RE: The Iran Deal

RE: The Iran Deal (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Politesub53 -> RE: The Iran Deal (7/26/2015 4:54:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Ad hominems, lies, BS, nothing else - typical post from those with your views, and the inherent lack of ability to defend them. Head in the sand again Sanity ? You should pull it out now and then and check out the reality. Constantly ignoring posts showing the truth on the issue, and I have posted more than enough, just show that your blinkers are firmly fixed.

Sanity -> RE: The Iran Deal (7/26/2015 5:09:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Ad hominems, lies, BS, nothing else - typical post from those with your views, and the inherent lack of ability to defend them. Head in the sand again Sanity ? You should pull it out now and then and check out the reality. Constantly ignoring posts showing the truth on the issue, and I have posted more than enough, just show that your blinkers are firmly fixed. And so you double down, with more of the same.

Politesub53 -> RE: The Iran Deal (7/26/2015 5:15:37 PM)
Not really old chap........ search all my posts on the issue.

tweakabelle -> RE: The Iran Deal (7/28/2015 5:01:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle If you know what you were talking about, rather than having to refer to unreliable sources such as wiki you would know that Iranians don't share an ethnic heritage or a desire for pan-political unity with Arab and/or Sunni Muslims. The term Islamist in common parlance refers to Sunni extremist sects such as Al Quada and IS, groups that have nothing in common with the Iranian 'agenda'. They believe Shia are for killing, not forming political alliances with. It is not helpful to confuse the two - rather like saying the IRA and the UVF shared a political agenda. In reality those two groups hated each other murderously. There is enough ignorance about Middle Eastern politics in the West without your adding to it, which you seem to do every time you post on the topic. From Webster: quote: Definition of ISLAMISM 1 : the faith, doctrine, or cause of Islam 2 : a popular reform movement advocating the reordering of government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam — Is·lam·ist \-mist\ noun Youll never find a legitimate source to back your wild guess about what Islamism is, they all say the same thing I do. Sanity there are very good reasons to distinguish between Islamists ( ie Sunni extremists such as AQ and IS) and the Iranians. Here's just three: Iranians are Shia Muslims, who are regarded as apostates by Sunni extremists and viewed by the likes of AQ and IS as heretics fit only for extermination; Shia led militias, some Iranian others allied to the Iranians have proved to be the most successful and effective opponents of IS in Iraq. Their contribution to the fight against Sunni extremism is essential if IS is to be defeated and dislodged from ruling the areas currently under its control in Iraq and Syria; IS has a philosophy of continual war and expansion of the 'Caliphate' they run in NW Iraq and Eastern Syria. Iran has not tried to expand its territory nor has it shown any signs of doing so since the Iranian Revolution. The aims of both parties are different, the means with which they try to realise those aims is different - so different that they are direct opponents on the battlefield. It simply doesn't make sense to include the Iranians and other Shia militia under the same label as IS and AQ, who are their mortal enemies, and who they are engaged in fighting currently in Iraq and Syria. It is not possible to understand events in that part of the world if you make this careless unwarranted generalisation. Surely even you can see that. So there is nothing to be gained by insisting that they share the label 'Islamist' - the only causes advanced by doing so are those of ignorance and misinformation. What is it that you are trying to achieve by adding to the levels of ignorance and misinformation about the ME?

Sanity -> RE: The Iran Deal (7/28/2015 7:28:59 AM)
I have pointed out how every credible reference on the Internet proves you wrong. Most reasonable people would thank me for correcting their error...

Musicmystery -> RE: The Iran Deal (7/28/2015 7:45:33 AM)
Sorry, but she's the one who laid out the rational explanation.

