Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

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

BINGO dingbat!

The religious clergy that you now say is crazy is there BECAUSE OF US! We put the shah in power, and the Iranians revolted.

Why is there a nutjob in power in Iran? Because of us. Because we overthrew their democracy, because we set up the shah.

That government you despise so much is our Frankenstein's monster.

---

At 12/13/07 11:29 PM, Elfer wrote:

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"?

I knew exactly what he was talking about, but it was irrelevant because the government that was created back then has LONG since been gone.

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.

Elfer now you're just being stupid.

What I know he was referring to absolutely did not validate what he said. I knew exactly what he was talking about, I knew what year it took place. That's why I mentioned the 1979 Revolution.

He said he was a "historian" yet he apparently didn't know that the government that we supported back then has long since been gone, and the government that I criticize now, which he pretended we created, does not have a connection with the government that took power in the Coup we supported.

At 12/13/07 11:35 PM, Imperator wrote:

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

BINGO dingbat!

Lol Imperator back again, trying to save face after humiliating himself!

The religious clergy that you now say is crazy is there BECAUSE OF US!

LOL you're so full of crap.

We put the shah in power, and the Iranians revolted.

You said we had a direct hand in creating the corrupt government I criticized, apparently we didn't, because the previous government we created does not exist.

Why is there a nutjob in power in Iran? Because of us.

Nope, there was a Shah in power because of us. The Iranian government as it is today came to power in a separate event, a Revolution.

That government you despise so much is our Frankenstein's monster.

You're so incredibly dishonest in EVERY SINGLE point you make. You just humiliate yourself over and over again.

Recap:

At 12/13/07 10:30 PM, Imperator wrote: It's funny you talk about how they have a corrupt and crazy government.......because we had a direct hand in creating it.

---

You tried to link to the Wiki article about the Coup that took place in which we had a direct hand in creating the Iranian government back then. This was DECADES before the 1979 revolution, which is what caused the corrupt government.

Funny how you're talking about Iranians revolting, but now you're saying the government they created to supposedly replace the government we created is now corrupt. Kind of counterintuitive isn't it? Replace a corrupt government with a corrupt government.

Take an honest stance for once there "historian". You know absolutely dick about history, and you proved it yet again.

---

You tried to link to the Wiki article about the Coup that took place in which we had a direct hand in creating the Iranian government back then. This was DECADES before the 1979 revolution, which is what caused the corrupt government.

And the revolution happened because?

THEY HATED THE SHAH!
Come on, they even cited the 1953 overthrow as a reason for the hostage crisis, and you have the BALLS to think the two are unrelated?

---

At 12/13/07 11:50 PM, Imperator wrote:

You tried to link to the Wiki article about the Coup that took place in which we had a direct hand in creating the Iranian government back then. This was DECADES before the 1979 revolution, which is what caused the corrupt government.

And the revolution happened because?

You mean an Islamic movement took power by blaming the country's problems on the Shah, neverminding those problems remained after the Islamic government took power?

You mean what excuse was used for power hungry Islamists to gain power? Which would have gained power had the Shah been propped up by the US or not?

THEY HATED THE SHAH!

Lol, so they hate the shaw because he was supposedly corrupt.

Yet they go and create a religious theocracy that is corrupt.

Interesting concept there Imp.

Come on, they even cited the 1953 overthrow as a reason for the hostage crisis, and you have the BALLS to think the two are unrelated?

You don't have the balls to admit that you didn't know what the fuck you were talking about. If you were referring to the 1979 Revolution being caused by the US supporting the Shah, you would have mentioned it. Instead you talked about the US having a direct role in creating what was now the corrupt government, by then linking to a coup that created a government that does NOT EXIST today.

Now you're just trying to save face, once again, just like last time you brag about your supposed area of expertise talk about being a "historian" then proceed to display HILARIOUS levels of ignorance of history.

---

You don't have the balls to admit that you didn't know what the fuck you were talking about. If you were referring to the 1979 Revolution being caused by the US supporting the Shah, you would have mentioned it. Instead you talked about the US having a direct role in creating what was now the corrupt government, by then linking to a coup that created a government that does NOT EXIST today.

Re-read that paragraph. You just proved my point entirely.

"the 1979 Revolution being caused by the US supporting the Shah"

PRECISELY. Glad you see things my way.

---

At 12/14/07 12:02 AM, Imperator wrote:

You don't have the balls to admit that you didn't know what the fuck you were talking about. If you were referring to the 1979 Revolution being caused by the US supporting the Shah, you would have mentioned it. Instead you talked about the US having a direct role in creating what was now the corrupt government, by then linking to a coup that created a government that does NOT EXIST today.

Re-read that paragraph. You just proved my point entirely.

"the 1979 Revolution being caused by the US supporting the Shah"

IF YOU WERE REFERRING TO THAT.

If that was the point you were trying to make, which we know you weren't, then you would have linked to that Revolution, not the Coup which created a government decades earlier.

PRECISELY. Glad you see things my way.

I don't.

But I'm glad to see you still don't have the balls to either reply to my posts in full where your arguments gets shredded apart, but instead you slowly try to change the subject yet again and only reply selectively to help you save face.

