Ed Israel/US Attacks Iran /Yet Another Country/Iran

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Lying to infidels in service to allah is perfectly acceptable under islamic law.

So why do you insist on accepting whatever Iran says is true at face value? Seriously, Iran has been actively sponsoring and directing terrorist organizations that kill civilians around the globe for decades.

So has Saudi Arabia. In fact, the terrorist cell they sponsored directly hit the US.

But somehow they are still good allies?

 

[Planigale]

Lying to infidels in service to allah is perfectly acceptable under islamic law.

So why do you insist on accepting whatever Iran says is true at face value? Seriously, Iran has been actively sponsoring and directing terrorist organizations that kill civilians around the globe for decades.

Again this illustrates you do not understand Islam. That is not your fault. I understand christianity because I was brought up in a christian country and went to christian schools though was raised as a muslim.

You do not understand what infidel (kaffir) means. It specifically excludes Christians and Jews, the people of the book, who believe in the one god. Kaffirs (infidels) are polytheists and atheists.

The US has been actively sponsoring and directing terrorist organisations around the globe for decades. It has been directly killing civilians for decades. Far more civilians than Iran ever has. The resistance movements Iran has supported (that you call terrorists while failing to recognise that the US is the greatest terrorist organisation), aren't global (unlike the US). they operate to resist (and were formed in response to) occupation in the middle east.

 

[Emily's Cat]

So has Saudi Arabia. In fact, the terrorist cell they sponsored directly hit the US.

But somehow they are still good allies?

They're less awful at least. They've been fairly collaborative and have endeavored to maintain a good relationship with us for about 30 years. Not perfect, but no alliance or treaty is.

For all that UK and France have been extremely close allies of the US for a couple of hundred years, I'm pretty sure it's naive to assume that neither engages in espionage against the US. I would think it's naive to assume that neither seeks to influence either the US government or the US people via social action.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Again this illustrates you do not understand Islam. That is not your fault. I understand christianity because I was brought up in a christian country and went to christian schools though was raised as a muslim.

You do not understand what infidel (kaffir) means. It specifically excludes Christians and Jews, the people of the book, who believe in the one god. Kaffirs (infidels) are polytheists and atheists.

The US has been actively sponsoring and directing terrorist organisations around the globe for decades. It has been directly killing civilians for decades. Far more civilians than Iran ever has. The resistance movements Iran has supported (that you call terrorists while failing to recognise that the US is the greatest terrorist organisation), aren't global (unlike the US). they operate to resist (and were formed in response to) occupation in the middle east.

That's a lot of pretty strong claims you've got in there. What terrorist organizations that have attacked and killed civilians as their target do you think the US sponsors?

And in what world is a group that attacks and kills civilians in foreign countries a "resistance movement"?

 

[Ziggurat]

You do not understand what infidel (kaffir) means. It specifically excludes Christians and Jews, the people of the book, who believe in the one god. Kaffirs (infidels) are polytheists and atheists.

Kaffir with two f's is a racial slur.

Kafir with one f means unbeliever. There are some arguments that the term should only apply to polytheists and atheists, but that's a largely academic debate, it has little effect on actual usage. The term often gets used for Christians and Jews. Hell, it even gets used for other Muslims, if they don't believe properly (according to whoever is making that accusation).

 

[Planigale]

That's a lot of pretty strong claims you've got in there. What terrorist organizations that have attacked and killed civilians as their target do you think the US sponsors?

And in what world is a group that attacks and kills civilians in foreign countries a "resistance movement"?

Cuba

the actions of the United States toward Cuba during the early 1960s bear comparison with Iranian and Syrian support for proxies engaging in terrorist activities against Israel

Colombian paramilitary groups

Paramilitary violence and terrorism there was principally targeted to peasants, unionists, indigenous people, human rights workers, teachers and left-wing political activists or their supporters.

Italy

According to the investigation of Italian judge Guido Salvini, the neo-fascist organizations involved in the strategy of tension, "La Fenice, Avanguardia nazionale, Ordine nuovo" were the "troops" of "clandestine armed forces", directed by components of the "state apparatus related to the CIA

Nicaragua; Contras

The Contra campaign against the government included frequent and widespread acts of terror. The economic and social reforms enacted by the government enjoyed some popularity; as a result, the Contras attempted to disrupt these programs. This campaign included the destruction of health centers and hospitals that the Sandinista government had established, in order to diminish their influence upon the populace. Schools were also destroyed, as the literacy campaign conducted by the government was an important part of its policy. The Contras also committed widespread kidnappings, murder, and rape

Kosovo

The CIA funded, trained and supplied the KLA.

