And the Jihad continues...

[pipelineaudio]

Translation:
The Shah coughed up the oil. The fekkin mullahs don't. Bomb them.

Didnt the Shah charge us MORE per gallon than the barbarians did (till this latest price insanity anyway) in adjusted dollars?

You sir are some sort of dhimmi, or perhaps worse I think

 

[demon]

Mycroft:
"Did Iran stop selling oil?
I'm sorry, but your argument is full of crap. Iran will sell its oil no matter who is in charge. If the flow of oil were the only consideration, then we'd be fine with the current Iranian administration which may be wacko, but seems perfectly stable and is more than capable of making sure the tap stays on.
No, our problems with them are that they're crazy, unstable, looking to build some nukes, and willing to give money and weapons to any Islamic religious nut capable of building a bomb."

Well it is simply a fact that a democratic government was overthrown and the Shah was installed with US backing in response to the democratic government nationalising British owned Oil fields.
This is so well known, so much debated, so central to popular self understandings of Iranian people, and the Middle East generally, that one has to presume you've either never had a debate with any reasonably informed person before or are trolling. It`s incredible if you claim ignorance of this.

Your other silly argument is the one that suggests that because of the free market it`s not neccessary to politically intervene in the region to ensure the supply of this raw material to the rest of the world is maintained and that therefore anyone who believes that US imperialism has played any role in the history of the region since 1945 is simply someone who doesn`t understand free market economics.

Like Holocaust denial this curious Neo-con meme has a kind of grotesque circular poetry to it, but its completely bonkers and irrational anyway.

The last part of your post is utter unsubstantiated propaganda, do I really have to explain why? Ok, probably `cause you get it from "The Washington Institute for Near East Policy".

 

[Mycroft]

Well it is simply a fact that a democratic government was overthrown and the Shah was installed with US backing in response to the democratic government nationalising British owned Oil fields.

The specific statement I was responding to was when you said, ” Translation: The Shah coughed up the oil. The fekkin mullahs don't. Bomb them.”

I am well aware of how the Shah came into power, but that wasn’t what was being discussed. What I was discussing is how your argument is full of crap when you claim the “fekkin mullahs” didn’t cough up the oil.

The truth is the “fekkin mullahs” did cough up the oil, they still do, and they always will.

Your other silly argument is the one that suggests that because of the free market it`s not neccessary to politically intervene in the region to ensure the supply of this raw material to the rest of the world is maintained and that therefore anyone who believes that US imperialism has played any role in the history of the region since 1945 is simply someone who doesn`t understand free market economics.

What is this “imperialism” of which you speak? Can you define the term?

Like Holocaust denial this curious Neo-con meme has a kind of grotesque circular poetry to it, but its completely bonkers and irrational anyway.

The last part of your post is utter unsubstantiated propaganda, do I really have to explain why? Ok, probably `cause you get it from "The Washington Institute for Near East Policy".

So which part is wrong?

Crazy? Is a theocratic government anything other than crazy? Do you agree with Ahmadinejad’s holocaust denial? Do you think his statement of wiping Israel off the map was a helpful stabilizing thing to say?

Do you deny they’re looking to build nukes?

Do you deny Iran gives money and weapons to violent Islamic groups such as Hamas or Hezbollah? I understand you may disagree that it’s a bad thing per se, but do you deny that Iran does it?

Can you identify any part of my “propaganda” that’s unsubstantiated?

 

[demon]

"Can you identify any part of my “propaganda” that’s unsubstantiated?"

Keep wishing for more war Mycrot, I`m sure you`ll get it.
Here`s some more bollocks for your propaganda mill...

quote:
Three Iranian factories 'mass-produce bombs to kill British in Iraq'
Toby Harnden in Washington

Three factories in Iran are mass-producing the sophisticated roadside bombs used to kill British soldiers over the border in Iraq, it has been claimed.

The lethal bombs are being made by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps at ordnance factory sites in Teheran, according to opponents of the country's theocratic regime...

...Members of the Washington-based Iran Policy Committee have released the details about the three bomb factories gathered by the exile group, the National Council for Resistance in Iran (NCRI).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../20/wirq20.xml

Mycroftesque propaganda from the NCRI, a shell for the MEK who were behind previous claims that Iran was developing nukes - they even provided sattelite imagery. They also went from revolutionary socialism to Baathism to neoconservatism in about 25 years...weird that eh?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Nov17.html

When you have some REAL evidence that Iran is after nukes then I`ll take a look. In the meantime, stop wasting my time. I`ve heard it all before and documented every part of the same propaganda in the Iraq WMD lying fiasco and I actually learnt something from it.

So perhaps people can drop the baby talk about axes of evil and evil states supporting evil-doers and so on and concentrate on the evidence.

 

[Mycroft]

"Can you identify any part of my “propaganda” that’s unsubstantiated?"

<snip>

How very bizarre. I ask you to document anything *I said* that was wrong, and you pick some news article you disagree with, but that has nothing to do with anything I said.

Maybe in your fever you just associate anything you disagree with with me?


Then to top it off, you can’t even provide working links to support yourself.