This is what you did last time as well. When you were disproved several times about issues under your supposed area of expertise... Classics, you kept shifting your stance and resorting to intentional and deceptive semantics, because that's all you have left. You can't even stand by your argument anymore, you have to squirm around like a weasel.

---

If that was the point you were trying to make, which we know you weren't, then you would have linked to that Revolution, not the Coup which created a government decades earlier.

The overthrow of their democracy by the CIA was the DIRECT cause of everything you see here today.
That overthrow sparked the 1979 Revolution, the Beirut bombing, and their current hatred of us. Islamic fundamentalists took over the country because there was a resentment for the government WE helped INSTALL!

They hate us because of that 1953 overthrow. They sing "death to America" BECAUSE of that overthrow!

I don't have to link to the 1979 coup because it's APPARENT that EVERYTHING started with the 1953 coup! They've been hating us for 50 years.....why? Because we overthrew their fucking democracy!

I linked to the start point of Iranian hatred towards us. That's where ALL THIS SHIT has started.

HISTORY man. HISTORY!

---

At 12/14/07 12:12 AM, Imperator wrote:

If that was the point you were trying to make, which we know you weren't, then you would have linked to that Revolution, not the Coup which created a government decades earlier.

The overthrow of their democracy by the CIA was the DIRECT cause of everything you see here today.

No it wasn't, and that is not what you said.

You linked to the Coup in which their past government was created, to say that we had a direct role in creating the government I criticize today.

Funny, because that Coup created a rationale, secular government, not the religious fundamentalist theocracy that Iran is today.

That overthrow sparked the 1979 Revolution

An Islamist movement which would have happened regardless of what the US did.

the Beirut bombing, and their current hatred of us.

So now you're justifying terrorist attacks, k.

Islamic fundamentalists took over the country because there was a resentment for the government WE helped INSTALL!

Islamic fundamentalists took power and only used anti-Americanism as a platform to validate it, and to keep themselves in power. The same breed of anti-Americanism exists in other Islamic countries.

They hate us because of that 1953 overthrow.

They want Islam to rule the world. That is why they hate us, we're the biggest obstacle.

They hate us because we are the antithesis to the government they believe needs to exist for their religious goals to be

I don't have to link to the 1979 coup because it's APPARENT that EVERYTHING started with the 1953 coup!

Imperator, resorting to his trademark attempts to save face.

I linked to the start point of Iranian hatred towards us. That's where ALL THIS SHIT has started.

You linked (tried to link) to the Wiki article about a Coup that created a government that existed before the Revolution that created the government I criticize. You said that we had a direct role in creating the government that exists today, when in fact the goverment exists today due to the US NOT having a direct role.

If the US had a direct role in the creation of the government that exists in Iran today, it wouldn't be what it is today, an rogue, Islamic theocracy.

But nice try there Imp.

HISTORY man. HISTORY!

WHICH YOU FAIL AT!

---

At 12/14/07 12:19 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: So now you're justifying terrorist attacks, k.

you know, by todays standards the sons of liberty would have been considered terrorists. Do you think their actions were justified?

---

At 12/14/07 12:28 AM, Musician wrote:

At 12/14/07 12:19 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: So now you're justifying terrorist attacks, k.

you know, by todays standards the sons of liberty would have been considered terrorists. Do you think their actions were justified?

First off, your logic is hilarious. Because you're basically defending what Iran did as legitimate, but at the same time saying what Americans did was illegitmate.

However, Iran is fighting against us, we have the right to prevent them from getting nukes even if in your mind what they do is morally equivalent to what we did to the British or Tories back then.

However, the argument someone will make is that what Iran is doing is defensive, yet at the same time they are saying that to criticize what the US does that is defensive. So basically you're saying Iran has the right to defend itself, but we can't defend ourselves against Iran because they are defending themselves?

Doesn't hold water.

Anyway, the sons of liberty attacked British military personnel and military targets almost exclusively. What they did had tactical benefit, they were attacking an occupying force.

What Iran did by supporting the terrorist attacks (not only against Israeli civilians), but against the US, was in another country, against the will of both the country that hosted the US and against the international body (the UN) that gave the US a mandate to be there.

The US Marine Corps was in Beirut under permission of the Lebanese government and the UN. The terrorists in Lebanon that Iran supported were working not only against the US but against Lebanon and the UN by bombing the barracks.

It's not on the same level, especially considering the terrorist groups Iran supports have attacking civilians as their official policies, both Hezbollah and Hamas have official policies that outline suicide bombings against civilians and so forth.

That's not the same as irregular, asymmetrical warfare on behalf of American colonists against the British army.

---

At 12/14/07 12:38 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 12/14/07 12:28 AM, Musician wrote:

At 12/14/07 12:19 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: So now you're justifying terrorist attacks, k.

you know, by todays standards the sons of liberty would have been considered terrorists. Do you think their actions were justified?

First off, your logic is hilarious. Because you're basically defending what Iran did as legitimate, but at the same time saying what Americans did was illegitmate.

actually I didn't imply either, all I'm saying is that one mans terrorist is another mans patriot. You would do well to empathize with your so called enemy. Nobody fights without a good reason.

However, Iran is fighting against us, we have the right to prevent them from getting nukes even if in your mind what they do is morally equivalent to what we did to the British or Tories back then.

