Argentinean President, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner reveals...

[ChumpDumper]

What???? YOU balked at that the notion that somehow the regime's anti-Semitism, and talk of "religious-duty" to depose "Zionists" from Israel were even related. That it wasn't a factor in either the risk or the possibility that Iran would consider deploying a nuclear weapon for religious purposes.

The Shi'ite brand of Islam has by far created the most radical muslims - for you to deny this observational fact or redirect with other tedious quips would be a sign that you truly don't understand that brand of Islam. Hence, if Iran's current president is part of the clerical structure of the nation, AND he is a Shi'ite adherent THEN neither of those truths bodes well for reducing the risk that is associated with allowing Iran to possess nuclear weapons.

The whole point of the thread was to point out that ANY facilitation of Iran's nuclear capabilities is extremely fool-hardy. The rampant partisanship on this board makes it so that you all are wholly incapable of seeing what is plainly obvious to most. You don't hand a pyromaniac a lighter. You don't hand weapons to lunatics. And you certainly don't facilitate the proliferation of nuclear-capable nations that are run, or even influenced by extremist ideologies. It's plain and clear.

So all Shiites are lunatics.

Nice.

[Blake]

Another red-herring.

You really don't understand the meaning of civil discourse.

And some par-for-the-course lying on your part... It was YOU that got all huffy and puffy about mistranslation, to the point where you quoted and linked all sorts of irrelevant quotes that had nothing to do with the wording of the quote that I posted.

Here is your strawman tactic in a nuts :

Make up a ridiculous argument
Attribute it to someone else (or another poster - in this case me)
Mock and destroy the premise of that argument
Somehow claim that your position is correct based on the ridiculousness of the argument that you alone fabricated and dispelled.

"I'm getting ad hominemed by everybody"

[Phenomanul]

So all Shiites are lunatics.

Nice.

Jump-to-conclusions red herring.

Nice.

Hassan Rouhani is on record for his own anti-Semitism. Look it up when you have the time. Oh and he's also on record for stating "Death to America" - but, none of this seems to be cause of concern for you, or even raise a red flag - given you glossed over it the first time I posted it.

Shi'ites and Religious Fanaticism are like Squares and Quadrilaterals.

Not all Shi'ites are fanatics... but the most noted fanatics ARE Shi'ites.

[Phenomanul]

"I'm getting ad hominemed by everybody"

oh the irony.

[Phenomanul]

already concluded Iran was talking about regime change. nothing wrong with hoping regime change of an opponent nation. US does it all the time.

I actually think Bibby's comments are way worse. Disrespecting the millions that died out there.

"Disrespecting the millions that died out there" is "way worse" than denying they ever died in the first place? ummm OK.

[hater]

Jump-to-conclusions red herring.

Nice.

Hassan Rouhani is on record for his own anti-Semitism. Look it up when you have the time. Oh and he's also on record for stating "Death to America" - but, none of this seems to be cause of concern for you, or even raise a red flag - given you glossed over it the first time I posted it.

Shi'ites and Religious Fanaticism are like Squares and Quadrilaterals.

Not all Shi'ites are fanatics... but the most noted fanatics ARE Shi'ites.

the current Israeli Justice Minister called Palestinian children snakes and called for Israel to wipe them out.

what do you say about that?

[Phenomanul]

the current Israeli Justice Minister called Palestinian children snakes and called for Israel to wipe them out.

what do you say about that?

if you believe I'm justifying the words of one tyrant over another.

I believe in peace. Those that are dead set against it - or incite genocidal confrontations - are a deterrent towards that goal. Enabling Iran to possess nuclear capabilities is a huge risk towards that goal. None of you all seem to grasp that simple truth. Yeah, Israel has possessed nukes of their own for DECADES but they have NEVER used them.

No need to escalate the situation by equipping the other party with nuclear weapons.

Seriously, why is that so difficult understand?

[hater]

if you believe I'm justifying the words of one tyrant over another.

I believe in peace. Those that are dead set against it - or incite genocidal confrontations - are a deterrent towards that goal. Enabling Iran to possess nuclear capabilities is a huge risk towards that goal. None of you all seem to grasp that simple truth. Yeah, Israel has possessed nukes of their own for DECADES but they have NEVER used them.

No need to escalate the situation by equipping the other party with nuclear weapons.

Seriously, why is that so difficult understand?

where is your outrage at Israel arming up?

you think Israel is staying put in this arms race?

LOL tunnel vision argument

[ChumpDumper]

Jump-to-conclusions red herring.

Nice.

Hassan Rouhani is on record for his own anti-Semitism. Look it up when you have the time. Oh and he's also on record for stating "Death to America" - but, none of this seems to be cause of concern for you, or even raise a red flag - given you glossed over it the first time I posted it.

Shi'ites and Religious Fanaticism are like Squares and Quadrilaterals.

