TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Nice Job Iran
Pages (4): « 1 2 3 [4]

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton EXACTLY...You don't have any sources. All this crap...

Don't worry. You'll find out I was right in time, and then of course you will ignore it just like you ignored some of my other posts.

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...12&pagenumber=9

You're a lazy bum who always pushes other people to prove him wrong and when they do you shut up for a couple of days.

quote:

Originally posted by CHRles Here are some of the articles that make for some interesting reading: Russia: http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=3&id=12791 Changes (for the better) in Iraq http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=3&id=12741 Lebanese Syrian border http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=3&id=12560 Syria http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=2&id=12838 Iran http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=2&id=12757 Hezbollah http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=3&id=12794 http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=3&id=12848 http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=2&id=12740 Barak Obama http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=2&id=12839 Israel kills five militants http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=1&id=12846 Kuwait http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=3&id=12475 Saudi Arabia's youth http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=7&id=12836 BTW, there are 3 posters on this board that likely know more about global affairs then the rest of us - George Smiley, pkcraistlin, and Lebezniatnikov

I can search all that any time I want. What I asked from you, which for some reason you haven't been able to answer, was where you got your so-called "Arab media sources based in London"? Didn't know Arab media was based anywhere outside the Middle East. Wouldn't that make them BRITISH?

You commit academic dishonesty by not naming your sources...

quote:

Originally posted by CHRles Don't worry. You'll find out I was right in time, and then of course you will ignore it just like you ignored some of my other posts. http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...12&pagenumber=9 You're a lazy bum who always pushes other people to prove him wrong and when they do you shut up for a couple of days.

Great...a link to another thread...

So apparently, the TRANCEADDICT POLITICAL DISCUSSION is now "Arab media sources based in London"!! Wow, keep digging your hole CHRles, I'm watching from above...

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton You commit academic dishonesty by not naming your sources...

O rly? I already got an undergrad degree from USF in Tampa, in Mass Communications no less (and a Minor in History). Guess they should have expelled me, LOL.

You can choose to believe or not to believe what I've posted cuz frankly I don't care. I believe Asharq Alawsat isn't talking out of its ass on this one, and no I'm not gonna reveal to you my source that's informed me this was indeed published today (Friday) in the aforementioned publication.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton was where you got your so-called "Arab media sources based in London"? Didn't know Arab media was based anywhere outside the Middle East. Wouldn't that make them BRITISH?

You're a bigger tool then I had realized. One of the reasons this publication is able to obtain sensitive information is b/c it's not based in the Middle East. If you haven't guessed by now this paper isn't aimed at the British Public - it's aimed at Arab readers around the world (the paper is published in Arabic - you simply saw the English version of its website). There happens to be a large and intellectual Arab community in London that helped start this paper in the late 70s, but it has beaurus around the world. Its reporters are considered top notch, and its coverage very in depth.
Even though it's partially controlled by Saudi royalty, it is not known for sugarcoating problems in the Middle East. It doesnt just blame everything on Israel or America, and usually tries to get to the bottom and the heart of a problem (and therin lies its greatness).

quote:

Originally posted by CHRles O rly? I already got an undergrad degree from USF in Tampa, in Mass Communications no less (and a Minor in History). Guess they should have expelled me, LOL. You can choose to believe or not to believe what I've posted cuz frankly I don't care. I believe Asharq Alawsat isn't talking out of its ass on this one, and no I'm not gonna reveal to you my source that's informed me this was indeed published today (Friday) in the aforementioned publication.

I don't care what you did at USF...

I choose not to believe you because I'm not a twat. I ask for sources. And when you refuse to source your references, where apparently "London based Arab media" gave you such credible information as, "Iranian officials have also threatened moderate Arab countries/leaders that, like Israel, they too will be vanished if they side with the West."

Listen, I know you pulled this out of nowhere, so don't be mad when your bullshit gets called out... k?

quote:

You're a bigger tool then I had realized. One of the reasons this publication is able to obtain sensitive information is b/c it's not based in the Middle East. If you haven't guessed by now this paper isn't aimed at the British Public - it's aimed at Arab readers around the world (the paper is published in Arabic - you simply saw the English version of its website). There happens to be a large and intellectual Arab community in London that helped start this paper in the late 70s, but it has beaurus around the world. Its reporters are considered top notch, and its coverage very in depth. Even though it's partially controlled by Saudi royalty, it is not known for sugarcoating problems in the Middle East. It doesnt just blame everything on Israel or America, and usually tries to get to the bottom and the heart of a problem (and therin lies its greatness).

