Middle East News
Mar 25, 2007, 15:11 GMT
Iran says all British detainees in good health (Roundup)
And Also
Similar articles
- Royal Navy resumes boarding operations in northern Gulf
- British defence secretary says "sorry" over sailors' debacle
- Captured British sailor's Iran diary banned by ministry: Times
- Blair says allowing sailors to speak to media was "not a good idea"
- Iran "to reveal truth about British captives in documentary" (Extra)
Latest Headlines in Middle East
- 1. Iran criticizes Swiss ban on minarets
- 2. One Palestinian killed, three wounded in Gaza explosion
- 3. Britain hopes for "swift" end to crisis over yacht crew (Roundup)
- 4. Five Britons captured on yacht by Iran's navy, London says
- 5. Iraqi general assassinated in disputed city of Kirkuk
Via BuzzFeed
Older Talkback
page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Where was I?
“Please rephrase this one in a slightly clearer form, preferably in it's own post.”
No.
“I have made no effort to malign your ideological motivations per se.”
Oh haven’t you?
“
I am happy to believe the best in your own personal intentions, and the sincerity of your faith in everything your country does”
Not everything, but as you acknowledge the USA foreign and domestic policies are best looked at in context with what we should call “reality”. (as defined by correspondence in this case. Another source of the disagreement is in essence my correspondence vs your pragmatic definition of the term.)
“I simply don’t share all of your perceptions of the mechanics involved,”
As is your right, I am not wholly on board with the details either.
“or your more reflexive assumptions about American foreign policy.”
Such as? That is quite a charge… What are my “reflexive assumptions” .
“”Therefore, I respectfully reject those kinds of oversimplifications when the Jihaddist fanatics assert them as well (“A new western Crusade”, INDEED).””
Are there enough, as you call them “Jihaddist fanatics” out there to cause trouble? Are there enough people out there who support them? Are there enough people out there who do not necessiaraly support them but are willing to turm a blind eye because they are in the same “tribe”? Are there enough people who resent the same people that they hate in order to take schadenfreude when they score some kind of terrorist PR point? Those are your shades of gray. I submit that it is wrong to endorse Terrorism (deliberately attacking civilians to effect political change) on any level.
“Yes, the perpetrators of 9/11 were monsters. That was never in question. But the fact that a lineup of suspects includes 5 rapists and an embezzler doesn’t absolve the embezzler, any more than the presence of the embezzler mitigates the rapes.”
1) so who is the embezzler in this imaginary line up?
2) Is Rape = to embezzlement?
3) What does one have to do with the other?
“I examine the context of my enemies’ behaviour rather more closely than some people might be comfortable with, as a tactical as well as an ethical imperative.”
I do not think you are being objective. I think you do it with a set of prejudices that color your conclusions. I think that you have a sliding scale of responsibility assessment.
“Actually, it was a multi-lateral project building on knowledge from scientists of several countries (Americans, Germans, British, Canadian, etc),”
Actually it was a US run, funded and top secret project involving people who happened to be born elsewhere, like many Americans were, but died Americans.
“. I will offer that there is no doubting the sincerity of that sentiment among many Americans, Canadians, and Britons.”
I can pretty much guarantee that I would not have been here had that not been the case. (Could you think of a bigger tragedy for humanity? No Me? )
“ut I do think that codified laws aspiring to ‘democratic universality’ must be APPLIED equally; for the same reason police forces are required to get a search warrant, and are vulnerable to speeding tickets like everyone else.”
Fine, then the next time they publicly hang a 16 year old girl in Iran for being disobedient then Canada is going to have to invade and stop them. When they hang 2 teenage boys for being homosexuals you are going to have to enforce your ‘democratic universality’… Next time they beat a Canadian journalist to death… Either that or you best get to lynching children, threatening Israel and beating to death journalists and others who have a big mouth…
You have railed against our invasion of Iraq, do you care to know the whole sorry, naive truth of the affair? It wasn’t about oil, it was about ‘democratic universality’.
“Moreover, you can’t realistically expect anyone to lie down and admit they are second class citizens (even if that designation is accurate or deserved) for long, any more than Americans would. I’m not even saying I like it; it’s just the way things are.”
The question is what do you do about it? Keep behaving in a self destructive, self-defeating way? Or change your behavior?
“I don’t think any nation can be ‘trusted’ with any weapon without accountability.”
Who holds the mullahs accountable?
Fair enough. (-:
“Actually, I have been frequently amazed by the apocalyptic worldview of so many Christian Right-wingers when discussing international politics”
Get back to me about it when they go from being pests to being homicidal maniacs.
“Cheers for American culture!“
Such a ringing endorsement.
“The issue was the interpretation of Iranian political intent. The idea that Hizbollah are ‘agents’ of Iranian foreign policy is inaccurate.
“
Not according to the words of Nasrallah who has admitted that he is heavily subsidized by and shares the same goals as Iran.
“their agenda is politically congenial enough to make them supportable in various direct and indirect ways, but Hizbollah’s victories are of limited value in the greater context of Iranian ambitions.”
For the moment. Imagine what they could do with an Atomic bomb. Again, 6 million people killed in New York. Say good bye to London or Tel Aviv… Can you imagine a bigger nightmare? Hezbollah with an atomic bomb?
“The only way Iran might conceivably be able to make any headway toward such a preposterous goal would be if the citizens of the middle east would, en masse, decide to overthrow their isolationist domestic governments in a united wave of reactionary Pan-Islamic fervour, regardless of any rational secular interest or nationalistic sentiments they might normally harbour.”
Or if they had an atomic bomb to throw their weight around.
