88 foot tall missile spotted on launchpad near Tehran

[OakRiver]

Were the people we were running guns to in Benghazi an internationally recognized sovereign state? Was the mujihadeen we armed to fight the Soviets an internationally recognized sovereign state?

I don't recall defending either of these actions. Were either of these groups internationally recognized terrorist groups at the time weapons were provided?

And if the US was wrong in either or both of these incidents does that somehow diminish Iran's backing of terror groups?

 

[T.Lex]

So is arming one side of a conflict considered an act of war against the other side?

Usually, but only if people find out about it.

Again, international politics comes down to might makes right. The winner/survivor writes the history books.

So, with that in mind, who still thinks Iran should have an unimpeded path to nukes?

 

[printcraft]

Usually, but only if people find out about it.

Again, international politics comes down to might makes right. The winner/survivor writes the history books.

So, with that in mind, who still thinks Iran should have an unimpeded path to nukes?

They are just wanting nukes for peaceful energy research. True story.

 

[hornadylnl]

I don't recall defending either of these actions. Were either of these groups internationally recognized terrorist groups at the time weapons were provided?

And if the US was wrong in either or both of these incidents does that somehow diminish Iran's backing of terror groups?

No, it's once again the attitude that we're the only one in the room professional enough to meddle in the affairs of others. If we held ourselves to the same standards that we hold others, we'd be bombing ourselves. Were not the people we were arming in Syria terrorists?

Black Hawk Down was just on the other day and watched it again. I found a short book online and read it. The movie would have us believe we were there for a meals on wheels program and the day the choppers went down was the only event. Come to find out, we had blown several people to smithereens with rockets prior to that. That mission manifested a lot of the hatred that came out the day the choppers went down. Oh how we love to stir up the hornets nest only to play victim when we get stung.

 

[OakRiver]

No, it's once again the attitude that we're the only one in the room professional enough to meddle in the affairs of others. If we held ourselves to the same standards that we hold others, we'd be bombing ourselves. Were not the people we were arming in Syria terrorists?

Black Hawk Down was just on the other day and watched it again. I found a short book online and read it. The movie would have us believe we were there for a meals on wheels program and the day the choppers went down was the only event. Come to find out, we had blown several people to smithereens with rockets prior to that. That mission manifested a lot of the hatred that came out the day the choppers went down. Oh how we love to stir up the hornets nest only to play victim when we get stung.

With the greatest of respect I'm just going to leave you to your strawmanning at this point. If/When you choose to rebut what I actually said then I may choose to reply.

 

[hornadylnl]

With the greatest of respect I'm just going to leave you to your strawmanning at this point. If/When you choose to rebut what I actually said then I may choose to reply.

Are we not complaining that Iran is committing acts of war against by providing arms to those who would do us harm? And that's justification to attack Iran? How then is it that when we provide arms to the enemy of those who attacked the Benghazi embassy, it was unprovoked? What's good for the goose is good for the gander right?

 

[halfmileharry]

They are just wanting nukes for peaceful energy research. True story.

Yes your honor....The sheep lied.

 

[OakRiver]

Are we not complaining that Iran is committing acts of war against by providing arms to those who would do us harm? And that's justification to attack Iran? How then is it that when we provide arms to the enemy of those who attacked the Benghazi embassy, it was unprovoked? What's good for the goose is good for the gander right?

At what point did I justify, suggest, or condone an attack on Iran?

 

[printcraft]

At what point did I justify, suggest, or condone an attack on Iran?

Slipperier than a greased pig that one is.... that's called the moving goal post rebuttal.
You'll never get an answer to your questions just a redirect to something to keep you going in several different directions.
If you ask the original question again you'll get a third redirect.
It's fun if you are really bored.

 

[hornadylnl]

At what point did I justify, suggest, or condone an attack on Iran?

My posts weren't directed to just you specifically. Others are suggesting that it's justified to attack Iran because they use others for proxies. I'm just of the opinion that if we're going to claim the moral high ground, we might unyoke ourselves of the immoral behavior we're calling others to task for.

 

[OakRiver]

Slipperier than a greased pig that one is.... that's called the moving goal post rebuttal.
You'll never get an answer to your questions just a redirect to something to keep you going in several different directions.
If you ask the original question again you'll get a third redirect.
It's fun if you are really bored.

I'm just more curious in following the line of argument that because I pointed out that Iran has supplied terrorist groups then we should bomb ourselves.

 

[printcraft]

My posts weren't directed to just you specifically. Others are suggesting that it's justified to attack Iran because they use others for proxies. I'm just of the opinion that if we're going to claim the moral high ground, we might unyoke ourselves of the immoral behavior we're calling others to task for.

You're assuming that we don't have the moral high ground and that all things are equal.... they are not.
Again, this goes back to being able to recognize good and evil in the world.
If you can't tell the difference between the two I can see where the confusion comes from.

 

[hornadylnl]

I'm just more curious in following the line of argument that because I pointed out that Iran has supplied terrorist groups then we should bomb ourselves.

Is supplying terrorist groups with weapons justification to be attacked?

 

[OakRiver]

My posts weren't directed to just you specifically. Others are suggesting that it's justified to attack Iran because they use others for proxies. I'm just of the opinion that if we're going to claim the moral high ground, we might unyoke ourselves of the immoral behavior we're calling others to task for.

And yet you quoted me, directed your post to me and asked me;
Are we not complaining that Iran is committing acts of war against by providing arms to those who would do us harm? And that's justification to attack Iran? How then is it that when we provide arms to the enemy of those who attacked the Benghazi embassy, it was unprovoked? What's good for the goose is good for the gander right?

 

[OakRiver]

Is supplying terrorist groups with weapons justification to be attacked?

Post #41, pertinent question underlined

I don't recall defending either of these actions. Were either of these groups internationally recognized terrorist groups at the time weapons were provided?

And if the US was wrong in either or both of these incidents does that somehow diminish Iran's backing of terror groups?

 

[printcraft]

Iran wants to destroy another country (Israel) = Evil

America does not want to destroy another country = Good

 

[hornadylnl]

You're assuming that we don't have the moral high ground and that all things are equal.... they are not.
Again, this goes back to being able to recognize good and evil in the world.
If you can't tell the difference between the two I can see where the confusion comes from.

No doubt there's good and evil. Some of want the truth of what is actually going on vs the agenda laden news of both sides. I mean even you don't believe everything your own government tells you, right?

 

[hornadylnl]

You are talking about arming an internationally recognized sovereign state v arming an internationally recognized terrorist group. That is a false comparison.

Post #41, pertinent question underlined

So who's got the moving goal posts now? Before, it was now internationally recognized sovereign states. Now, it's "not an internationally recognized terrorist group".

 

[KG1]

Slipperier than a greased pig that one is.... that's called the moving goal post rebuttal.
You'll never get an answer to your questions just a redirect to something to keep you going in several different directions.
If you ask the original question again you'll get a third redirect.
It's fun if you are really bored.

No doubt. I'm waiting to see him work a George Zimmerman reference into the discussion.

 

[OakRiver]

So who's got the moving goal posts now? Before, it was now internationally recognized sovereign states. Now, it's "not an internationally recognized terrorist group".

Not I. You asked about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and our supplying the Mujaheddin. As they were obviously not a sovereign state I thought that adding that stipulation was superfluous.

In any event you kept calling them terrorist groups. So, for the avoidance of doubt, were the Mujaheddin during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan or the militias we supplied in Benghazi terrorist groups or internationally recognized sovereign states when we supplied them?