Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 12/13/07 05:41 AM, Imperator wrote:

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.

And people like you state reasons why you believe things even after you get proved wrong and have your "reasoning" shattered into pieces right before your eyes.

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

Coming from you that's hilarious given your tendency to just repeat the same sentence over and over again to every line of quote you reply to when your argument gets disproved.

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

Another hilarious example of how weak your arguments always are.

Link to a youtube video.

Dur... I can't think for myself so I'll just link to the undeniable fact contained in THIS CLIP because it's convenient that way!

Durr...

End thread.

---

Dur... I can't think for myself so I'll just link to the undeniable fact contained in THIS CLIP because it's convenient that way!

Durr...

I believe you were warned about flaming people Mr. Cellar.....
And you've been doing it for the last 6 pages.......

Don't make me reach deep into those Mod pockets and have the Pariah of NG banned......again........

---

At 12/13/07 07:08 AM, Imperator wrote:

Dur... I can't think for myself so I'll just link to the undeniable fact contained in THIS CLIP because it's convenient that way!

Durr...

I believe you were warned about flaming people Mr. Cellar.....

Someone's angry that their argument keeps getting shredded apart, and now they bring up the mods. Hilarious.

Funny that after you repeatedly do things you've been warned against, you have the audacity to say that.

And you've been doing it for the last 6 pages.......

Intermittently between proving you wrong several times.

Don't make me reach deep into those Mod pockets and have the Pariah of NG banned......again........

LOL!

Thanks for just making my case even stronger.

---

Someone's angry that their argument keeps getting shredded apart, and now they bring up the mods. Hilarious.

What's funny is you've been talking to yourself the past 6 pages. And most of which has been flaming.

Funny that after you repeatedly do things you've been warned against, you have the audacity to say that.

Bringing you up in unrelated threads? I don't think so son. But please, pull out the bookmarks you have thanks to your Imperator obsession.

Intermittently between proving you wrong several times.

So you've been adding fluffs of argument so that you could attack me without getting banned. Clever boy!

Thanks for just making my case even stronger.

You had a case? I must've lost it between all the flaming......

I wanted to antagonize you a bit more, but I think ignoring you actually makes it funnier. I laugh watching you insult someone who was clearly not responding......like a 5 year old yelling "pay attention to me!" and throwing a hissyfit.....

---

At 12/13/07 07:44 AM, Imperator wrote:

Someone's angry that their argument keeps getting shredded apart, and now they bring up the mods. Hilarious.

What's funny is you've been talking to yourself the past 6 pages. And most of which has been flaming.

And I talked about the topic didn't I? Was the topic not the sole center of my attention? Considering I've replied to several users and the vast majority of my posts were filled with relevant arguments that were actually about Iran?

And now you've made this thread a "look at cellardoor" issue once again, by changing the topic to me. Hilarious.

Funny how your tactic of ignoring me didn't last now did it?

I continued to address things you say even if you ignored it because the things you said were so noteworthy in their inaccuracy and blatant dishonesty that it was hard to pass up.

I dare you to take a look at all my replies to you, and actually have the moxie to reply to them in full. I dare you to actually stay on topic as well.

Of course, you didn't do that, and you're not going to. From the very first post that completely shattered the things you said into oblivion, it became quite clear that you knew that you couldn't provide a coherent argument any more. Your credibility was tarred from the beginning, so you just ignored it, thinking that I'd stop and that you could somehow get away with your absurd arguments.

Funny that after you repeatedly do things you've been warned against, you have the audacity to say that.

Bringing you up in unrelated threads?

LOL. what did you just say? YOU brought up what transpired in unrelated threads now didn't you?

Let's recap:

At 12/13/07 07:08 AM, Imperator wrote: I believe you were warned about flaming people Mr. Cellar.....

-------

Then I mention the fact that you have been warned not to do things, yet you do it to, and then you pounce when I bring up threads that were related to the very topic you brought up.

I don't think so son. But please, pull out the bookmarks you have thanks to your Imperator obsession.

HAH!

Coming from Imperator, the person who has dedicated he entire participation in literally dozens of threads solely around me, while ignoring the topic entirely, on numerous occasions.

Seems like you're obsessed with me. In fact, you're obsessed with me to the point that your attempt to completely ignore me broke down pretty quickly now didn't it?

Intermittently between proving you wrong several times.

So you've been adding fluffs of argument so that you could attack me without getting banned. Clever boy!

Another hilarious hypocrisy on your part.

Anyway, every single reply to you I made except the last one had to do with the issue, I provided relevant links and addressed what you said about the topic. That was the basis of my argument, the topic.

Now... look what you're doing, you just initiated an argument about me personally now didn't you? Did you even care to reply to the things I said to you about the topic? After you started talking about the argument between slizor and I, how many posts I made pertaining to the topic did you ignore?

Thanks for just making my case even stronger.

You had a case? I must've lost it between all the flaming......

I had a case, I've validated it. You made points, I discredited them.

I wanted to antagonize you a bit more, but I think ignoring you actually makes it funnier.

Interesting, because now you've focused all of your attention on me. Hilarious.

Apparently you couldn't stick to your guns very long now could you?