Not all Shi'ites are fanatics... but the most noted fanatics ARE Shi'ites.

Except for all the ones who aren't like Osama bin Laden and all the 9/11 terrorists. You honestly look really stupid saying that.

I really don't give a about boiler plate anti-Semitism in the Islamic middle east. That's what pretty much all of them think. That doesn't automatically make them suicidal, wanting to destroy their own country and everyone they know and love. That is your contention. I simply don't buy it. They would've done it some other way already.

[Blake]

oh the irony.

what irony

[Phenomanul]

Except for all the ones who aren't like Osama bin Laden and all the 9/11 terrorists. You honestly look really stupid saying that.

I really don't give a about boiler plate anti-Semitism in the Islamic middle east. That's what pretty much all of them think. That doesn't automatically make them suicidal, wanting to destroy their own country and everyone they know and love. That is your contention. I simply don't buy it. They would've done it some other way already.

So much putting words in my mouth in this post I can't even...

[ChumpDumper]

So much putting words in my mouth in this post I can't even...

But you will.

You said "the most noted fanatics ARE Shi'ites." which is so stupid on its face it needed to be ridiculed. Al Qaeda is/was full of noted fanatics and they are Sunni.

As for the rest -- you absolutely have intimated the leadership in Iran wants to get into a war with Israel that will devastate Iran -- if you think something else, spell it out.

[Warlord23]

"The Shi'ite brand of Islam has by far created the most radical muslims"

Phenomenaul: if you really believe that, you have very little credibility regarding your other beliefs. You need to change the "news" sources from where you get your information. This reminds of me of a highly rated comment on breitbart or wnd (I forget which) that Bush should've invaded Iran instead of Iraq.

My guess is that your attachment to conservatism is based on your religious beliefs, and you've had to do quite a bit of mental gymnastics to reconcile the other positions (especially foreign policy) that the Republican party champions.

[Wilt Chamberlain]

If you wanna feel threatened go right ahead man

[Phenomanul]

But you will.

implying I owe you anything....

You said "the most noted fanatics ARE Shi'ites." which is so stupid on its face it needed to be ridiculed. Al Qaeda is/was full of noted fanatics and they are Sunni.

Meh... an honest mistake - a pretty big one I confess (given Boko Haram and the Bakri group in Indonesia are other Sunni Terrorist factions along with Al-Qaeda's Wahhabi Sunni sect)... But still that concession is immaterial. It does nothing to deter from the point I was making - mainly that a religious leader who has an influence on his country's military action (hence my inclusion of the 'Shi'ite cleric' qualifier) should not claim 'religious duty' as a inciting motive for confronting another sovereign state.

That said, even while I concede that I bobbled the names of the Islamic fractions in my mind, don't be fooled into thinking Shi'ite doctrine doesn't lead to radical ideologies (The Hezbollah are Shi'ites). In Shi'ite doctrine, muslims must establish a global caliphate before the return of their Mahdi... This requires invasive action on their part (which is why they feel it is their duty to reproduce like crazy everywhere they go).

Just to be perfectly clear though - Islamic doctrine as a whole (and the various factions that consider themselves Muslim) can rapidly devolve to die-by-the-sword fanaticism. Those commands are littered repeatedly, graphically, boldly and unmistakably across the pages of the Quran.

As for the rest -- you absolutely have intimated the leadership in Iran wants to get into a war with Israel that will devastate Iran -- if you think something else, spell it out.

You say 'war' as if it would be declared officially. If Iran's leaders have voiced an opinion suggesting that it is their [the country's] religious duty to "wipe Israel from the pages of time". How else do you think they would do that if not without confrontation? You don't find that even a bit concerning...? Apparently not, since you have tried to down play that position.

[Phenomanul]

"The Shi'ite brand of Islam has by far created the most radical muslims"

Phenomenaul: if you really believe that, you have very little credibility regarding your other beliefs. You need to change the "news" sources from where you get your information. This reminds of me of a highly rated comment on breitbart or wnd (I forget which) that Bush should've invaded Iran instead of Iraq.

My guess is that your attachment to conservatism is based on your religious beliefs, and you've had to do quite a bit of mental gymnastics to reconcile the other positions (especially foreign policy) that the Republican party champions.

Nope... just an honest mistake. During that exchange I was running process simulation software on one machine (tweaking lines of code here and there), running 5 different Excel sheets on another (performing an array of different computations), talking to my sister on the phone, and trying to keep up with all the strawmen in this thread. It happens.

My position is pretty clear. We don't want more nuclear capable nations in the high-stakes game of nuclear roulette. The fact that we've had to delve into the particulars of motive is immaterial to that position as well. I'm not favoring Israel over Iran. Simply pointing out that Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons today and that the U.S. shouldn't be involved in facilitating their progress towards that end.