“The best Iran could hope to achieve with nuclear weapons would be an isolated attack on Israel”
No, (as if that weren’t enough) they could effectively destroy the USA as a viable country with a couple of well-placed nukes. Or the UK, or Canada for that matter.
“would pale into insignificance along side the massive Israeli and/or American response, rendering the move entirely useless.”
Say what you want about them, they are astute observers of human nature. In the time it took to trace back the act of terrorism to Iran your precious “international community” would be begging, insisting, demanding that there be no nuclear retaliation. Even so, they see death as martyrdom… As I said before, you can not deter people with mutual assured destruction who see death as a pathway to 72 black-eyed virgins in paradise.
“Ahmadinejad knows this as well as his general staff and the educated two-thirds of his citizens do;”
Oh, well, that doesn’t seem to be slowing them down, now does it?
“therefore he is in a position to gain favour by talking tough, which he has done.”
That is contrary to logic. Therefore he should be negotiating in good faith.. No?
“Nuclear weapons are much more useful as a deterrent and political bargaining gambit than as a practical military asset.”
That all depends on what the objective is.
“Right, but their targets are (unlike Pan-Islamists) related to regional objectives.
The distinction isn't ethical, but strategic.”
1) You seem to think that it is OK for Hezbollah to have control of anything…even a “region”.
2) Even if what you said is “true” which it isn’t, according to their charter, regional dominance has a way of expanding, doesn’t it?
“””“I have gone through your posts and countered your arguments point by point”.
The accuracy of that statement will have to be judged by the casual observer at their whim, looking back through our previous posts. (I have no interest in reposting the whole thread to examine your debating technique). (-:”””
Not a cop out or anything… Fine, so be it. (Like anyone else is reading this at this point. )
“Please read my posts before responding to them.”
You see… I am about 30 behind… mostly because: “I have gone through your posts and countered your arguments point by point”
To Blue Lady- No need to say your sorry for being passionate in your beliefs, or convictions. Thank you for your nice response. I only hope that others will do the same, and stick with the topic. Remember the 15 souls who are in harms way. Again, thanks.
“NONE of this has any relevant place in our debate, except as part of some arcane strategy for ‘discrediting me’, rather addressing my arguments in good faith. It’s basically an obstruction.”
AAAh, well, you have been laser like in your focus here to fore. Never diverged at all from the topic at hand, have you? Part of my argument has been that you seek out information which best confirms your prejudices… and that you are in an environment that makes it easy to do so. Before you tell me I am in the same predicament I live in an environment where it is quite fashionable to take the side of whomever is currently doing the most damage to the SA at any given moment. I live in New York.
“America is a tribal designation for a group of people under a tacitly united federal mandate.”
Wrong. (The United States of) America is an idea and an ideal. An aspiration. It is “We the people”. America is a place where you can invent yourself and live the limit of your human potential with a minimum of interference from government intrusion. America is where someone like Anousheh Ansari can come and be what she wants to be rather then being subjugated by a bunch of thugs who live to hold her down. You clearly know nothing about us.
“American life is no more or less valuable than any other ethnical individual; correspondingly, America has no ‘inherent’, empirical value or rights of action beyond that of any other nation”
Re read what you wrote there. It is a logical fallacy. The second has nothing to do with the first. One does not “correspond to the other”. No one has said our lives are worth more, it is our system and our ideals that are FAR, FAR superior to a totalitarian religious theocracy.
BREAK THAT ARGUMENT. I DARE YOU.
“Please read my posts before responding to them. For the last time; what I said was that a universal law should be implemented equally in order to be credible. “
No, not effectively, that is not what you have said. Either way, show me the “universal law” that says if one person has something then another person is entitled to it.
“I never implied that the results would be desireable, or ‘O.K’.”
So, you and I are in agreement then.
“If one considers the Jews to be main problem facing the world (which I personally do not), and if one values military force and internal security as a top priority in government, then the Nazis are probably the right government for you”
HA! OR THE IRANIANS! Good heavens, you have to see the irony!
“Is a totalitarian religious theocracy equal to a representative democracy with universal suffrage?
(Shrug) Not to me. But then, if I were a cleric or sufficiently doctrinated in militant Islamic orthodoxy, my answer might be different.”
Wait…
“I were a cleric or sufficiently [in]doctrinated in militant Islamic orthodoxy, my answer might be different.”
So… If you were indoctrinated… If you had been deprived of the ability to reason for yourself, eh? Well… Maybe we should just head on down to the madrassah and get ourselves some of that good ‘ol indoctrination/re-education? Then we will be able to see that the two are equivalent and equal. I maybe a dumb ol yank but no one has ever tried to indoctrinate me into anything.
“I could say the same thing about your reflexive defence of America/Britain,but I won’t, because it’s an unprovable assumption,”
I am glad I haven’t given you much to work with.
“and entirely beside the point.”
No, it goes back to the whole “indoctrinated” thing.
“am well aware of the dangers and vices associated regimes like the current one in Iran, but I stand by my preference to refine the acuity of that awareness through attention to detail.”
Well no offense, seriously, no offense, but you have failed miserably here. “Through attention to detail? Maybe you should polish your argument a bit better if you wish to “refine the acuity of that awareness through attention to detail.” Again, no offense intended.
(I don't have to argue that last one - any argument would have to be equally subjective & partisan to your own).
I have made my arguments in detail. If anyone feels like analysing the merits of our respective arguments, they just have to look.
It's all subjective, after all.
Whatever I write, you will merely continue to paraphrase me incorrectly, and respond with unprovable sentimental rhetoric and simplistic blip-verts; and people are getting bored. Ergo, my work here is done. (-:
You may now declare victory. See you in the next thread!
Your Talkback on this Story