I laugh watching you insult someone who was clearly not responding

And now it's evident you read it, and chose to ignore it... meanwhile now I apparently have your full attention

Thanks for boosting my case once again, Imp.

---

At 12/13/07 05:19 AM, zoolrule wrote:

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.

This is not my alt by the way.

---

I dare you to take a look at all my replies to you, and actually have the moxie to reply to them in full. I dare you to actually stay on topic as well.

I don't really need to. You seem to do well enough on your own. Discrediting your own links and positions and all.....

The article I provided simply repeated a common quote from Khomenei, and gave an OPINION about its authenticity.

Elfer took care of this. An "opinion" backed by research.....by a Professor. But he just must be another crazy liberal issuing propaganda right?

To answer the incredibly stupid question of why Iran wants to develop nukes, all you have to do really is look at our foreign policy history.

Pakistan. We don't touch em because they have nukes.

War threats. We follow through. We've been scratching names off our hit list for years. We scratched off Iraq fairly recently.....

With the evidence of what we've done to Iraq, are you really that naive to think that Iran isn't desperately trying to find a deterrent to US invasion?

The Iran "threat" is just war propaganda. Saddam had no power to hurt us, and Iran has no power to hurt us. Outside of the very rare terrorist attack they have NO POWER.

But you continue to believe what you want. As long as you fight the war and leave me the fuck alone, I don't give a shit.

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

Bingo. Once a country has nukes, we back the fuck off. I'm sure we'd like nothing more than a Pakistani regime change, but what stops us? Their nukes.

Notice that the two countries in the region that we don't attack aren't big on democracy? Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Monkey see, monkey do.

Funny how your tactic of ignoring me didn't last now did it?

You were becoming dry. Needed a refresher.

---

At 12/13/07 08:20 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:
This is not my alt by the way.

Pfff....hahahaha!

Maybe I CAN start ignoring you again, if you're paranoid about THAT kind of shit.....

Hahahah!.....hoo boy.....early morning laugh gets the system workin......

---

At 12/13/07 05:57 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

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.

I wont even ask for proof of this statement. Apparently (according to what you now say) it takes more than 20 years to make a bomb, yet by current estimates, they won't even finish the job for another 10 years, even if they hadn't stopped, which they have!

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

IF they started decades ago, then yes, because you may not know but America was heavily involved funding and arming both those countries (Afganistan against Russia, and Iraq against Iran) thou i don't expect you'd know much about that seeing how you were most likely still in nappies at the time.

Me? Yeah, I saw it on the news every night for 10 fucken years. Iran-Iraq war alone killed about a million on both sides.. a totally pointless war. Iraq was the agressor originally, yet America supported them because it saw Islam as the bigger threat. Regardless, America was involved, and that made Iran the enemy by defacto. And why would Iran view it any less so today as part of America's axis-of-evil?

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.

I'm explaining "WHY". It was your question. I'm just answering it. And yes, there is a RATIONALE why they did, and equally a RATIONALE why they stopped. Both make sense to me. Where did i ever say "they aren't developing them at all"?? Read the Fucken Title, and stop putting words in my mouth.

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!

That's past-future dip-shit. And who knows the future. "Totally Rationale" Israel could let one off tomorrow, and justify it as defensive, just as they do today with illegal weapons (ie. Lebanon cluster bombs).

why do they continue to hide it,

Why does Israel?

Israel is rationale country.

So rationale countries hide nukes. Got ya!

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

BS.

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

Why does Pakistan?

For self-defense against India.

BS. They already have stuff that can reach India.

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

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

Nukes in the hands of ANY Islamists = nightmare scenario. Yeah, we kinda got that point already.

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.

"IF they have nukes" LOL ..you don't even know do you? They won't say, and America doesn't ask. Hiding whether you've got nukes is a "rationale" strategy. Well, i beg to differ. Anyone will tell you nukes are not something you hide up your sleeve. If you have them, then you let all your enemies know about it in advance. Infact, doing otherwise is not rationale, never has been, never will be.

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

BS.

Iran doesn't have nukes yet, it is wise to stop them from getting nukes now.

They stopped. You've given them ZERO credit for doing so. How very rationale of them.

Iran is also OBVIOUSLY a threat..

---

So rationale countries hide nukes. Got ya!

Damn....forgot about Israel....

Not only do they have nukes, they deny that (or were at one point).

So Iran is looking around, sees Pakistan, sees Saudi Arabia, sees Israel, sees North Korea, sees Russia, sees China......

Sees Bush's Axis of evil speech. Sees stuff leading up to Iraq War. Sees Iraq get destroyed.

Knows China, Russia, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia have deterrents to the US (either nukes or oil).

Iranians think this over for about 2 fuckin minutes, because that's all someone with half a brain that isn't totally absorbed in believing the latest Fear Craze needs:

........you do the math......

---

Lol slizor systematically dodged the facts, continues to lie, and refused to answer questions or oblige to inquiries that he knew he couldn't answer, that that would therefore shatter his argument. So hilarious.

HAHAHAHA. I haven't actually got a direct response from you in a good few posts. All you have done is ignored the point that I've made and repeatedly claimed the validity of your proof and your "victory".

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.

Like here. Where is that addressing the issue that they are both "Iran's Obsession with the Jews" by Matthias Kuntzel.