Sanity -> RE: The Iran Deal (7/28/2015 8:02:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Sorry, but she's the one who laid out the rational explanation. Fun to see you take her bloviating over credible cited references

mnottertail -> RE: The Iran Deal (7/28/2015 8:20:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity I have pointed out how every credible reference on the Internet proves you wrong. Most reasonable people would thank me for correcting their error... You have done exactly the opposite of that. One, you have pointed to no credible reference of anything whatsoever, then you post a picture of people in Times Square (neither of which there is a credible reference to who those people are, or that it is times square, two; no credible reference to their being there for any reason, for all we know, it would appear that they are there in support of jailing all 'conservatives' as treasonous).

crazyml -> RE: The Iran Deal (7/28/2015 8:20:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Iranians are Shia Muslims Sanity. Islamists such as AQ or IS come from the Sunni sect of Islam, and they regard Shias as apostates, heretics. So Iranians aren't Islamists. Please get your terminology right - it helps to convey the impression that you know what you are talking about. I had always assumed that islamist was a general term for people who promote a hard-line interpretation and application of Islam. I've not seen anything that argues that "Islamist" is a Sunni term.

tweakabelle -> RE: The Iran Deal (7/28/2015 9:09:29 AM)
I am asserting that in common parlance Islamist refers to the Sunni extremist groups, and that it makes good sense to distinguish between those groups and other sects such as Shia and in view of the situation in Iraq and Syria, between Sunni extremists and Shia militia.

KenDckey -> RE: The Iran Deal (7/28/2015 9:25:48 AM)
tweak aren't the kurds a mix of various sects and religions? They are also considered islamic for the most part.

crazyml -> RE: The Iran Deal (7/28/2015 9:32:14 AM)
Yes, it is clear what you're asserting. I think that you are incorrect in your assertion. The best way, I think, to distinguish between Sunni and Shia is probably to use the terms "Sunni" to refer to Sunni's, and "Shia" to refer to Shias.

joether -> RE: The Iran Deal (7/28/2015 9:34:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 That's only if Iran complies with the terms of the treaty... That's a big fucking IF. You may trust Iran, Obama may trust Iran, Kerry already stated he didn't then flip flopped to support the President... But the rest of the SANE world doesn't trust Iran... But then that's because we're sane. So if the world treats Iran so harshly, why are they doing nothing about it? Dont see many countries lining up with their militarizes to invade that nation.... Which is why we use diplomacy first. So that later, if the United States has to take a more active, military approach, we'll have the history books showing we tried to go the peaceful route before hand. Did you read the treaty? Did you understand it?

joether -> RE: The Iran Deal (7/28/2015 9:35:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 FR That's only if Iran complies with the terms of the treaty... That's a big fucking IF. You may trust Iran, Obama may trust Iran, Kerry already stated he didn't then flip flopped to support the President... But the rest of the SANE world doesn't trust Iran... But then that's because we're sane. And we arent Shiite sympathizers This deal blatantly tilts the balance of power in the Middle East toward militant Shiites in ways that are setting off alarm bells throughout the region Did you read the treaty? Did you understand it?

joether -> RE: The Iran Deal (7/28/2015 9:40:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Uh, nobody trusts Iran. So, rather than a verifiable treaty, what do you propose? You are the problem, not the solution. They want a war. They are more than happy to send other Americans to fight and die for their petty ego's that didnt bother to READ and UNDERSTAND the treaty. They want the US Government spending trillions of dollars on it as well. So they can bitch later that the debt was made larger and nothing was done about it. Lets just grab together all those who was a war with Iran. Give them a gun, ammo, BDU's, and ship them to Iran. In fact, we won't touch the plane down, we'll just kick them out of the plane. Now we have accomplished two things: Gotten rid of the moronic-population in our nation, and the obsolete arms that never did work before hand! Did you read the treaty? Did you understand it?