Syria

Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has also accused the United States of supporting ISIS in Syria, claiming Turkey has evidence of U.S. support for ISIS through pictures, photos, and videos.

Iran

The Iranian government has blacklisted United States officials over their backing of a group that Tehran considers to be a “terrorist” organisation.

The Iranian foreign ministry on Saturday published a list of 61 current and former American officials who it said have provided “deliberate support” to the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK), a group that openly calls for overthrowing the current Iranian establishment.

And in what world is a group that attacks and kills civilians in foreign countries a "resistance movement"?

So you would accept that Hamas and Hezbollah operations against Israel as an occupying power even if they resulted in collateral civilian deaths is resistance and not terrorism? Whilst you would agree that Israeli targeting of civilians in iran or Lebanon or Syria or Europe is terrorism?

I left out Afghanistan!
Al Qaeda et al.

 

[Planigale]

Kaffir with two f's is a racial slur.

Kafir with one f means unbeliever. There are some arguments that the term should only apply to polytheists and atheists, but that's a largely academic debate, it has little effect on actual usage. The term often gets used for Christians and Jews. Hell, it even gets used for other Muslims, if they don't believe properly (according to whoever is making that accusation).

Both are transliterations of the same arabic word.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Both are transliterations of the same arabic word.

According to Wikipedia, the "kaffir" spelling became more common in Africa.

Wikipedia goes on to say: "Currently in South Africa, however, the word kaffir is regarded as a racial slur, applied pejoratively or offensively to blacks."

@Ziggurat may know of that spelling only for its pejorative use in South Africa (or other regions of the world, perhaps, into which that pejorative usage has migrated).

 

[arthwollipot]

The War Against Iran: A Timeline:




Source (secondary at best I'm afraid): Imgur

 

[angrysoba]

Where does believing that dying for the cause of religion results in being martyred and experiencing everlasting glory in heaven fit into your assumption?

Where does worrying about Iran having nukes fit in with the deal that stopped them acquiring them? Very well.

How their religion might treat them differently to a sundowning mad king with a messiah complex is somewhat irrelevant if they don't have them.

 

[angrysoba]

Lying to infidels in service to allah is perfectly acceptable under islamic law.

So why do you insist on accepting whatever Iran says is true at face value? Seriously, Iran has been actively sponsoring and directing terrorist organizations that kill civilians around the globe for decades.

I would say that you do not have to accept what, say, the Ayatollah says in his fatwa at face value. What you have to do is observe how it is interpreted by the Iranians in charge of the nuclear programme themselves.

Who can verify what they were doing? Well, the IAEA and the national intelligence services of the US.

Again, my understanding is that the IAEA judged that Iran was in compliance with the JCPOA, and the US national intelligence services believed that Iran had not restarted a nuclear weapons programme under the JCPOA.

Besides that, there is really nothing ground-breaking in this claim that sometimes politicians lie to conceal what they are really up to. It certainly isn't some mysterious inscrutable property of the Muslims.

We could point at the way in which Iran had apparently been in negotiations with the US when attacked by the US and Israel. This completely undermines the basis for negotiations, if that is your aim. On the other hand, if negotiations are just a ruse for putting the enemy and allies alike off-guard.

The point here is that you seem to be deliberately demanding that everything is unworkable and untrustworthy - deals, negotiations, alliances, intelligence assessments - and instead relying on the instincts of one very obvious liar who is trying to white-knuckle it to some unknown endpoint.

 

[Ziggurat]

Where does worrying about Iran having nukes fit in with the deal that stopped them acquiring them? Very well.

The JCPOA didn't stop them from getting nukes. It wasn't even intended to. By design, it only slowed them down.

 

[a_unique_person]

The JCPOA didn't stop them from getting nukes. It wasn't even intended to. By design, it only slowed them down.

It was intended to. There were regular checks on what the Iranians were doing.

North Korea developed nukes over the same time period.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

They're less awful at least. They've been fairly collaborative and have endeavored to maintain a good relationship with us for about 30 years. Not perfect, but no alliance or treaty is.