That's not a response to what I have said. If you can not respond conceed the point.

Funny how you ignored or disregarded every single thing I asked you to do to show that your criteria for accepting a source is hideously hypocritical and disingenuous. You cannot adhere to the same standards that you claim have to be met.

This is still not a response to "It means that atleast one of them is unable to pinpoint where the quote came from."

You haven't responded to my method of establishing credibility (in fact, you deleted it.)

You haven't responded to the areas where I showed you that your method of establishing credibility is both wrong and hypocritical coming from you considering you have not provided any facts for anything you say

You haven't shown anything. You asked me to provide something that was not necessary for my position and I refused. I see no reason why I should look up transcripts in another language because your sources fail to do so.

I know my sources are credible.

Yet have yet to provide the grounds for your belief that they are credible.

Interesting.

But can't be traced back to its original point.

And I asked you to trace things back to the original point and you haven't.

Look, cellar, really try and stay on topic. The quote can not be traced back to its original position, it is therefore unverified and thus untrustworthy.

You're hilarious. You haven't provided a credible, consistent argument this entire time. You continually retreat form the points that shatter your argument

I think I've conceeded two points in a change of tact. You, however, have ignored points where you have clearly been proven mistaken. They just disappeared.

Lots of stuff that is essentially cellardoor repeating himself.

All the sources you have provided have pointed to (with the exception of the one quote from the dead leader that was discredited by your original source) Ahmadinejad's views, not that of the current religious clergy that override his power so absolutely.

The sources I provided were credible and you know it.

You miss the point. Ahmadinejad, the person you have quoted so many times, is not part of the relgious clergy. It is their view that is important, but it is not their view that they have covered.

I told you to provide a direct, original source for what you claimed Bush said, you have not done it. Hell, you haven't even tried to provide a direct source from what an Iranian leader has said either, even though you used a link to suggest something about them anyway... which was not an original source btw.

I've never suggested that the use of a secondary source is a bad thing. I've only required secondary sources, when using quotes (in particular), to provide a citation of where that quote is from.

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.

As I have already stated, it simply is not necessary.

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.

You're confusing the issue. I have not asked you to provide primary evidence, I have asked that your secondary evidence link to primary evidence. You are requiring me to actually find primary evidence, something I would do if I was writing an article or an essay, but something that you are yet to deserve.

I have not done extensive research and found original sources for quotes from Iranian leaders.

Most people don't, and that is why such information is provided through mediums, like the ones I linked to, which you didn't except because you're a coward.

I don't accept them because they show no signs of having done original research - citations.

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

See, you're requiring of me something I require of your secondary sources.

It's hilariously deceptive.

Or how about I continue sitting in my dressing gown eating cereal in the middle of the day instead of running around like a fucking lapdog for you.

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

That I refuse to do it doesn't mean I can't. You assume can't, but the evidence does not back up your position.

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

Prove it.

Okay, do you want my undergrad dissertation? Or any number of the essays that I wrote over the course of my degree? Or do you want some from my Masters in International Relations?

They all show a very high level of research. I think you'd like my dissertation, it was called "The effects of oil on US foreign policy." Brillant bit of work.

You make claims, you haven't shown your research for those claims yet you expect me to meet these criteria that you're proving you can't meet yourself.

No, I expect your sources to meet these criteria.

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

Prove that it is standard theoretical position.

Ok. If you scroll down it's somewhere in the middle.

---

taken in IR that any number of analysts would take.

Prove it with original sources, with a compressive list of analysts who make those direct original quotes.

Hahaha. I love how you're on this whole primary sources vibe at the moment, despite the fact that this point isn't something that requires primary sources. Any IR textbook will tell you that realism is the dominant theory in the field.
en't fulfilled your side of the bargain.

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

No, you've provided non-attributed quotes from a number of commentators on dubious websites and then claimed that they're credible. What grounds are they credible on?

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

Of the way I demand of your sources. All I require is basic scholarly standards.

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

Provide evidence for your claim or your argument is moot.

I'm not entirely sure what you want of me here. All I've done in this thread is question your logic and your argument. A few pages ago I mentioned Iran wanting nuclear weapons for security reasons, but that is something that fell to the wayside a long time ago.

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

I've covered this above. I've required that your sources, when quoting, provide a citation of where that quote is from. Otherwise it is lower in levels of reliability than wikipedia.

In short, if you intellectually upped your game and stopped going on and on about sources that have shit-all credibility and instead presented some good sources that directly supported your argument then I would do likewise.

I guess you can't provide any proof.

Hilarious.

Yup, a hilariously wrong guess. Unless you guess that I can't provide proof on the grounds that I can't be bothered to research it.

However, since you have failed to do so I see no reason for doing so and certainly will not be told to do so by someone who majors in Catholic and Classic studies.

Wow you're reading comprehension is that bad?

I believe you mean "your".

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

Ah, okay. So you're just a loser who is "willfully unemployed" and spends all his time on the net.

Now I understand why you can't use sources! I just thought that the American education system was just really fucking bad and the academic standards in the toilet, but you've never been taught how to use them. Jesus, there

It's like talking to a brick wall.

Talking to you is like talking to

Couldn't find a good insult?