However, the argument someone will make is that what Iran is doing is defensive, yet at the same time they are saying that to criticize what the US does that is defensive. So basically you're saying Iran has the right to defend itself, but we can't defend ourselves against Iran because they are defending themselves?

Doesn't hold water.

Well actually the nuclear weapons program that Iran had was put on hold. That is the entire point of this thread in case you missed it. So really, there isn't any immediate threat like there are in other places of the world.

Anyway, the sons of liberty attacked British military personnel and military targets almost exclusively. What they did had tactical benefit, they were attacking an occupying force.

not really, The Boston Tea Party had no tactical benefit. It was a scare tactic, just like the tarring and feathering of british tax collectors. Isn't that the definition of a terrorist?

It's not on the same level, especially considering the terrorist groups Iran supports have attacking civilians as their official policies, both Hezbollah and Hamas have official policies that outline suicide bombings against civilians and so forth.

same ideals, different means. But in fairness, what kind of tactics would you employ if you faced a word super power like the US?

That's not the same as irregular, asymmetrical warfare on behalf of American colonists against the British army.

We weren't talking about the Revolutionary war, we were talking about the Sons of Liberty as a terrorist organization.

---

At 12/14/07 12:49 AM, Musician wrote:

At 12/14/07 12:38 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 12/14/07 12:28 AM, Musician wrote:

At 12/14/07 12:19 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: So now you're justifying terrorist attacks, k.

you know, by todays standards the sons of liberty would have been considered terrorists. Do you think their actions were justified?

First off, your logic is hilarious. Because you're basically defending what Iran did as legitimate, but at the same time saying what Americans did was illegitmate.

actually I didn't imply either, all I'm saying is that one mans terrorist is another mans patriot.

That can't really be applied, first of all, because we're talking about a struggle essentially between two nations. Even if there was moral equivalence (which there isnt) it wouldn't mean that one country who is bigger doesn't have the right to defend itself against the other simply because the smaller country's actions could be construed as defensive.

You would do well to empathize with your so called enemy. Nobody fights without a good reason.

Empathizing with your enemy doesn't mean you have to put them on the same level as your own country. Even though what Iran did is not not at all equivalent to what the sons of liberty did, nore are the implications the same, but even if we exactly morally equal, that doesn't mean we have to let them do things that are against our interests.

Well actually the nuclear weapons program that Iran had was put on hold. That is the entire point of this thread in case you missed it.

WOW.

You really need to read the thread all the way through then. I've already linked to the actual intelligence report and showed why just because Iran stopped its nuclear program, doesn't mean they cease to be a threat.

But I guess I'll have to repeat myself again.

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.

--------

Iran ceased its nuclear weapons program (which they still don't admit ever existed) due to pressure in the international community that was started by the US.

That shows that Iran didn't stop its program due to a change of policy or a change of heart. They didn't just stop it because they wanted to change their ways and make amends, they stopped it to protect themselves.

It's obvious they'll start it up again if international pressure stops, considering they stopped it purely due to the pressure.

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.

So really, there isn't any immediate threat like there are in other places of the world.

Immediate threat yes, but there is still a thread and it is pertinent that we continue to pressure Iran to halt uranium enrichment.

If the pressure worked in getting them to halt their nuclear weapons program, maybe continued pressure, including tough sanctions, will get them to completely reverse their course and give up their nuclear weapons ambitions altogether?

not really, The Boston Tea Party had no tactical benefit.

Um it it was an economic maneuver, an act of rebellion against the British government.

How many people were killed in the Boston Tea Party? Hmm?

Were innocent people mutilated or executed in that?

Nope

same ideals, different means. But in fairness, what kind of tactics would you employ if you faced a word super power like the US?

I sure as hell wouldn't support terrorist groups that kill innocent civilians as a matter of official policy.

That's not the same as irregular, asymmetrical warfare on behalf of American colonists against the British army.

We weren't talking about the Revolutionary war, we were talking about the Sons of Liberty as a terrorist organization.

Yeah, and you fail to realize that what they did was irregular, asymmetrical warfare on behalf of American colonists against the British or British loyalists.

Just because you want to refer to them as a terrorist organization doesn't mean that you can ignore the details.

---

At 12/14/07 01:03 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 12/14/07 12:49 AM, Musician wrote: actually I didn't imply either, all I'm saying is that one mans terrorist is another mans patriot.

That can't really be applied, first of all, because we're talking about a struggle essentially between two nations. Even if there was moral equivalence (which there isnt) it wouldn't mean that one country who is bigger doesn't have the right to defend itself against the other simply because the smaller country's actions could be construed as defensive.

That has nothing to do with what I said.

You would do well to empathize with your so called enemy. Nobody fights without a good reason.

Empathizing with your enemy doesn't mean you have to put them on the same level as your own country. Even though what Iran did is not not at all equivalent to what the sons of liberty did, nore are the implications the same, but even if we exactly morally equal, that doesn't mean we have to let them do things that are against our interests.

Like I said, different times, different actions. The world is much more brutal than it was at the time of the revolutionary war. If we were fighting for independence in the modern world, I'd be willing to bet that the revolutionary would have been very similar what's occuring in the middle east. That's just how war works.

Well actually the nuclear weapons program that Iran had was put on hold. That is the entire point of this thread in case you missed it.