For all that UK and France have been extremely close allies of the US for a couple of hundred years, I'm pretty sure it's naive to assume that neither engages in espionage against the US. I would think it's naive to assume that neither seeks to influence either the US government or the US people via social action.

They funded Al-Qaeda.
They happily fund Palestinian organizations.
They have less women's rights than Iran has, which to you seems a personal breaking point.
They openly attempt(ed) to subjugate Jemen

All the things the US attacked Iraq and Iran for are ok, because they also give money to the US.
Why is it so hard to admit that this attack has nothing to do with bringing liberty, or stopping terrorists, but rather that the US wants another tributary in the Middle East, combined with the fact that your man-child(molester) in chief wanted a war to feel all manly?

 

[jimbob]

Nice article from the BBC about one aspect of the Iranian "slopaganda" effort.

Iran war: We spoke to the man making Lego-style AI videos that experts say are powerful propaganda

"Slopaganda" is too weak a term to capture how powerful this "highly sophisticated" content is, one expert says.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[The Atheist]

Things may be about to get very interesting.

China says Strait of Hormuz blockade against global interests, urges restraint | Reuters https://share.google/Dmm7lXnOq2SG7PwXM

Your move, M. le Taco

 

[The Atheist]

Why is it so hard to admit that this attack has nothing to do with bringing liberty, or stopping terrorists, but rather that the US wants another tributary in the Middle East, combined with the fact that your man-child(molester) in chief wanted a war to feel all manly?

Truth hurts.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

The JCPOA didn't stop them from getting nukes. It wasn't even intended to. By design, it only slowed them down.

There's only one country that we really have worry to about getting nukes. Unfortunately they already have them - 1,770 deployed and 1,938 in reserve as of May 2024, with another 1,336 'retired' making a grand total of 5,044 nuclear warheads. This wouldn't be a problem if this country's leader was an intelligent, well informed, rational human being with a sharp mind, empathy and understanding. Unfortunately that's not the case.

If you are at all concerned about Iran getting nukes, you should be 100 times more concerned about the country with the most nukes in the world whose leader once seriously suggested using them to dissipate hurricanes and recently threatened (with expletives) to destroy Iran's entire civilization so much that it will never return. A leader whose erratic decision-making and regular blowing past norms is setting the whole world on edge, who has surrounded himself with sycophants who will carry out this orders no matter how insane (when they aren't whispering their own insane ideas in his ear). A leader whose vindictive narcissism is on display every day, who is desperate for something to distract the public from his own scandals and criminal actions, who courts favor with hard-line religious groups, compares himself to God, openly expresses the desire to be a dictator and and admires other dictators, who thinks some Neo-Nazis are fine people and that Hitler had some good ideas. A leader with obvious signs of mental and physical decline who is trying to create a grand legacy before he dies.

And yet you don't appear to be at all concerned. Why is that?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Trump is 100% correct that He is MAGA - not Tucker, Jones or all the others who are trying to pretend that this is not all just a Personality Cult, but actually has an underlying ideology and principles.
Everyone who tries to argue that current US politics is anything other than Trump First is deluding themselves as an act of ideological self-preservation.

 

[angrysoba]

Trump is 100% correct that He is MAGA - not Tucker, Jones or all the others who are trying to pretend that this is not all just a Personality Cult, but actually has an underlying ideology and principles.
Everyone who tries to argue that current US politics is anything other than Trump First is deluding themselves as an act of ideological self-preservation.

Yes, I even decided to watch Piers Morgan today, for some crazy reason, and when the host rattled off a list of things that Trump promised in the election, the resident Trump apologist on the panel, without any trace of irony or shame, simply said that whatever MAGA is whatever Trump thinks is best for the country.

ETA: Hmmm... I thought I linked to the timestamp.. but it is around 39:20...


Clearly, to be MAGA means to have no core beliefs or ideas. Instead, to be MAGA you just have to sway in the howling gale between Trump's ears and make up justifications on the fly....

("No, he never meant wiping out the entire civilization, never to return referred to the people, only to the regime, which he has changed actually, and no he doesn't need the Strait of Hormuz open, other countries need it, but they better had open it the crazy bastards....we'll blockade the strait....no, that's a painting of a doctor not Jesus.... fake noooz!")

Do the resident Trump apologists never feel like they are being punked by their Dear Leader? The man has clearly lost whatever marbles he once had.

I was able to say that Biden was doolally way before that debate performance, so why can't the Trumpers just admit that he's also off his rocker?