You cannot provide proof, yet you demand proof in a way that is obviously designed to be impossible. You're asking someone on the internet to find an original source from a leader who said something 30 years ago in a foreign country, in a foreign language, knowind damn well that this original source is inaccessible.

Savage that strawman, go on savage him! As I said
"Do you actually have a source, which is backed up by tracable citations of primary evidence, where a leader of Iran states that their goal is to bring the return of the 12th Imam and to achieve this goal they will gain nuclear weapons and begin a nuclear war?"
Is that requiring you to find primary evidence? No. It requires you to find a secondary source that links to a primary source.

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

And, as such, the grounds for credibility are a matter of discussion. What are yours?

Meanwhile, your side of the argument is based purely on an argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy.

Oh dear dear dear. Don't go digging your hole any deeper now.

The way I decide is by putting the quote into google. It is an elementary form of cross-referencing.

LOL coming from the person who says he is a "very adept researcher".

I'm not entirely certain what your point is here. Is it that using google to do it is sloppy and lazy? Why would I waste my time doing it properly on your points?

I can not provide a direct, original quote from George Bush saying something similar to armageddon.

Bingo, yet you believed it and used it in the argument because you believe the secondary sources that provided it were credible.

No, actually because I hadn't looked at people writing about it in years and the lack of primary evidence that they cite.

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

Actually I was applying the same logic. Those people who wrote about it had no links to primary evidence and so have no credibility. Therefore the argument would have had no grounds and so I retracted it. I expect the same of anyone else.

It's completely unimportant on the grounds of who said it.

A religious leader in Iran said it. Iran is lead by religious clergy of the same faith. It's both important and applicable.

Same faith, so same beliefs? Interesting idea. Completely batshit, but interesting.

Nope, concede that your "points" were intentionally deceptive ploys that added intentionally high standards.

You asked me to find a source where Iran's leader say outright they want a nuclear bomb to bring about the return of the 12 Imam, everyone knows Iranian leaders will not say that outright.

And so your argument, even if we were to accept your appauling sources, falls by the wayside by lacking that crucial bit of evidence and drops into the world of conspiracy theories - where evidence is not available for the crazy theories because "they" do not want to reveal their evil intentions to the world.

What I have provided is proof that Iran at least had a weapons program as recently as 4 years ago, that they have leaders who believe in facilitating the return of the 12 Imam, and that traditional belief is that the reutrn of the 12 Imam will be preceded by chaos and destruction.

They have unimportant leaders (as the religious theocracy have veto power) who believe that. I haven't actually seen much on the return of the 12th Imam being preceeded by chaos and destruction. I would imagine that would be the case considering the significant links between Islam and Christianity, but where is the evidence of human action being required to start the chaos and destruction.

This creates an allusion to the intent of Iran, given the proof that they had a government sponsored nuclear weapons program, and given the fact that their government is lead by clergymen who adhere to the sect of Shi'a Islam have those beliefs.

Reverse a little bit would you? You did notice the point above that wiped out all your quotes? As we have now both accepted, Iran is ruled by a religious clergy and not by the government. All of your quotes, with the exception of a highly contested one from the dead Ayatollah, are from Ahmadinejad.....who is a member of the government and is, as we agreed above, unimportant.

This is a persuasive argument and you know it.

No, it's a shit argument and I know it.

But once again, after a long protracted period of you resorting to intentional ploys, you asked for proof that Iranian leaders themselves have directly revealed all this at once. Which is irrelevant.

Which is irrelevant? When trying to provide evidence of your views you think that one that would directly validate your stance is irrelevant?

Interesting.

Shall we move on to discussing other conspiracy theories?

How about this? There is a wealth of evidence on that site, all of it credible (on the grounds that I say it is credible and you, a well-known liar, say it is not credible.)

---

Hey cellar, found a job for you! Their standards of evidence would be right up your street.

---

At 12/13/07 09:07 AM, Imperator wrote: So Iran is looking around, sees Pakistan, sees Saudi Arabia, sees Israel, sees North Korea, sees Russia, sees China...... Sees Bush's Axis of evil speech. Sees stuff leading up to Iraq War. Sees Iraq get destroyed.

..Realizes they've lost a valuable bargaining chip by having stopped their nuclear development in 2003... Looks at the behaviour of Putin and Musharraf. Ponders why America has been making secret pacts with both of these military-style dictators.. Hears the continued rhetoric and WOT ballyhoo coming from the US. Calculates that Bush might be playing for a 3rd term in office by reason of imminent war (ie. approaching WW3 if US invades Iran without allied support or justification). Sees no good outcome in Afghanistan or Iraq after years of US occupation. Does a double-take on recent Palestinian and Lebanon derstuction wrought by Israel (sanctioned by US silence). Looks around it's borders at the vast array of US military bases, troop and naval deployments..

........you do the math......

Yeah, so who's the one guilty of turning fear and paranoia exerted over it's own people into an ongoing war-footing here? America or Iran?
.

---

At 12/13/07 08:29 AM, Imperator wrote:

I dare you to take a look at all my replies to you, and actually have the moxie to reply to them in full. I dare you to actually stay on topic as well.

I don't really need to.

Yeah, because you can't.

The article I provided simply repeated a common quote from Khomenei, and gave an OPINION about its authenticity.

