PDA

View Full Version : Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Moammar Gadhafi



SanJoaquinSooner
10/23/2011, 02:11 PM
http://images.smh.com.au/2011/09/23/2643676/lp-iran_20110923081426815739-420x0.jpg

cleller
10/23/2011, 04:18 PM
Maybe he'll get taken out from the inside.

SicEmBaylor
10/23/2011, 04:32 PM
The difference between those 3 and Ahmadinejad is that the first three actually wielded some power and authority.

Caboose
10/23/2011, 08:48 PM
The difference between those 3 and Ahmadinejad is that the first three actually wielded some power and authority.

While his official authority is negligible, he still wields power and influence and is dangerous to the US and the world. His influential rhetoric inspires the followers of the blood-cult of Islam to commit atrocities. Not saying I have the answer on Iran, but to dismiss Ahmadinejad as irrelevant is not a good idea.

SanJoaquinSooner
10/23/2011, 09:20 PM
The difference between those 3 and Ahmadinejad is that the first three actually wielded some power and authority.

You mean he's a front man for the Shiite clerics?

Midtowner
10/23/2011, 10:17 PM
http://cache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/pirate_03_16/p01_18186703.jpg

Careful with your mocking tone. Iran has sent its powerful navy to prowl the shores of America. Be warned.

Sooner5030
10/23/2011, 10:27 PM
other than the fact that we have chosen Saudi and other sunnis as our allies for years......i'd bet you'd see a greater display of individual freedoms in Tehran than Riyadh.

/just sayin

Caboose
10/23/2011, 10:46 PM
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-67q_t2VFzBY/Tba7QvVerTI/AAAAAAAAA3A/hy_JwvRgDog/s1600/cargo%2Bcult%2Bplane.jpg

Careful with your mocking tone. Al Queda has sent its powerful air force to attack America. Be warned. LULZ

Midtowner - September 10, 2001

SicEmBaylor
10/24/2011, 01:04 AM
While his official authority is negligible, he still wields power and influence and is dangerous to the US and the world. His influential rhetoric inspires the followers of the blood-cult of Islam to commit atrocities. Not saying I have the answer on Iran, but to dismiss Ahmadinejad as irrelevant is not a good idea.
He wields virtually no power. His influence within Iran is actually negligible. He represents absolutely no threat to these United States in any meaningful way.

Caboose
10/24/2011, 09:22 AM
He wields virtually no power. His influence within Iran is actually negligible. He represents absolutely no threat to these United States in any meaningful way.

While his official authority is negligible, he still wields power and influence and is dangerous to the US and the world. His influential rhetoric inspires the followers of the blood-cult of Islam to commit atrocities. Not saying I have the answer on Iran, but to dismiss Ahmadinejad as irrelevant is not a good idea.

Midtowner
10/24/2011, 09:56 AM
Oh cool. Not a cult, a "blood cult."

KantoSooner
10/24/2011, 11:01 AM
He wields virtually no power. His influence within Iran is actually negligible. He represents absolutely no threat to these United States in any meaningful way.

Power in Iran is up for grabs. Ahmedinejad does not have the same grip as a US President would, but he is one of the players and really quite powerful. He has, for instance, a firm powerbase in the Rev Guards/Quds Force and, through the companies they own and control a huge financial base.
While there are other power centers (the clerics in Qom being the most obvious and arguably most powerful) none enjoys perfect control. It's a 'system' of shifting alliances and jockeying for power.
You need only witness the little shadow play of the release of the hikers to see how chaotic and undecided the power structure is.
Don't dismiss him....but don't rely on him to carry through on any deal he makes, either.

Midtowner
10/24/2011, 01:14 PM
Midtowner - September 10, 2001

And how many terrorist incidents has Iran engaged in against the U.S. since then? Sure they've supported militants in Afghanistan and Lebanon when it served their interests, but then again, so have we.

Caboose
10/24/2011, 01:31 PM
And how many terrorist incidents has Iran engaged in against the U.S. since then? Sure they've supported militants in Afghanistan and Lebanon when it served their interests, but then again, so have we.

Whether the answer were zero or eleventy-billion it wouldn't be relevant to my post.

You do understand the point of my post, right?

Midtowner
10/24/2011, 02:00 PM
Whether the answer were zero or eleventy-billion it wouldn't be relevant to my post.

You do understand the point of my post, right?

You do understand that a paramilitary group whose stated purpose is terrorism and attacking the United States is a little different than Iran, the country. Right?