WOW.

rabble rabble rabble

speculation is not enough to enter Iran over, they've halted the nuclear arms program, as long as that is in effect we have no business there.

not really, The Boston Tea Party had no tactical benefit.

Um it it was an economic maneuver, an act of rebellion against the British government.

The tea was private property, definently not an economic maneuver.

How many people were killed in the Boston Tea Party? Hmm?

Were innocent people mutilated or executed in that?

Like a said before, modern times = gruesome shit.

same ideals, different means. But in fairness, what kind of tactics would you employ if you faced a word super power like the US?

I sure as hell wouldn't support terrorist groups that kill innocent civilians as a matter of official policy.

You say that now...

That's not the same as irregular, asymmetrical warfare on behalf of American colonists against the British army.

We weren't talking about the Revolutionary war, we were talking about the Sons of Liberty as a terrorist organization.

Yeah, and you fail to realize that what they did was irregular, asymmetrical warfare on behalf of American colonists against the British or British loyalists.

And the Iranians believe they are fighting against the Americans on behalf of their nation. That doesn't make their means acceptable. Just because the Sons of Liberty thought they were fighting on behalf of the American colonists doesn't make destroying public property and beating/mutilating british civilians any less despicable.

Just because you want to refer to them as a terrorist organization doesn't mean that you can ignore the details.

Just because you don't want to accept the Sons of Liberty were by definition a terrorist organization doesn't mean you can ignore the facts.

---

At 12/14/07 01:27 AM, Musician wrote:

That has nothing to do with what I said.

Actually it does, because it shows how what you said can't really be applied to this issue.

speculation is not enough to enter Iran over, they've halted the nuclear arms program, as long as that is in effect we have no business there.

A government with the history Iran's government has, and the intelligence that points to their continued pursuit of nuclear weapons technology, DOES give the US clear justification to be tough with Iran.

Sanctions are in order, and if sanctions don't work, a military strike, in the event that intelligence suggests Iran is near or has just attained a nuclear weapon, is entirely in order.

Like a said before, modern times = gruesome shit.

Like I said, sons of liberty are not on the same level.

But nice try.

Even if your comparison was accurate, which it isn't, it means precisely jackshit considering the nature of the world today.

Iran, a state sponsor of terror who has been responsible for terrorist attacks that have killed hundreds of Americans, absolutely should not get a nuke and we should do EVERYTHING in our power to prevent it, period.

You say that now...

I say that because it's true.

If you're fighting a national entity, another nation has no business using terrorist tactics against civilians, because it has no tactical or strategic effect whatsoever other than for the purpose of causing death and destruction, or in the case of Iran, doing their job as Muslims to kill infidels, and thus allowing a few young Muslims to get a ticket to heaven where 72 virgins will be waiting for them.

Yeah, and you fail to realize that what they did was irregular, asymmetrical warfare on behalf of American colonists against the British or British loyalists.

And the Iranians believe they are fighting against the Americans on behalf of their nation.

And in the process they are supporting terrorist groups that attack innocent civilians as a matter of official policy, and continue to threaten our allies, our own troops, and our own interests.

Therefore Iran's national interest should not outweigh our own in our own policies. Therefore you trying to find moral equivalence is moot and irrelevant.

Just because the Sons of Liberty thought they were fighting on behalf of the American colonists doesn't make destroying public property and beating/mutilating british civilians any less despicable.

Destroying public property was necessary, and FIGHTING British is different from having targeted attacks against innocent civilians who are not participating in the war.

Once again, you're comparing things that are not on the same level.

Just because you want to refer to them as a terrorist organization doesn't mean that you can ignore the details.

Just because you don't want to accept the Sons of Liberty were by definition a terrorist organization doesn't mean you can ignore the facts.

Just because the sons of libery actually weren't a terrorist organization in any way similar to the terrorists that Iran supports doesn't mean you can latch on to the nomenclature and thus suggest it implies something that it doesn't.

You're leaving out the details, the implications, the cause, purpose, affect, and so forth as how it matters today. Instead, you focus on nomenclature and provide inapplicable comparisons between people who did something in an ENTIRELY different environment, in a completely different dynamic over 200 years ago, and what the Iranian and their terrorist proxies are doing now.

It's not a correct or accurate comparison, and your argument is completely and utterly moot.

---

You linked to the Coup in which their past government was created, to say that we had a direct role in creating the government I criticize today.

Yeah. That government was overthrown.....BY THE GOVERNMENT YOU CRITICIZE TODAY! ZOMG CONNECTION!

Good fucking GOD! It's like trying to punch through a brick fucking wall!!!

If you don't see the damn connection, I quit. There's just no other way I can explain it to you.....

---

I thought of one more.

Ok.

IF we hadn't overthrown the democracy and set up the Shah, what would have happened?

There wouldn't be a 1979 Revolution, and there wouldn't be a crazy fundamentalist Islamic Theocracy. Right?

If there was no Shah, there would be no need for an Islamic Revolution, and Ahachoomidad wouldn't be saying crazy shit today. There'd be no "death to America" chants, and no US flag burning.

Our involvement in their politics with the insertion of the SHAH is a DIRECT CAUSE of the 1979 Revolution and the set up of Islamic Theocracy in Iran.

The Theocracy wouldn't have happened without the Revolution. The Revolution wouldn't have happened without the Shah. The Shah wouldn't have happened without the US.