Elfer took care of this. An "opinion" backed by research.....by a Professor.

What professor?

Meanwhile, the origin of the quote was from Matthias Kuntzel, an actual scholar.

Next.

To answer the incredibly stupid question of why Iran wants to develop nukes, all you have to do really is look at our foreign policy history.

So now you're saying Iran want's nukes, but now you're justfiying it.

THANKS!

You've discredited your own argument even further.

With the evidence of what we've done to Iraq, are you really that naive to think that Iran isn't desperately trying to find a deterrent to US invasion?

Is your argument so weak that after you were touting the intelligence report, stating that Iran isn't developing nukes, now that your position has been discredited you've automatically switched your argument over to defending Iran seeking nukes after you were defending Iran for them supposedly being the victim of false accusations?

LOL!

The Iran "threat" is just war propaganda. Saddam had no power to hurt us, and Iran has no power to hurt us.

Tell that to 241 Americans.

But you continue to believe what you want.

You continue to believe what has already been disproved, I believe what I can actually provide evidence to support.

Yep.

In the meanwhile your entire argument evolves as you go along, something you say gets discredited, your idiocy gets revealed for what it is, then you just switch it up and change your story and now you're defending Iran for developing nukes.

LOL!

---

What professor?

You really DON'T read your own sources, do you?

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracy inamerica/2007/11/is_iran_suicidal_or_de terrable.cfm

"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."

"Shaul Bakhash of George Mason University looked into the quote, and has written the following for a private newsletter for Gulf experts:"

This research, I think, clearly establishes that the alleged quotation is a fabrication.

The full "quotation" Taheri gives in his book, "Nest of Spies," follows; even on cursory examination it appears implausible that Khomeini would have said such a thing.

If you look at the way in which the mullahs have run Iran, by and large they have been incredibly savvy. They're building up bank accounts in Dubai and in Switzerland. This does not strike me as the kind of ravings of, you know, an end of days millenarian.

Meanwhile your own sources continue to prove you wrong, and you try to justify your argument.
Oh, he didn't ACTUALLY say this, he "alluded" to it.......riiiiight.

And when scholars come and say "no he didn't", in the very source YOU post, what do you do? Oh, that's just an "opinion". Yeah, and the US President is just a figurehead that we can ignore anytime we like.

YOUR OWN SOURCE man! A professional, scholarly, researched claim. And you think it's just an "opinion". Meanwhile you try to dig up your own scholar to counter the claim.

Do yourself some good and just. Stop. Talking.

---

In the meanwhile your entire argument evolves as you go along, something you say gets discredited, your idiocy gets revealed for what it is, then you just switch it up and change your story and now you're defending Iran for developing nukes.

I've never defended Iran for developing nukes. Re-read the last 6 pages. I've been critical of the US' handling of the Iran situation. That's been my stance from the beginning, and it hasn't changed ONCE.

The most I've said about Iran is I don't give a shit about them. I said they weren't a threat, and it's true, they aren't.

My posts have been consistent since page 1. Meanwhile......you get discredited by your own sources, and it takes 5 people to get it through your thick head. You still deny it, and fail to accept your assumption is invalid......you know, you're a lot like 9/11 Conspiracists in that way. Just don't fuckin listen.

---

At 12/13/07 01:03 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: ... 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.

Again, that's why you have continued surveillance.

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.

I still don't think that a military strike is a good idea in light of intelligence that says that they don't have a nuclear weapons program, considering that their alleged desire for nuclear weapons is the motivation for the military strike.

---

At 12/13/07 08:58 AM, JudgeDredd wrote:

At 12/13/07 05:57 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

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.

I wont even ask for proof of this statement.

Well there is proof.

Apparently (according to what you now say) it takes more than 20 years to make a bomb, yet by current estimates, they won't even finish the job for another 10 years

Try 3-8 years, most likely 5 years it says (2013).

even if they hadn't stopped, which they have!

First, it's not certain whether they stopped all their nuclear weapons programs, but heres more proof of how quick you are to lie, yet again, and say things contrary to the very report you're touting.

Secondly, it states that Iran stopped it due to international pressure. And since Iran continues to hide it, it's quite evident that they only stopped it because of that pressure, and that this is temporary. Otherwise they would have come clean now don't you think?

But then again, of course, you're contradicting your argument once again because just a moment ago you were defending Iran for developing nukes, now you said they stopped as if they had some change of heart.

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

IF they started decades ago, then yes

Except for the Gulf War, the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, and the Iraq war, which was around when Iran STOPPED their nuclear weapons program (thus contradicting your argument that they are doing it for self defense even further), the US hasn't invaded Iraq or Afghanistan in previous decades.

You're saying "yes" to a response of the US invading, yet apparently Iran was developing nukes before any of those wars took place.

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.

I'm explaining "WHY". It was your question.

And your answer contradicted your previous argument now didn't it?

You feel into the trap. You're showing that your argument, either way, is baseless. At one hand your argument consists of the idea Iran stopped developing nukes and isn't developing them and desn't want them, then you say they want them for legitimate defense. And the funny thing about that is, your argument is that they want defense due to the US invading their neighbors, nevermind they stopped their nuclear weapons program in 2003, only 2 years after the invasion of Afghanistan, and right after the US invaded Iraq.