 

[demon]

Mycroft, provide real evidence that Iran is trying to acquire WMD or STFU.
Simple as that.
You are making the claims, prove it.
Edited to ask:

Now I know why I never bother talking with you...you are just a propaganda mill...prove me wrong...what REAL evidence do you have?

 

[demon]

Come on Mycroft, REAL evidence Iran is after nukes!

 

[demon]

Come on, what have you got you fekkin blow hard?
Iran is after nukes, you prove it.

 

[CFLarsen]

Then to top it off, you can’t even provide working links to support yourself.

How is laughing at people's lacking knowledge to post working links advancing the dialogue?

 

[SezMe]

Speaking of which, demon, could you learn to use the quote function?

 

[DJW]

Come on, what have you got you fekkin blow hard?
Iran is after nukes, you prove it.

link

VIENNA, Austria Jan 31, 2006 (AP)— A document obtained by Iran on the nuclear black market serves no other purpose than to make an atomic bomb, the International Atomic Energy Agency said Tuesday.

In the brief report obtained Tuesday, however, the agency said bluntly that the 15-page document showing how to cast fissile uranium into metal was "related to the fabrication of nuclear weapon components."

The document was given to Iran by members of the nuclear black market network, the IAEA said. Iran has claimed it did not ask for the document but was given it anyway as part of other black market purchases.

I guess we could believe them.

 

[Crossbow]

How very bizarre. I ask you to document anything *I said* that was wrong, and you pick some news article you disagree with, but that has nothing to do with anything I said.

Maybe in your fever you just associate anything you disagree with with me?


Then to top it off, you can’t even provide working links to support yourself.

If you have some time between writing such witty retorts, perhaps you would be kind enough to accurately show how Iran under the rule of the Shah was not a totalitarian state (see post #32 and post #63).

 

[CFLarsen]

If you have some time between writing such witty retorts, perhaps you would be kind enough to accurately show how Iran under the rule of the Shah was not a totalitarian state (see post #32 and post #63).

That does nothing to advance the dialogue. You should know that by now.

 

[Elind]

Come on Mycroft, REAL evidence Iran is after nukes!

You presumably would only accept that after it is a fact. Everything they do and say suggests it, so your motivation in now defending Iran is about as suspect as your motivation for defending the "resistance fighters" in Iraq who are mostly killing their own in markeplaces.

 

[Mycroft]

If you have some time between writing such witty retorts, perhaps you would be kind enough to accurately show how Iran under the rule of the Shah was not a totalitarian state (see post #32 and post #63).

You know, sometimes people disagree and it's not necessary to resolve the disagreement. If you have a worse opinion of the Shaw than I do, I'm okay with that.

 

[Mycroft]

Mycroft, provide real evidence that Iran is trying to acquire WMD or STFU.
Simple as that.
You are making the claims, prove it.
Edited to ask:

Now I know why I never bother talking with you...you are just a propaganda mill...prove me wrong...what REAL evidence do you have?

Come on Mycroft, REAL evidence Iran is after nukes!

Come on, what have you got you fekkin blow hard?
Iran is after nukes, you prove it.

The issue has been gone over in depth in these forums, however if you want to follow the news going forward new evidence is presented ever couple of days. Our latest offering from today's news:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060821/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear

How about addressing some of the challenges presented to you?

Do you still claim the Mullah's don't "cough up" the "fekkin" oil despite all evidence that they do?

Have you come up with a definition of "Imperialism" that makes sense of your fevered ravings?

Do you deny that Iran funds and arms violent Islamist organizations?

 

[Tony]

You know, sometimes people disagree and it's not necessary to resolve the disagreement. If you have a worse opinion of the Shaw than I do, I'm okay with that.

It's not a matter of opinion, it's matter of fact. Fact: the Shah was a despot. If your "opinion" of him is different, it's because you sympathize, atleast a little, with his despotism.

 

[CFLarsen]

You know, sometimes people disagree and it's not necessary to resolve the disagreement. If you have a worse opinion of the Shaw than I do, I'm okay with that.

You know, sometimes people ask you for evidence of your claims.

Do you think it is okay that they ask you for that evidence?

Or am I not advancing the dialogue now?

 

[Mycroft]

It's not a matter of opinion, it's matter of fact. Fact: the Shah was a despot. If your "opinion" of him is different, it's because you sympathize, atleast a little, with his despotism.

I recognize that:

1) He was better than the leadership that came before him, which was essentially a puppet of Western powers that squandered the resources of Iran and impoverished its people

2) He tried to implement reforms for the benefit of the Iranian people. Many of these were very successful, others not so much.

3) He was far better than the theocracy that replaced him.

Was there a lot that could be criticized? Sure, but when you look at what he started with and what he achieved, and the overall direction he was trying to take Iran, I find it hard to judge him harshly.

 

[a_unique_person]

It's not a matter of opinion, it's matter of fact. Fact: the Shah was a despot. If your "opinion" of him is different, it's because you sympathize, atleast a little, with his despotism.

I think it's a fundamental right of people to depose themselves of a despot. Not taxation without representation, etc, etc.