Us Ambassador to Libya killed by Militants

[Sub-Husker]

If you fail to support your opinion, it's baseless. And yes, it is senseless to go on when one person refuses to provide facts to support insinuations. So it goes.

 

You have proven nothing, yet you reject information provided by nothing.

 

In you post #133 you said you proved something, what do you think you had proved?

 

Why had you rejected the information I provided in posts #88 and #100?

 

.

 

Wait... I found your proof!

 

Do you know any Iranians? I know several, and they would very, very much disagree with this statement.

[Ziggy]

About a page ago this thread derailed into a pissing match declaring each others's candidates did this and your's did that. Meanwhile our embassies all over the middle east are being assaulted and in some cases over run. I think all personnel have been evacuated and more marines are being called in. Lets hope they have live ammo this time. Let's not forget the families grieving at the loss ot their husbands,fathers, sons and brothers. Does anyone know if the ambassador's body has been recovered? I heard that Libyan police had taken the body to a morgue yesterday.

 

I agree, its pretty said when we argue more about Romney's comments, than condemn the situation in the middle east. This is why politics suck, because voters are so stuck on which side is wrong or right, and not about finding a way to deal with the situation. Both sides of the aisle are to blame for this situation and neither seems ready to deal with it. Both Romney and Obama are showing very little leadership on this situation, Romney should have attacked the killers and Obama should have stopped campaigning and gone to work to figure out how to calm the situation. Some argue that McCain was silly to call for a campaign pause during the economic meltdown of '08, but I say he was being a leader and showing that the election paled in comparison to the damage about to happen to our economy.

[knapplc]

If you fail to support your opinion, it's baseless. And yes, it is senseless to go on when one person refuses to provide facts to support insinuations. So it goes.

 

You have proven nothing, yet you reject information provided by nothing.

 

In you post #133 you said you proved something, what do you think you had proved?

 

I have not claimed to "prove" anything. I supported my stance with facts, backed up by links. The anecdotal evidence I provided by way of Iranian (they call themselves Persians, BTW) friends is not "proof," nor did I claim it was. It was perspective. Simple enough concept to grasp, I think.

 

Why had you rejected the information I provided in posts #88 and #100?

 

I answered your post #88 in my post #91. Your assertion was factually inaccurate, based on the link you provided yourself.

 

I answered your post #100 in my post #102. You may not like the answer, but it does rebut the assertion that Iran in any way was aiding and abetting America in the Afghanistan invasion.

 

Further, you have yet to explain how "Iran is only our enemy because we insist they be."

[carlfense]

This is similar to Karl struggling to determine what a fact is.

 

 

Perhaps my security clearance is not high enough to get all the info I need.

 

Perhaps your clearance is not high enough for me to tell you.

 

You're right, I do have problems on this board. Generally i speak with a more informed group.

 

Perhaps i should dumb down my argument, or just go along with the crowd.

Hopefully that informed group that you generally speak with doesn't find out that you didn't know the difference between a fact and an opinion. If they exist . . . I'm sure they'd have a good laugh.

 

 

Also: I see that you're now touting your super secret high powered security access in the open instead of through PMs. I've found that people who brag about that sort of thing on a message board are true insiders. Consider me duly awed.

[Sub-Husker]

I answered your post #88 in my post #91. Your assertion was factually inaccurate, based on the link you provided yourself.

 

I answered your post #100 in my post #102. You may not like the answer, but it does rebut the assertion that Iran in any way was aiding and abetting America in the Afghanistan invasion.

 

Further, you have yet to explain how "Iran is only our enemy because we insist they be."

 

No matter what i post, you will not accept it.

 

Then you changed the topic (I was talking about the onset of the war), you talked about something I was not disputing. But if you read the info I posted, it explained why that happened.

 

Yes, I owe you some info. but it would be a waste of time for me to go on with this conversation. There is no use in talking with someone who has jammed their fingers in their ears and says they can't hear me.

 

Hopefully that informed group that you generally speak with doesn't find out that you didn't know the difference between a fact and an opinion. If they exist . . . I'm sure they'd have a good laugh.

 

Also: I see that you're now touting your super secret high powered security access in the open instead of through PMs. I've found that people who brag about that sort of thing on a message board are true insiders. Consider me duly awed.

 

Look, your parrot showed up!

[knapplc]

If the simple rebuttals I've provided present an insurmountable argument, I would humbly suggest that such discussions are not for you. I suppose this is a lesson not to throw out assertions such as, "Iran is only our enemy because we insist they be" when they cannot be factually supported.

 

So it goes.

[Sub-Husker]

If the simple rebuttals I've provided present an insurmountable argument, I would humbly suggest that such discussions are not for you. I suppose this is a lesson not to throw out assertions such as, "Iran is only our enemy because we insist they be" when they cannot be factually supported.

 

You mean simpleton rebuttals that ignore what you don't want to hear, then respond to something else.