GET IT????????

Jesus......

---

At 12/14/07 02:51 AM, Imperator wrote:

You linked to the Coup in which their past government was created, to say that we had a direct role in creating the government I criticize today.

Yeah. That government was overthrown.....BY THE GOVERNMENT YOU CRITICIZE TODAY! ZOMG CONNECTION!

A completely weak connection.

The government that the US ACTUALLY had a direct hand in supporting, was overthrown by a movement that created a government that the US opposed.

Good fucking GOD! It's like trying to punch through a brick fucking wall!!!

Your argument is like a blob of jello up against a brick wall.

By the time you're done, your argument is misshapen and scattered all over the place.

If you don't see the damn connection, I quit.

I know what connection you are NOW implying, but that wasn't what were saying before. You didn't know wtf you were talking about until I brought up the 1979 Revolution.

Imperator, the self proclaimed "historian" struck out again.

---

A completely weak connection.

Damnit. I quit.

You're as bad as 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

---

At 12/14/07 02:56 AM, Imperator wrote: I thought of one more.

Ok.

IF we hadn't overthrown the democracy and set up the Shah, what would have happened?

Islamists still would have taken over.

There wouldn't be a 1979 Revolution, and there wouldn't be a crazy fundamentalist Islamic Theocracy. Right?

Wrong.

There still would be.

If there was no Shah, there would be no need for an Islamic Revolution

No, if there was no Shah, the Islamic Revolution would have taken place earlier.

and Ahachoomidad wouldn't be saying crazy shit today.

At least try to spell it right if you want to be taken seriously.

Ahmadinejad.

I wonder how bad you are at pronouncing it.

There'd be no "death to America" chants, and no US flag burning.

Interesting concept there Imp.

Considering similar things take place in countries the US has never set up a government in.

But then again, I'd like to see how you go to great lengths to legitimize the people who do it in other countries too.

Our involvement in their politics with the insertion of the SHAH is a DIRECT CAUSE of the 1979 Revolution

No it's not.

and the set up of Islamic Theocracy in Iran.

No it's not.

Our justification for setting up the Shah was to hold back the tide of the Islamic movement in Iran, and had we not set up the Shah, the Islamists would have taken control earlier.

GET IT????????

Get it that you're wrong? Yes.

---

I didn't notice that cellar had actually responded for a while. Yet again when cellardoor has felt threatened by the possibility of answering some of the questions asked of his argument has he just completely turned off and ignored the entire post while calling me a coward for "hiding from the facts." So let's just restate some of the questions and see if we can actually get a straight answer.

What are your grounds for establishing the credibility of a source?

Do you have any "evidence" that links the religious clergy who rule Iran (notice that does not include Ahmadinejad) to whole 12th Imam thing?

I think these are the two main questions that we could nicely boil this down to. No doubt you will continue to ignore these long-standing questions and instead go off on about how I should prove some random other point by providing evidence the standard of which I expect from the secondary sources that you use. To be honest, I don't really care anymore. Your continual refusal to actually engage with arguments has made this a wholly unrewarding experience and your inability to make subtle deceptive arguments - ones that actually require analysis to figure out how the argument is wrong - has meant you have not provided a mental challenge.

But hey, if you want to bring this up in any thread I post in and talk about how I got owned then go on, it will probably work and you'll probably get yourself believing it. And then, hopefully, a few years down the line you'll actually be honest and answer the questions asked of you. Or even, at the most basic level, you'll admit when your sources were shown to be misused and unreliable instead of just deleting the responses about them. I doubt it though. You'll probably never be able to grasp any argument that doesn't have handles and says "place hands here".

---

At 12/14/07 03:25 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 12/14/07 02:56 AM, Imperator wrote:

Islamists still would have taken over.

Purely speculation.

If there was no Shah, there would be no need for an Islamic Revolution

No, if there was no Shah, the Islamic Revolution would have taken place earlier.

I doubt that myself. If the US and UK hadn't placed the Shaw in power, Irans oil would have remained nationalized and profits would be going to the government. As opposed to what the Shaw did, sign a 25 year oil deal in 1954 with the US (40%), UK (40%), Netherlands (14% and France (6%).
Coincidentally, 1954 + 25 = 1979 (Things that make you go HMMM)

Ahachoomidad

At least try to spell it right if you want to be taken seriously.

I think that one went right over your head, although I might be wrong.

Our justification for setting up the Shah was to hold back the tide of the Islamic movement in Iran, and had we not set up the Shah, the Islamists would have taken control earlier.

Ummm, no. The reason the US and UK set up the Shaw was for oil (go figure). Mossadegh nationalized Irans oil industry in 1951 and ousted British oil companies (which basically owned the Iranian oil industry), which pissed off the Brits. So the Brits asked Eisenhower to help and install a Brit/US friendly government (that would allow oil revenues go back to the pockets of UK/US companies).

Ya know, when I started reading up on this shit, I was instantly reminded of another joint venture between US and the UK and another oil rich country.

---

At 12/13/07 09:39 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

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, 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.