That's great for them. Bravo. Congrats. Who gives a fuck? I asked you to name your specific source, you refuse, then go off on stupid little pointless tangents...Keep digging my friend...

------------------------------------------------------------

Here goes...Give me the article you got this information from...

quote:

Arab media sources based in London are claiming that Iran is furious at Syria...for conducting peace talks with Israel. Keep in mind that it was Turkey, not the US, that has been mediating these talks, and yet Iran is now basically threatening to meddle in this (potential) peace process. Iranian officials have also threatened moderate Arab countries/leaders that, like Israel, they too will be vanished if they side with the West.

or STFU, admit you BSed it, and be done with it...

As expected, the Israeli media has already picked up on this story:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,...3547000,00.html

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/986450.html

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satell...icle%2FShowFull

Other sources are now quoting those websites:
http://www.wikio.com/world/middle_east/syria

http://holgerawakens.blogspot.com/2...rious-over.html


And there's some internal problems for Iran, for to the way it treats those of the Bahai faith
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/m...hais/index.html

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 are you referring to the US as a pretty young nation? i'm not sure that's accurate if that was your statement. the middle east, africa, and parts of asia are much younger. if it wasn't for immigration the US would be up there with europe as far as ageing.

LOL, those cultures are thousands of years old. I guess that completely went over your head. Here, substitude the word 'people' or 'culture' for 'nation', perhaps that'll make the statement more clear.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 you say the US is literally massacring villages. massacring means there was an intent to indiscriminately kill a large number of people. i am certain you will have a very difficult time finding a policy directive or multiple instances (that assist in showing intent) to support that claim. you can't establish intent of an entire country or its military by random acts. you need to establish that there was a systematic process that can show the necessary intent or a directive from policy makers.

Whatever floats your boat. I guess we're not in Iraq eigther by your logic.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 listen, i understand how foreign policy decisions are made and where they end up going wrong. however, you need to separate the intention from the consequences. they really are two separate things. the US does not assist these groups with the intent for many of the unfavorable consequences to unfold (namely, killing civilians). after the US has provided assistance with a specific intent (i.e., to overthrow a hostile government), the US can not necessarily control the actions that unfold (i.e., random acts of civilian killings). Because those actions occurred does not mean that the US intended for those specific acts to happen. On the contrary, the US may very well not support those actions, however, after money and weapons were provided there is little the US can do to prevent those actions because the US does not want to make it known they support the overthrow of a government.

I guess you don't know this but the US has been systematically kicking the shit out of many various third world countries since the end of WWII. How else do you think we remove democratically elected officials of these countries when they start nationalizing their own resources?

Or are you saying hey it is cool because that regime is 'hostile' to our economic interests, so let the mother******s burn? Because that is what it seems like you are saying to me.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z LOL, those cultures are thousands of years old. I guess that completely went over your head. Here, substitude the word 'people' or 'culture' for 'nation', perhaps that'll make the statement more clear.

i thought you were referring to the average age of the people in this country, my bad. that's what happens when you read over once during a busy day.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Whatever floats your boat. I guess we're not in Iraq eigther by your logic.

that's a pretty cheap response that adds nothing to support your claim. of course i think we're in iraq. i just don't think we are massacring villages. i don't even know how you deduced that statement from my response.

quote:

Originally posted by Zild I guess you don't know this but the US has been systematically kicking the shit out of many various third world countries since the end of WWII. How else do you think we remove democratically elected officials of these countries when they start nationalizing their own resources? Or are you saying hey it is cool because that regime is 'hostile' to our economic interests, so let the mother******s burn? Because that is what it seems like you are saying to me.

I'm not saying that at all. By contrast, i admit that the US has a horrible policy of funding groups that attempt to overthrow the government. I didn't give support to funding any group, nor do I think we should do so. What i was specifically disagreeing with was that the US is funding a group that is purposefully killing civilians in iran, as the Tehran Times article posted by trancer alludes to. i disagree with anyone who says that the US funds groups with the intended purpose to kill civilians. in the post you quoted, I was separating the intended purpose of funding groups from the unintended consequences. That Tehran Times article said that the CIA was funding a group to conduct random acts against the Iranian public.

my foreign policy stance is similar to obama's, however, i'm much more free trade, and i'm not an interventionist at all.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.