Ingles solamente (¡no exepciones!)
Maybe he'll get taken out from the inside.
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.Originally Posted by SicEmBaylor
You mean he's a front man for the Shiite clerics?
Ingles solamente (¡no exepciones!)
Careful with your mocking tone. Iran has sent its powerful navy to prowl the shores of America. Be warned.
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
Midtowner - September 10, 2001
Careful with your mocking tone. Al Queda has sent its powerful air force to attack America. Be warned. LULZ
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.
Oh cool. Not a cult, a "blood cult."
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 don't know karate, but I know ka-razor!" - James Brown
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?
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?
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?
Last edited by Caboose; 10/24/2011 at 03:18 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:
The head of Iranian intelligence.
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.
Last edited by Caboose; 10/25/2011 at 07:32 AM.
Posting Permissions