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

That's past-future dip-shit.

And now you're rationalizing it again.

Thanks.

So rationale countries hide nukes. Got ya!

Rationale countries like Israel aren't a threat.

irrational countries like Iran that support terrorist groups that attack the US and US allies should be prevented from having nukes, period. Because unlike Israel, Iran will use them.

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

Why does Pakistan?

For self-defense against India.

BS. They already have stuff that can reach India.

That's the point you moron.

It's called deterrence. India has missiles that can reach Pakistan, Pakistan has missiles that can reach India. Both have nukes, both haven't used them, both have them as a deterrent.

Iran wants nukes to aide their facilitaitng of the 12 Imam. Iran is a country controlled by a zealous religious clery. They support terrorists, have national slogans calling for the destruction of other countries and so forth.

There is no logic in allowing Iran to have a nuke. You justifying it and putting Iran on the same level as Pakistan or Israel shows how fucking devoid of logic your argument is.

Nukes in the hands of ANY Islamists = nightmare scenario. Yeah, we kinda got that point already.

Yep, and that was right after you defended Iran for seeking nukes, even though their country is FOUNDED as an Islamist country, which is the driving force behind their entire ambition as a nation.

Thanks, once again.

Your argument just goes back and forth, criss crossing and contradicting itself over and over again now doesn't it?

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

BS.

Iran doesn't have nukes yet, it is wise to stop them from getting nukes now.

They stopped.

Because they were prudent in doing so, they didn't have a change of heart, they stopped because they needed to save their own asses.

You've given them ZERO credit for doing so.

LOl they haven't even admitted they had a program in the first place? They would deserve credit if they stopped the program, admitted that they had it, and stated they stopped it due to a shift in policy.

They haven't done that, therefore it's fucking obvious that they only stopped it as a temporary solution to the international scrutiny that was created by the US.

---

At 12/13/07 09:28 PM, Imperator wrote:

What professor?

You really DON'T read your own sources, do you?

You never take an honest stance in your life ever do you?

"Shaul Bakhash of George Mason University looked into the quote, and has written the following for a private newsletter for Gulf experts:"

Meanwhile Mathias Kuntzel, an actual scholar, considers it credible enough to use.

Opinion vs. Opinion.

Meanwhile your own sources continue to prove you wrong

No it doesn't.

And when scholars come and say "no he didn't", in the very source YOU post

And scholars of greater credibility use the quote in spite of pro-Iranian scholars trying to cover it up, then the opinion they have is irrelevant.

YOUR OWN SOURCE man!

Doesn't discredit my own but simply shows an opinion vs. opinion.

A professional, scholarly, researched claim.

Do yourself some good and just. Stop. Talking.

Imperator. Funny how you're latching on to one things because you're so pathetic, you can't even attempt to reply to the areas where I systematically and perpetually discredited your entire arugment.

So you stand on the shoulders of Elfer and pounce because you need other people as back up.

You're absolutely pathetic.

Why don't you read through the thread and look at all the areas where the things you said were literally disproved?

Oh that's right, you're too afraid, you'd rather latch on to a single source that was only brought to your attention via Elfer, because that's ALL YOU HAVE to possibly salvage your dignity after this thread has become yet another instance of you showing how basically every political point you ever make gets shattered with facts.

---

At 12/13/07 09:32 PM, Imperator wrote:

In the meanwhile your entire argument evolves as you go along, something you say gets discredited, your idiocy gets revealed for what it is, then you just switch it up and change your story and now you're defending Iran for developing nukes.

I've never defended Iran for developing nukes.

AHAHAHAHAHAAH

Now you're just lying again.

My posts have been consistent since page 1.

LOL they've been consistently WRONG and that's the only consistency they've had.

At 12/13/07 12:16 PM, Slizor wrote:

Lol slizor systematically dodged the facts, continues to lie, and refused to answer questions or oblige to inquiries that he knew he couldn't answer, that that would therefore shatter his argument. So hilarious.

HAHAHAHA. I haven't actually got a direct response from you in a good few posts.

funny, you keep dodging every single point that proves you wrong and discredits your argument.

Keep going, it's hilarious.

This is still not a response to "It means that atleast one of them is unable to pinpoint where the quote came from."

And then you can't even address where you've been asked to validate your claims by actually putting force any shred of evidence for your own argument.

You ask someone to do something and meet certain criteria that you can't even meet yourself.

Hilarios.

You haven't responded to my method of establishing credibility (in fact, you deleted it.)

You haven't responded to the areas where I showed you that your method of establishing credibility is both wrong and hypocritical coming from you considering you have not provided any facts for anything you say

You haven't shown anything. You asked me to provide something that was not necessary for my position and I refused.

You were asked to provide something to validate your position so that you could for once use something other than an argument from ignorance.

You couldn't do it. Thus showing that you yourself know that YOU CANNOT provide any proof, let alone proof that meets the standards you demand from others.

And now all your posts consist of continued and perpetual cowardice, dodging questions, ignoring nuance, and continuing to provide absolutely zero proof of anything you say.

Bookmarked for future reference the next time you open your dirty mouth in a political thread.