Caboose
10/24/2011, 02:02 PM
You do understand that a paramilitary group whose stated purpose is terrorism and attacking the United States is a little different than Iran, the country. Right?

You do understand that your initial post (that I was mocking) said nothing to the stated intent of Iran, but to it's capabilities. Right?

Midtowner
10/24/2011, 02:17 PM
You do understand that your initial post (that I was mocking) said nothing to the stated intent of Iran, but to it's capabilities. Right?

That still makes no sense. There are lots of countries with the same capabilities as Iran. There's simply no reason to fear them, and foreseeably, there isn't going to be one. They know that if they sponsor terrorism against the U.S., there's a good chance we do what we do best--drop bombs.

Caboose
10/24/2011, 02:47 PM
That still makes no sense. There are lots of countries with the same capabilities as Iran. There's simply no reason to fear them, and foreseeably, there isn't going to be one. They know that if they sponsor terrorism against the U.S., there's a good chance we do what we do best--drop bombs.

No it makes perfect sense. Your post wasn't about "lots of other countries". It was specifically about the capabilities of Iran (regardless of their intent) which are more impressive than the perceived capabilities of Al Queda prior to 9/11. You are only now, after the fact, wanting to discuss intent when the photo you posted and message you captioned it with at best ignored Iran's intent for the sake of making your point. It could actually be argued that YOU are the one that implied Iran's intent with your post. A strong case could be made that in making your post you necessarily had to imply that they had the desire to attack us in order to bring their capabilities in focus so you could then mock said capabilities.

Either way, why is Iran's true intent relevant to my rebuttal of your post when it wasn't relevant to yours? Afterall, your initial post only makes sense if you ignore Iran's true intent OR if you pretend their intent is to attack us. You set the stage, I was merely working with the props you set up.

If your post was strictly about capabilities then so was mine...so keep intent out of it. If your post was about capabilities AND intent then it would only make sense if their intent was to attack... which ties directly into my rebuttal.

You get it now. Right?

Midtowner
10/24/2011, 04:11 PM
The hell are you talking about? Is Iran a threat to the U.S.? Nope. Or at least it's about as threatening as a half-dozen other countries with similar capabilities are. If you're worried about state-sponsored terrorism, well, Iran does quite a bit of that, 99% directed at Israel to accomplish Iran's state-related goals. It doesn't really advance Iran as a country to provoke the U.S., though grandstanding and chanting death to America makes for good political theater.

And if you want to take the most recent plot to kill the Saudi Ambassador, I guess you're also afraid of provoking this guy:

http://www.moonbattery.com/Mr_magoo.GIF

The head of Iranian intelligence.

Caboose
10/24/2011, 04:16 PM
The hell are you talking about? Is Iran a threat to the U.S.? Nope.

If you dont feel that they are a threat then why did you imply it in your photo?

Stop trying to obfuscate the point with the rest of the off-point distractions.

I hope this isn't how you lawyer.

Let me make this as clear as possible. NO ONE in this entire thread said anything about Iran "attacking the USA" until you implied it in your Iran Navy photo and comment.
YOU were the one that injected the entire concept of Iran attacking the shores of the US into this thread. Not me, not anyone else, YOU.

Now why in the seven hells are you droning on and on to me about how that is such a dumb concept? If it was such a dumb concept then why the F did you bring it into this thread? Was it just so you could pretend someone else said it? YOU are the one asking us to suppose Iran were to attack the shores of the US. Otherwise how would your jape at the Iranian navy make sense?

"Iran is not going to attack us. Here is their navy attacking us"
"Suppose Iran were to attack us with their navy, here is what it would look like. LULZ"

Only one of those makes sense in regards to your post. YOU are the one that asserted
Iran would/could/wanted to attack the shores of the US. It was YOUR idea. Not mine. Now why are you demanding that I defend it?

Now if you want to take the easy way out and claim your photo said nothing at all of Iran's intent, and that you were only mocking their capabilities, that is fine. I will then posit that my retort was speaking strictly of the perceived capabilities of Al Queda prior to Sept 11. You cant have it both ways. Either intent is irrelevant or it's not.

AlboSooner
10/24/2011, 10:11 PM
The difference between those 3 and Ahmadinejad is that the first three actually wielded some power and authority.

Great point.

MR2-Sooner86
10/24/2011, 10:42 PM
Midtowner - September 10, 2001

The terrorist on 9/11 were Saudis, the ones we give a whole lot of money and military resources to.