Conversely,

Who is going to try and tell Israel to get rid of the nuclear arsenal currently in their possession (the "Come and Take It" flag with the canon comes to mind)?

[ChumpDumper]

implying I owe you anything....

Faulty inference. I made a prediction. A correct one.

Meh... an honest mistake - a pretty big one I confess (given Boko Haram and the Bakri group in Indonesia are other Sunni Terrorist factions along with Al-Qaeda's Wahhabi Sunni sect)... But still that concession is immaterial. It does nothing to deter from the point I was making - mainly that a religious leader who has an influence on his country's military action (hence my inclusion of the 'Shi'ite cleric' qualifier) should not claim 'religious duty' as a inciting motive for confronting another sovereign state.

That said, even while I concede that I bobbled the names of the Islamic fractions in my mind, don't be fooled into thinking Shi'ite doctrine doesn't lead to radical ideologies (The Hezbollah are Shi'ites). In Shi'ite doctrine, muslims must establish a global caliphate before the return of their Mahdi... This requires invasive action on their part (which is why they feel it is their duty to reproduce like crazy everywhere they go).

Just to be perfectly clear though - Islamic doctrine as a whole (and the various factions that consider themselves Muslim) can rapidly devolve to die-by-the-sword fanaticism. Those commands are littered repeatedly, graphically, boldly and unmistakably across the pages of the Quran.

I think every religion lends itself to extremists. So what?

You say 'war' as if it would be declared officially. If Iran's leaders have voiced an opinion suggesting that it is their [the country's] religious duty to "wipe Israel from the pages of time". How else do you think they would do that if not without confrontation? You don't find that even a bit concerning...? Apparently not, since you have tried to down play that position.

I don't find it very concerning at all. The leader of a much bigger threat to this country said "We will bury you!" for all the world to see.

Nothing happened.

And they had many, many nuclear weapons.

Why would I give a if Israel and Iran want to destroy each other anyway? What do we get from relations with either country?

[ChumpDumper]

Nope... just an honest mistake. During that exchange I was running process simulation software on one machine (tweaking lines of code here and there), running 5 different Excel sheets on another (performing an array of different computations), talking to my sister on the phone, and trying to keep up with all the strawmen in this thread. It happens.

My position is pretty clear. We don't want more nuclear capable nations in the high-stakes game of nuclear roulette. The fact that we've had to delve into the particulars of motive is immaterial to that position as well. I'm not favoring Israel over Iran. Simply pointing out that Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons today and that the U.S. shouldn't be involved in facilitating their progress towards that end.

Conversely,

Who is going to try and tell Israel to get rid of the nuclear arsenal currently in their possession (the "Come and Take It" flag with the canon comes to mind)?

We could pretty easily if we had any political will.

[Phenomanul]

Faulty inference. I made a prediction. A correct one.

I think every religion lends itself to extremists. So what?

I don't find it very concerning at all. The leader of a much bigger threat to this country said "We will bury you!" for all the world to see.

Nothing happened.

And they had many, many nuclear weapons.

Why would I give a if Israel and Iran want to destroy each other anyway? What do we get from relations with either country?

Not much... just nuclear fallout. WWIII... nothing of consequence.

[ChumpDumper]

Not much... just nuclear fallout. WWIII... nothing of consequence.

Again, why does Iran want its own country to be destroyed?

You never explained that.

[Phenomanul]

We could pretty easily if we had any political will.

Again, another nuclear roulette scenario... one in which both parties can bluff with WMDs... No one wants another DEFCON 1 situation playing out.

[Phenomanul]

Again, why does Iran want its own country to be destroyed?

You never explained that.

If Islamic fanaticism became the driving reason it doesn't need to make sense. That's the problem with chaos.

[Phenomanul]

When it comes down to it. YOUR fundamental position is that you don't care if Iran becomes nuclear capable or not. Every other argument you've brought to the table is immaterial in light of that premise. My position is that I clearly don't want Iran to become a nuclear capable nation.

[ChumpDumper]

Again, another nuclear roulette scenario... one in which both parties can bluff with WMDs... No one wants another DEFCON 1 situation playing out.

Who says we would have to threaten them with nukes?

If Islamic fanaticism became the driving reason it doesn't need to make sense. That's the problem with chaos.

Sorry, you can't come up with any reason Iran would want to annihilate itself. I have shown specific, concrete examples when it actively avoided national martyrdom.

The problem with your thinking is that what you say is chaos isn't chaos at all. It's just basic self-interest.

[Phenomanul]

I don't find it very concerning at all. The leader of a much bigger threat to this country said "We will bury you!" for all the world to see.

Nothing happened.

And they had many, many nuclear weapons.

Why would I give a if Israel and Iran want to destroy each other anyway? What do we get from relations with either country?

BTW who said that? N. Korea or Putin?