As i said, it was before your time (off your "history began when i was born" radar). America supported Iraq who invaded Iran. Not only did America support the agressor, but this made America Iran's natural enemy since the early 80s. Everything you hate Iran for was thus created by your country being reckless by trying to wage further defacto war with Russia by imposing your influence in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The irony shouldn't be lost on anyone; that Russia is fast becoming resurgant just as America has crippled Afghanistan's resistance freedom fighters it once supported. Moreover, America has now set Iraq back decades in every way imaginable, leaving a considerable power vacuum that i'm sure Iran and others will be more than grateful to fill the moment America leaves, aiding the spread of Shia Islam. Now you are spitting tacks and saying that is a VERY BAD thing for the region, but it is exactly what your own country's latest mis-adventure in the middle-east will ultimately result in spreading. Of course you could always stay in Iraq and Afghanistan for next 50 years like the neo-cons suggested is how long it should take to get these terrorist-prone countries back to standing again.

That's the plan all along anyway wasn't it? In for the long haul. Or at least, until the oil runs dry.

Plans are one thing, but American foreign policy and it's arrogant crippling wars are like organized mayhem ...and just as typical as ever, suffered upon the poor and disperate peoples of asia and the middle east, and not your real enemy of Russia, because despite what we've always been led to believe, nukes don't stop wars, they just exports war to poorer countries who don't have any comparable form of defense.

.

---

I like how you didn't respond to the fact that the tea was private property, thus proving your whole "it was an economic maneuver" argument was pulled completely out of your ass. It makes me wonder how much else you just make up on the spot.

cellardoor the Sons of Liberty DID attack civilians. British civilians were attacked and maimed in the streets and British owned private property was destroyed. As far as the British were concerned, the were terrorists.

In Iraq the Insurgents are also using scare tactics and targeting civilians. and as far as the US is concerned the Insurgents are terrorists. You can claim that the Sons of Liberty were less brutal than the Insurgents, but the rules of war have changed since the 1700s, you have to be brutal in your tactics to stand a chance.

and seriously, if our whole reasoning for going into Iran is because we need to "defend ourselves" (which is the reason the Bush administration CONTINUES to put forward) then why aren't we applying that to the rest of the world. Why not attack North Korea, a country that actually has nuclear weapons, or hell why not China? <- those bastards might just be a threat to us in the future!

---

At 12/13/07 10:39 PM, Imperator wrote:

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.

I could still lie about the integrity of the united states in it's ethical decisions, I don't think people would question me if i worked hard enough to undermine the piety of the country; it's worked before and helped countries want to wage war against one another.

---

At 12/14/07 08:25 PM, Musician wrote: I like how you didn't respond to the fact that the tea was private property

Prove it.

thus proving your whole "it was an economic maneuver" argument was pulled completely out of your ass.

The British were dominating the US economically, forcing taxes, via tea, without representation.

American patriotics destroyed the tea as an economic maneuver.

It makes me wonder how much else you just make up on the spot.

Coming from you that is HILARIOUS.

cellardoor the Sons of Liberty DID attack civilians.

Prove it.

British civilians were attacked and maimed in the streets

Prove it.

and British owned private property was destroyed.

Justifiably.

As far as the British were concerned, the were terrorists.

Find one instance where innocent civilians were killed in targeted attacks that would ACTUALLY be equivalent to modern terrorism.

And...go.

In Iraq the Insurgents are also using scare tactics and targeting civilians.

By intentionally murdering innocent civilians, with basically zero economic or tactical effect, purely murder.

and as far as the US is concerned the Insurgents are terrorists.

Insurgents kill innocent civilians as a matter of policy.

The sons of liberty engaged in asymmetrical warfare against the British, there were never massacres or targetted killings, only destruction of private property... which was used by the British and was a base of there influence in the colonies.

That's not in any way equal to modern terrorism in any aspect other than nomenclature.

You can claim that the Sons of Liberty were less brutal than the Insurgents, but the rules of war have changed since the 1700s, you have to be brutal in your tactics to stand a chance.

and seriously, if our whole reasoning for going into Iran is because we need to "defend ourselves" (which is the reason the Bush administration CONTINUES to put forward) then why aren't we applying that to the rest of the world.

Because no other country is as much as a threat, and the countriest that may be a threat if they had nukes are either being dealt with effectively (North Korean), have been dissuaded (Libya), or have a long way to go.

Why not attack North Korea

You must not watch the news lately. North Korea has not promised to dismantle their nuclear program, but they currently have US inspectors in their country overseeing their disarmament.

Sanctions against North Korea worked.

a country that actually has nuclear weapons

And is giving them up.

or hell why not China?

China is a member of the UN security council you idiot.

China already has a sizable nuclear deterrent, which they have been responsible with, and they are way past the point of no return.

---

At 12/14/07 07:40 AM, Slizor wrote: I didn't notice that cellar had actually responded for a while.

Yet again when cellardoor has felt threatened by the possibility of answering some of the questions asked of his argument

Now you're just being hilarious.

You repeatedly failed to provide proof for the things you said, and completely avoided answering several questions that you couldn't.

Not only that, but you continue to ignore where things you said were already proved wrong.

has he just completely turned off and ignored the entire post while calling me a coward for "hiding from the facts."

You said the same things over and over again, while your entire post was based purely on semantics. You repeatedy hid from the facts, ignored the nuance of things that were said, and refused to answer things and provide valid evidence your side the the argument.