joether -> RE: The Iran Deal (7/28/2015 9:48:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 That's only if Iran complies with the terms of the treaty... That's a big fucking IF. You may trust Iran, Obama may trust Iran, Kerry already stated he didn't then flip flopped to support the President... But the rest of the SANE world doesn't trust Iran... But then that's because we're sane. And we arent Shiite sympathizers This deal blatantly tilts the balance of power in the Middle East toward militant Shiites in ways that are setting off alarm bells throughout the region Two joke posts. Firstly, only the insane would think there was a better solution at this moment in time. I certainly havent heard anyone give a good alternative, on here or in the media. Secondly, Sanity is being quite the hypocrite (whats new) when he talks about the Shiite sympathisers. This is the man that told us Bush went into Iran to liberate the the peole from Saddam and his Bathist regime (All Sunni) Sanity also forgets all the current troubles with terrorists have been from Sunni groups, sadly for him most of us are able to read the truth. Being a terrorist is a matter of perspective. If the Iranians sent a team of highly trained commandos to blow up a building in the USA and denied its existence; would that be an act of terrorism? If the United States sent a team of US Navy SEALS (or other special forces) on a black op to blow up a building in Iran and denied its existence; would that ALSO be an act of terrorism? Sanity and his like will say the first is terrorism but the second is not. Even though both are more or less the same thing. When it happens, it aggravates people more than it calms them down. When people are calm, talking becomes much easier. Discussing the points of contention and working to find a solution to the problem(s). Recently two male drivers got into a road rage moment. They didn't listen to their wives, nor the police (whom their wives were on the phones with). With guns in hand, they confronted the other. After the shooting had stopped, one father was on the ground, dead, before his children's eyes. What if no guns were used? That the second following stopped to say "Hey man, sorry about things on the road back there. The roads were chaotic and I was just trying to drive safely. You guys ok?" Most likely both sides would have chatted for a bit, wished the other well and been on their way. This is what Sanity and others can not understand.

Musicmystery -> RE: The Iran Deal (7/28/2015 9:49:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Sorry, but she's the one who laid out the rational explanation. Fun to see you take her bloviating over credible cited references Allegedly "credible" as merely stated by you without substantiation. There's a word for that -- opinion.

joether -> RE: The Iran Deal (7/28/2015 9:53:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity FR Have any of your Obama News Networks shown you this? [img]http://www.rushimg.com/cimages//media/images/ts-protest2/1400255-1-eng-GB/TS-protest.jpg[/img] Thousands Rallied Against the Iran Deal in Times Square How many of those people actually read the treaty? Understand it?

joether -> RE: The Iran Deal (7/28/2015 9:57:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity I have pointed out how every credible reference on the Internet proves you wrong. Most reasonable people would thank me for correcting their error... If that was even remotely true, why is it I can find the same information that shows your wrong in the libraries in New England? From that 'liberal' bastion of M.I.T. to the 'conservative bastion' of northern New Hampshire? Because you lack objectivity. Its fine to be passionate towards a religious or political viewpoint. As long as that viewpoint is objective, reasonable, and wise.

joether -> RE: The Iran Deal (7/28/2015 10:04:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey tweak aren't the kurds a mix of various sects and religions? They are also considered islamic for the most part. Ken aren't the americans a mix of various groups and religions? They are also considered christian for the most part. Yeah, you live in the United States of America, right? How true is the above set of statements? Yes, religious does play a role in both nations. Both nations have people with a wide level of viewpoints. They both of their radicals, die-hards, saber rattlers, and 'thugs with guns'. They both have a media that tries to show the other as war-like, evil, and terrorizing (we have FOX 'news' for example). Yet both nations have many sane, rational, reasonable people that wish to live in peace. With their neighbors, their countrymen and the world. The Iranians recognize their right-wingers as holding many of the same characteristics as right-winters in the United States. That they want to have nuclear power, but not nuclear weapons is a topic you over look. The treaty explains many details that you and other right wingers just are not understanding. Maybe if you sat down and....READ....through the 159 page document; you might have many questions answered. But no, you'll stay in ignorance and have other people do your thinking for you. Because they and you know your neither intelligent or educated enough to think for yourself. You dont like it when all of us point out your ignorance; why do you allow people that share similar political ideologies to do the same to you?

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875