Ever since the Republican debates started up the herpin' and derpin' for invading Iran has reached epic levels. If only the people would realize Iran isn't a threat. Of course that would take some thinking and common sense.

North Korea has nuclear weapons, why don't we invade them as they can seriously affect the Asian economies we're heavily tied to?
Pakistan has nuclear weapons, why don't we invade them as they have Taliban sympathizers in their government, their people are borderline anarchic at times, and they seem to be playing both sides of the fence?

You know maybe if we didn't overthrown Iran's government their people wouldn't have been so pissed at us to take our citizens hostage. Also if we didn't fund Saddam with weapons, money, and WMDs when he went to war with them as revenge they might be a little more friendlier to us.

Caboose
10/25/2011, 07:32 AM
The terrorist on 9/11 were Saudis, the ones we give a whole lot of money and military resources to.

Ever since the Republican debates started up the herpin' and derpin' for invading Iran has reached epic levels. If only the people would realize Iran isn't a threat. Of course that would take some thinking and common sense.

North Korea has nuclear weapons, why don't we invade them as they can seriously affect the Asian economies we're heavily tied to?
Pakistan has nuclear weapons, why don't we invade them as they have Taliban sympathizers in their government, their people are borderline anarchic at times, and they seem to be playing both sides of the fence?

You know maybe if we didn't overthrown Iran's government their people wouldn't have been so pissed at us to take our citizens hostage. Also if we didn't fund Saddam with weapons, money, and WMDs when he went to war with them as revenge they might be a little more friendlier to us.

What on earth are you talking about? This was a response to ME?

King Barry's Back
10/25/2011, 09:01 PM
Power in Iran is up for grabs. Ahmedinejad does not have the same grip as a US President would, but he is one of the players and really quite powerful. He has, for instance, a firm powerbase in the Rev Guards/Quds Force and, through the companies they own and control a huge financial base.
While there are other power centers (the clerics in Qom being the most obvious and arguably most powerful) none enjoys perfect control. It's a 'system' of shifting alliances and jockeying for power.
You need only witness the little shadow play of the release of the hikers to see how chaotic and undecided the power structure is.
Don't dismiss him....but don't rely on him to carry through on any deal he makes, either.

I think the point is that that Saddam Hussein and Moamar Ghadafy were dictators of their countries, and Osama bin Ladin was at least the founder and spiritual leader of an organization.

Ahmadinijad is certainly not the dicator of Iran, in fact the "ultimate leader" (or whatever they call him, I think his name is Khamenei, but I am no good with Iranian names) in Qom is much more likely the dictator than Amadinejad.

Amadinejad is elected, but only in elections that are rigged so that Qom's choice gets to win.

Also, Qom has final say and ultimate veto power of almost all of Amadinjad's decisions.

The point being that getting rid of Amadinejad in no way would improve America's interests in Iran.

MR2-Sooner86
10/25/2011, 09:30 PM
What on earth are you talking about? This was a response to ME?

This is a thread about Iran is it not? You brought up 9/11 and I was stating that it was Saudis, not Iranians, who carried out those attacks.

Caboose
10/25/2011, 09:36 PM
This is a thread about Iran is it not? You brought up 9/11 and I was stating that it was Saudis, not Iranians, who carried out those attacks.

No one said it was Iranians.

MR2-Sooner86
10/25/2011, 09:54 PM
No one said it was Iranians.

Then why do we have a thread about them here and why is there so much talk about possible military action against them?

Caboose
10/26/2011, 07:03 AM
Then why do we have a thread about them here and why is there so much talk about possible military action against them?

For the life of me I can not understand the source of your confusion. Are you suggesting the only acceptable explanation for the existence of a thread about Iran is for someone to claim Iranians were behind 9/11?

MR2-Sooner86
10/30/2011, 04:10 PM
For the life of me I can not understand the source of your confusion. Are you suggesting the only acceptable explanation for the existence of a thread about Iran is for someone to claim Iranians were behind 9/11?

I'll...speak...very...slowly...to...you...this...t ime...oh...kay?

We're talking about military actions against Iran. Why? They want nukes. Why is this bad some say? We're afraid they'll give it to the guys who were behind 9/11.

So 9/11 and Iran are linked because people think Iran will be the reason New York City gets a terrorist nuclear or dirty bomb in Time Square.

Midtowner
10/31/2011, 01:42 AM
The guys who were behind 9/11 would be as likely to use nuke against Iran as the West.