart.

Hi. Welcome to NG Poli debate. Here at NG we like to use a little something called "reasoning". That is, we like to state reasons why we believe or think certain ways.

Base, stupid, and otherwise 4th grade comments are generally not accepted. Thank you.

I'm stealing a like from this clip to summarize why Iran is not a threat: You don't step on Superman's cape.

End thread.

---

At 12/13/07 04:59 AM, JudgeDredd wrote:

At 12/12/07 10:01 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: If Iran is no threat and has no bad intentions, why did they develop a nuclear weapons program,

Same as Nth Korea.. to defend against America. They don't want to be invaded like Iraq and Afghanistan have been. 2 of their neighbours as it happens.

LOL, they has been developing nuclear technology for decades.

You think that they just started it all of a sudden in response to the US invading Afghanistan and Iraq?

Not only are you showing how uninformed you are, yet again, but now you're RATIONALIZING them seeking nukes, basically justifying them building a nuclear bomb when your argument before is that they aren't developing them at all.

Absolutely knee-slapping hilarious how dumb your arguments always are.

Also future security against any number of questionable nuclear neighbours; Israel, Pakistan, India, Russia, China, to name a few.

So now you admit Iran has the intent of developing nuclear weapons.

Thanks!

why do they continue to hide it,

Why does Israel?

Israel is rationale country with self-preservation as a priority, Iran isn't. Israel is also a functioning democracy with a stable, rationale government. So Israel having nukes is not a threat even though it would have been good had they never developed nukes.

Israel already has them, there's nothing that can be done about it.

why do they develop technology for the use of nuclear bombs.

Why does Pakistan?

For self-defense against India.

Why isn't America pushing for all these countries to give up their WMD and or Nukes?

1) Israel is a rationale country. Tthere is not much incentive to disarm them if they have them given the fact that they belong to a stable country. If they have nukes now, then there is no way to get them to give them up if they do in fact have them.

2) Pakistan probably should give up its nukes given the situation in their country, how likely the change of Islamists taking over is.

However, since Pakistan already has a developed program, it would be hard to get them it get it up, probably impossible.

Iran doesn't have nukes yet, it is wise to stop them from getting nukes now. Iran is also OBVIOUSLY a threat, and you continue to ignore the fact that is incredibly reasonable to hold Iran to a different standard than Pakistan or Israel, given Iran's state sponsor for terrorism, frequent allusions to destroying Israel, "Death to America" as a national slogan and holiday, etc..