Your entire stance is based on deceptive semantics, and complete cowardice by refusing to use anything but an argument from ignorance, as your entire basis of argument.

So let's just restate some of the questions and see if we can actually get a straight answer.

What are your grounds for establishing the credibility of a source?

Where are yours?

You were asked repeatedly to provide a credible source, to prove that you yourself could provide evidence for your argument in the same manner, meeting the same criteria that you demanded.

YOU COULDN'T

You FAIL.

After calling yourself a "very adept researcher" you fucking embarassed yourself by refusing to provide facts to your argument, all while scrutinizing into oblivion the facts that shattered your argument.

You're a coward who demands proof, yet can't provide any yourself.

At 12/14/07 09:26 AM, JudgeDredd wrote:

At 12/13/07 09:39 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

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, 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.

As i said, it was before your time (off your "history began when i was born" radar). America supported Iraq who invaded Iran.

And if you read the footnotes of history, you'd realize that the US was supporting Iran against Iraq at the same time.

Just a little asterisk in your argument.

Not only did America support the agressor

And the defender.

but this made America Iran's natural enemy since the early 80s.

LOL

And Iranians storming the US embassy and and holding American embassy staff hostage for over a year didn't make the US have any justification for mutual animosity towards Iran?

Everything you hate Iran for was thus created by your country

Nope.

The US didn't create radical fundamentalist Islam.

Nor did the US cause it to gain power in Iran and suggesting such is a hilariously ignorant. Not only had the Islamic movement in Iran preceded the Shah, but similar Islamic movements have sprung up in several countries in the middle east who have never experienced what Iran experienced, at least not recently to justify some supposed backlask to American interventionism.

being reckless by trying to wage further defacto war with Russia by imposing your influence in Iraq and Afghanistan.

LOL

Anyway, this thread is getting incredibly stagnant so I'm going to leave it with this:

This national intelligence report has been systematically taken out of context and misinterpreted by the media, and by you people, to such a perverse degree that it is almost saddening.

Out of desire to bash the Bush administration, you fail to grasp the significance of Iran's behavior, and the actual implications of what the intelligence report tells us, even if it didn't validate some of the rhetoric from hawks in the US that would like to see Iran bombed tomorrow if it was possible.

The report says (with high confidence) that Iran has technical, scientific, and industrial capacity to eventually develop a bomb if they choose. Eventually, as in 2009 at earliest (possibly by the middle of the next decade). Whether Iran will do this or not, the report states (with moderate to high levels of confidence) that Iran is keeping the option open to do so.

This is troubling. Anyone who suggests otherwise or pretends that Iran is worthy or rationale enough to have a nuke is absolutely out of their mind. Iran can continue to work towards developing without resuming the secret program the report says they halted in 2003. That program was a weaponization program, a program about figuring out how to create a bomb out of nuclear fuel. But what nobody seems to acknowledge is this part of the process of creating a nuclear bomb is actually the easy part. The difficult part is creating the nuclear fuel. As the report clearly states, and is obvious by the Iranians' words themselves, is that Iran continues to enrich uranium, which is in defiance of the UN resolutions. Iran continues to enrich uranium at the Natanz facility.

As of late, Iran is producing nuclear fuel at levels that are insufficient for creating a nuclear bomb that uses uranium. Iran says it is only doing this to produce electricity in a nuclear reactor.

But Iran HAS NO URANIUM REACTORS. But to create weapons-grade uranium, Iran would only have to run it through their centrifuges at Natanz for a longer period of time.

NOTHING about the new report makes anything about Iran's story, let alone its own behavior as a whole, any less suspicious or troubling. It has changed the politics of the issue, the case against Iran that some were using was inaccurate, but a case against Iran still stands entirely.

Due to the IDIOCY of some people in the media, and the enormous amounts of misinterpretation by people such as yourselves, this report makes it harder for America and our European allies to maintain or strengthen sanctions that have been imposed in order to persuade Iran to stop its uranium enrichment.

We should talk to Iran, and use a carrot and stick policy (which we are already using to some degree considering Condolleeza Rice and Bush have both stated that relations could be normalized if Iran halts its enrichment).

The report says Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003 due to world pressure, easing up on that pressure now would be PERVERSELY idiotic.

So anyone who thinks we need to ease up on Iran is not only completely ignoring the threat Iran poses, but they are also undermining the very method which caused Iran to halt its weapons program in 2003... and thus completely discrediting their use of the report to suggest we should pressuring Iran to halt their nuclear work altogether.

---

At 12/14/07 08:46 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: I could still lie about the integrity of the united states in it's ethical decisions, I don't think people would question me if i worked hard enough to undermine the piety of the country; it's worked before and helped countries want to wage war against one another.

Well with the way things are going I don't even think you'd have to lie about it....

The people are pretty pious, but the government is not. It's designed to be the Big Brother, the evil Empire, and the mean kid down the block. It was designed to be distrusted, which is why there are all those little clauses about the people overthrowing it in the Constitution......

---

See, I could continue this beyond its already ludicrous level but there may be another 7 pages of cellardoor's inability to answer a simple question and repitition of points already covered. The continued assertion that I need proof for my arguments that question the grounding of cellardoor's views, including the grounding of his sources, is, simply put, stupid.

You repeatedly failed to provide proof for the things you said, and completely avoided answering several questions that you couldn't.