---

Since Imperator is trying to make this into another cellardoor thread, I'm going to try and keep it about the issue and repeat myself in areas that he ignored, adjusting it slightly to be less confrontational:

So let's recap:

At 12/4/07 04:21 PM, Imperator wrote:

I just love the fact Bush is still stickin to his guns like the information was irrelevant.......

It is basically irrelevant. Iran is still a threat, and enriching uranium after having had a covert weapons program - that they still haven't even disclosed - fortifies it.

If Iran had no ill intentions, firstly they never would have had a nuclear program, secondly they would have disclosed their former weapons program by now and admit to it, which they haven't.

Funny how you're making selective use of what the report said, which I'm positive you haven't actually read.

People mention the fact that the report states (that during the time Bush started pressuring Iran under their former more moderate president) the Iranians halted their weapons program. However they don't mention the report states that Iran continues research into applications of a nuclear weapon and that it is NOT CERTAIN whether or not Iran has halted all of its nuclear weapons programs.

National Intelligence Estimate
(pg 6)

We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons
program; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is
keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons. We judge with high confidence
that the halt, and Tehran's announcement of its decision to suspend its declared uranium
enrichment program and sign an Additional Protocol to its Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty Safeguards Agreement, was directed primarily in response to increasing
international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran's previously
undeclared nuclear work.
-----------

Who do you think caused that international scrutiny and pressure? Oh that's right, the President you're trying to pretend has no business accusing Iran of anything.

Furthermore:

- We assess with high confidence that until fall 2003, Iranian military entities were
working under government direction to develop nuclear weapons.

- We judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years. (Because of
intelligence gaps discussed elsewhere in this Estimate, however, DOE and the NIC
assess with only moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt
to Iran's entire nuclear weapons program.)

Then:

Iranian entities are continuing to develop a range of technical capabilities that could
be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so. For example,
Iran's civilian uranium enrichment program is continuing. We also assess with high
confidence that since fall 2003, Iran has been conducting research and development
projects with commercial and conventional military applications-some of which would
also be of limited use for nuclear weapons.

And:

We assess with moderate confidence that Iran probably would use covert facilities-
rather than its declared nuclear sites-for the production of highly enriched uranium for a
weapon.

We were wrong

So in that case how do you know we aren't wrong now? How do we know that even though Iran suspended it's weapons program in 2003, it hasn't restarted it covertly again, and is just using the civilian program as a cover? Hell, how do we know that Iran has stopped all of its nuclear weapons programs when the report is only somewhat confident it has?

Since Iran has already shown its desire to build nuclear weapons, as well as its desire to continue to hide its program, it is reasonable to conclude they will do it again, if they aren't currently doing it again under a program our intelligence hasn't found out about.

Iran could use the knowledge it gains in its civilian nuclear program, and hand it over to a clandestine operation in the future. They've already shown their intentions, just because they have temporarily stopped their main weapons program doesn't mean they have had a change of heart, it just means that pressure coming, predominately form the US, has scared them into being more smart about it.

They intended to have a nuclear bomb before and had a weapons program, which they have yet to disclose. And you're trying to pretend Iran is just some innocent victim? Wouldn't they be open and try as hard as they can to transparently verify their program is purely peaceful if that was the case?

and the consensus of all our spy agencies vindicate Iran

No they don't.

but lets put sanctions on em anyways, and isolate em anyways, just for the fuck of it. There's a great fuckin idea......

Lol those very sanctions and other forms of pressure are what got scared them into stopping their program in 2003. Stopping now, when Iran hasn't even verifiably suspended its uranium enrichment, nor has it disclosed its weapons programs... that would be absolutely idiotic.

Warmongering bastard. The emperor needs to put some clothes on, he's clearly naked......

Wow. You really need to do some research before you run your mouth.

---

Here's a roundabout solution that might be interesting.

Maintain the international pressure, but at the same time dump money into research for fusion power plants. Once the technology is done, make the information public, and tell Iran to get fucked if they think they have an excuse for a uranium enrichment program now.

As a bonus, energy problems are essentially solved, and no more hippies who don't understand science bitching about nuclear power. WIN WIN.

Of course, the technology would probably be worth enough money to go to war over protecting the secret, so this isn't really a workable solution.

---

Furthermore:

At 12/4/07 08:28 PM, Imperator wrote:

That's precisely my problem though. Why are we so quick to drop some bombs and pick a fight but when the intel starts going back on itself it's suddenly not as believable?

Um intelligence shows that Iran had a nuclear weapons program, and that it may or may not still have remaining ones after it stopped its program in 2003.

You seem so caught up in a delusional Bush-bashing spree to acknowledge how if the intelligence report is true, the Iranians stopped their program in 2003 after the US put forth effort to pressure Iran after revealing intelligence that Iran was developing nuclear weapons.

I mean, it's fine if we're cautious because it is definitely better safe than sorry, but I mean this literally would have been making the same mistake twice.....and in foreign policy where lives are on the line that is NOT acceptable.

You really need to do some research because it's entirely apparent you have a very limited amount of knowledge about the whole issue.

President Bush has said several times that the US will have direct talks if Iran suspends its uranium enrichment. Bush has said specifically that he doesn't want to deprive the Iranians of a peaceful civilian program.