What questions have you asked of me that I have failed to answer? What precious points of yours have I ignored completely (i.e. that it has presented something different from the rest of your screaming and ranting)?

What are your grounds for establishing the credibility of a source?

Where are yours?

I quote from myself a few pages back
"Credibility is about the expertise and trustworthiness of the author and of the sources that he utilises."

I've already answered my own question, you are yet to answer it.

You were asked repeatedly to provide a credible source, to prove that you yourself could provide evidence for your argument in the same manner, meeting the same criteria that you demanded.

No, I was asked to provide primary evidence of random things. I have not once required from you that you use primary sources, but that you use secondary sources that actually link to primary sources. You have repeatedly ignored and obscured this point in a manner akin to a screaming child or a religious zealot.

YOU COULDN'T

This is a bit besides the point considering the above passage, but you assume "couldn't", when the case is that I haven't.

After calling yourself a "very adept researcher" you fucking embarassed yourself by refusing to provide facts to your argument, all while scrutinizing into oblivion the facts that shattered your argument.

What is my argument? What are you defining my argument as? Because I've not really been big on the whole advocacy front in this thread, I've been questioning the logic and the bases of the view that you advocate. In doing so I have questioned your sources, I have provided the grounds for identifying a good source and I have found them to be nothing more than pigshit.

You're a coward who demands proof, yet can't provide any yourself.

No, I'm a critic who questions crazy off-the-wall theories. I do it with questions like this
"What are your grounds for establishing the credibility of a source?

Do you have any "evidence" that links the religious clergy who rule Iran (notice that does not include Ahmadinejad) to whole 12th Imam thing?"

You talk about me dodging questions, yet these questions remain (and the second one disappeared from your response.)

---

At 12/4/07 02:35 AM, JudgeDredd wrote: In other flip-floppity news; U.S. Finds Iran Halted Its Nuclear Arms Effort in 2003

Why wasn't this information released earlier?

A new assessment by American intelligence agencies released on Monday concludes "that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains frozen" ..completely countering the Bush & Cheney assertion (as recently as October 2007) that if Iran "stays on its present [nuclear arms] course, the international community is prepared to impose serious consequences."

Don't count on a little thing like facts discouraging the spin doctors in the White House.

This latest report comes 5 years after a 2002 intelligence estimate on Iraq concluded that it possessed chemical and biological weapons programs and was determined to restart its nuclear program. That estimate was instrumental in winning the Congressional authorization for a military invasion of Iraq, but it subsequently proved to be deeply flawed. This latest estimate brings US Military assessment on Iran more in line with the judgments of international arms inspectors.

Hopefully the American public will listen more to international reports.

Honestly, with all the heightened tensions in the middle east, there certainly seems to be confusion between fact and fantasy regarding the so called "axis-of-evil" nation's weapons programs, or worse, a very slanted portrayal of such to the American public for political purposes.

You're thinking logically. The Bush administration doesn't want you to think logically. They want you to think like a gullible sheep so they can funnel money to their contractor buddies by causing another disaster in the Middle East.

You make a very intelligent argument. I hope more people listen.

---

At 12/15/07 04:46 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 12/14/07 08:25 PM, Musician wrote: I like how you didn't respond to the fact that the tea was private property

Prove it.

"The friends of the Americans in Parliament were silent for a moment, because they could not justify the destruction of private property"

thus proving your whole "it was an economic maneuver" argument was pulled completely out of your ass.

The British were dominating the US economically, forcing taxes, via tea, without representation.

American patriotics destroyed the tea as an economic maneuver.

no they did it as a scare tactic. any historian worth his salt would laugh at you. destroying a ship load of private property has no effect on the government.

It makes me wonder how much else you just make up on the spot.

Coming from you that is HILARIOUS.

and yet you're the one caught lying

cellardoor the Sons of Liberty DID attack civilians.

Prove it.

Persecution of loyalists

British civilians were attacked and maimed in the streets

Prove it.

same link as above

you just got owned pretty hard, you should probably got sit down for a while.

and British owned private property was destroyed.

Justifiably.

Opinion

As far as the British were concerned, the were terrorists.

Find one instance where innocent civilians were killed in targeted attacks that would ACTUALLY be equivalent to modern terrorism.

And...go.

they don't have to be equivalent to modern terrorists to be considered terrorists.

In Iraq the Insurgents are also using scare tactics and targeting civilians.

By intentionally murdering innocent civilians, with basically zero economic or tactical effect, purely murder.

There were 0 economic or tactical maneuvers by the Sons of Liberty

The sons of liberty engaged in asymmetrical warfare against the British,

no they didn't. they used scare tactics and propaganda against the british to try and get them to withdraw. But the sons of liberty never engaged in anything that could be used militarily (destroying the governers home).

That's not in any way equal to modern terrorism.

1700s warfare =/= modern warfare either. but the Sons of Liberty were still terrorists, even if they aren't "modern terrorists"

You can claim that the Sons of Liberty were less brutal than the Insurgents, but the rules of war have changed since the 1700s, you have to be brutal in your tactics to stand a chance.

Because no other country is as much as a threat, and the countriest that may be a threat if they had nukes are either being dealt with effectively (North Korean), have been dissuaded (Libya), or have a long way to go.

Prove it