But the actions of the Iranians show that they have intended to to have nukes as recently as 4 years go, and that they continue to be deceptive about their former program. If the Iranians were really only seeking electricity generation they wouldn't have had a weapons program, they wouldn't be researching delivery devices for nuclear weapons. If they really had a change of heart since 2003, they would have verified and admitted their nuclear program, which they still haven't done.

Iran is a threat, it is a state sponsor of terrorism that has had government programs to develop nuclear weapons, and they have not come forward with it either. Now they are using a civilian program as a cover. It's pretty simple.

Nothing has changed, all the NIE report shows in your favor is that the Iranians stopped their program in order to be smarter about how they go about things. Only after, of course, president Bush started being proactive in addressing their nuclear weapons ambitions.

And

At 12/5/07 10:40 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 12/5/07 10:37 PM, therealsylvos wrote: ummm.....yeah

Irrational bastards

WOW Imperator.

Did the US call Iran part of the axis of evil, or had the US invaded Iraq, in 1983 when terrorists under Iranian direction and tutelage attacked US barracks, killing hundreds of Americans?

---

At 12/13/07 06:37 PM, JudgeDredd wrote:
..Realizes they've lost a valuable bargaining chip by having stopped their nuclear development in 2003... Looks at the behaviour of Putin and Musharraf. Ponders why America has been making secret pacts with both of these military-style dictators..

"Saddam was evil. Iraq needed Democracy!". When I heard that from the neo-cons I'm sitting there like......we're best buddies with Saudia Arabia, an ABSOLUTE monarchy, and that's where the 9/11 hijackers came from.....but we need to give democracy to Iraq?

There are simply zero good reasons for being in Iraq. Not a single one.
And now Iran. Yeah, that'll go over well.
It's amazing you get people like cell who actually DO believe the hype. Like what are they gonna do? Slingshot the nuke at us? All of a sudden they'd have ICBM tech and would hit DC?

And Israel would just be sitting by this whole time twiddling their thumbs I'm sure.....Iran wants them erased from time but it's the USA that needs to be worried. Israel doesn't really care, they won't do anything to stop Iran.....

Jesus. Let THEM deal with it, if Iran gets anywhere close to doing the things suggested, Israel has nice stockpile of nukes and a fuckin GOOD army.

Hears the continued rhetoric and WOT ballyhoo coming from the US. Calculates that Bush might be playing for a 3rd term in office by reason of imminent war (ie. approaching WW3 if US invades Iran without allied support or justification).

3rd term.....not gonna happen this Presidency, but the way the Exec branch has been sucking up power it seems likely that we'll reach a boiling point.

Luckily we have guys like Ron Paul who look at the situations and go "WTF are you people thinking?".

Yeah, so who's the one guilty of turning fear and paranoia exerted over it's own people into an ongoing war-footing here? America or Iran?
.

Gee

I'm not sure

Maybe you can help

find the answer.

---

At 12/8/07 12:50 AM, Imperator wrote:

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 North Korea, after the US proposed this.
- 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.

---

Did the US call Iran part of the axis of evil, or had the US invaded Iraq, in 1983 when terrorists under Iranian direction and tutelage attacked US barracks, killing hundreds of Americans?

Ooohhh.....timeline.

You know I'm a historian, right?

It's funny you talk about how they have a corrupt and crazy government.......because we had a direct hand in creating it.

---

At 12/13/07 10:30 PM, Imperator wrote:

Did the US call Iran part of the axis of evil, or had the US invaded Iraq, in 1983 when terrorists under Iranian direction and tutelage attacked US barracks, killing hundreds of Americans?

Ooohhh.....timeline.

You know I'm a historian, right?

LOL NICE LINK!

"Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name"

It's funny you talk about how they have a corrupt and crazy government.......because we had a direct hand in creating it.

LOL no we didn't. The government we created no longer exists in Iran.

The Iranians had a revolution in 1979, in which they replaced the secular Shah which we supported, and replaced it with religious clergy.

Nice job there "historian". LOL!

What is that... the 10th time you've been disproved in your supposed area of expertise?

Almost as funny as three times. 1, 2, 3

---

At 12/13/07 10:15 PM, Elfer wrote: Here's a roundabout solution that might be interesting.

Maintain the international pressure, but at the same time dump money into research for fusion power plants. Once the technology is done, make the information public, and tell Iran to get fucked if they think they have an excuse for a uranium enrichment program now.

As a bonus, energy problems are essentially solved, and no more hippies who don't understand science bitching about nuclear power. WIN WIN.

Of course, the technology would probably be worth enough money to go to war over protecting the secret, so this isn't really a workable solution.

Not bad......has it's ups and downs, that's for sure.
I've got a more immediate solution though.

1. Keep watching em
2. Leave military action to Israel.
3. Drop the war propaganda and the "holier than thou" attitude towards foreign policy.

Done.

---

At 12/13/07 10:38 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: LOL NICE LINK!

"Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name"

So what, are you just pretending that you couldn't finish the phrase "coup d" as "coup d'état"?

To point out the problem is one thing, but to actually ignore it is kind of a dick move, you're saying that you won't look at evidence contrary to your predetermined conclusion unless it is absolutely spoon-fed to you.