 

Let's start with my first statement, then move on from there; I said that Iran helped us with our invasion of Afghanistan.

 

Then I provided links in posts #88 and #100.

 

You dismissed those links, for whatever reason.

 

You provided no contra-argument, but instead jumped to later in the conflict when there was conflict between Iran and NATO.

 

I never stated the point you refuted, and in fact I do agree that there was conflict then and in the present.

 

It comes down to you not accepting what you disagree with, providing no counter argument to what you disagree with, then trying to change the topic to something not in dispute that you can find some info on.

 

I hope that's not the best you can do.

 

I hope that's not what passes for discussion on this board.

 

By "insurmountable argument", I have no interest in surmounting a strawman.

[knapplc]

Comical. I am more than happy to accept your statements as long as they're backed by some kind of proof. You want to claim unicorns exist? Wonderful. Show me.

 

You haven't done this. I've given reasons why your assertions are incorrect. You don't like it, that's fine, but don't accuse me of being a simpleton.

 

And we still have zero support for the statement, "Iran is only our enemy because we insist they be."

 

Still patiently waiting.

 

[Sub-Husker]

If the simple rebuttals I've provided present an insurmountable argument, I would humbly suggest that such discussions are not for you. I suppose this is a lesson not to throw out assertions such as, "Iran is only our enemy because we insist they be" when they cannot be factually supported.

 

You mean simpleton rebuttals that ignore what you don't want to hear, then respond to something else.

 

Let's start with my first statement, then move on from there; I said that Iran helped us with our invasion of Afghanistan.

 

Then I provided links in posts #88 and #100.

 

You dismissed those links, for whatever reason.

 

You provided no contra-argument, but instead jumped to later in the conflict when there was conflict between Iran and NATO.

 

I never stated the point you refuted, and in fact I do agree that there was conflict then and in the present.

 

It comes down to you not accepting what you disagree with, providing no counter argument to what you disagree with, then trying to change the topic to something not in dispute that you can find some info on.

 

I hope that's not the best you can do.

 

I hope that's not what passes for discussion on this board.

 

By "insurmountable argument", I have no interest in surmounting a strawman.

 

Comical. I am more than happy to accept your statements as long as they're backed by some kind of proof. You want to claim unicorns exist? Wonderful. Show me.

 

You haven't done this. I've given reasons why your assertions are incorrect. You don't like it, that's fine, but don't accuse me of being a simpleton.

 

And we still have zero support for the statement, "Iran is only our enemy because we insist they be."

 

Still patiently waiting.

 

As I said, let's start with my first statement and go from there. If you will not read or accept the information I post, then any further attempt at discussion will be futile.

 

You have not given me any "reasons why [my] assertions are incorrect", you had said that they weren't enough support. Yet you had not countered the info I provided with anything yourself, claiming that in the buildup to occupation they had worked against us.

 

If you don't want to be known as simpleton, then don't bring unicorns into the discussion.

 

Lastly, you are lying. You are not waiting patiently, you are busy ducking and obfuscating.

[Sub-Husker]

Here you go, once again.

 

Any person with a positive IQ would realize that Iran was helpful to us in the time leading up to our invasion in 2001.

 

Once you acknowledge that I was correct, then we can move on to the next topic.

 

http://www.usatoday....n-taliban_x.htm

 

Members of Iran's Revolutionary Guards fought alongside and advised the Afghan rebels who helped U.S. forces topple Afghanistan's Taliban regime in the months after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the guards' former leader says.

 

Current and former U.S. troops and officials confirm Iranians were present with the Northern Alliance as U.S. forces organized the rebels in 2001. They say U.S. forces had no interaction with the Iranians. They deny the Iranians made meaningful contributions on the battlefield

 

http://iranprimer.us...and-afghanistan

 

After al Qaeda's 9/11 attacks, Iran was the recipient of an unintended strategic gift from Washington. The Taliban, who had developed a symbiotic relationship with al Qaeda, were forcefully removed from power after the United States provided air power and intelligence for the Northern Alliance, Iran's ally. Iranian military advisors rubbed shoulders with U.S. military personnel in the Northern Alliance areas. Tehran even said it would give sanctuary for distressed U.S. military personnel inside its territory. It also allowed the United States to transport humanitarian goods to Afghanistan through Iranian land. Iran reportedly suggested the best targets for U.S. bombers.

 

Iran also participated in the U.S.-sponsored Bonn Conference in December 2001. U.S. and Iranian envoys worked together at the conference-the most fruitful encounter between the two since the 1979 revolution. Both wanted Afghanistan free of the Taliban and al Qaeda. Iran favored the return of President Rabbani, but it agreed to support U.S.-backed Hamid Karzai. The tactical cooperation between the United States and Iran continued, even as they were competing for greater influence in a new Afghanistan. Iranian cooperation with the United States ended in 2002, after President George Bush cited Iran as a member of the "axis of evil."

[Sub-Husker]

You did not dispute what I said. You misread the articles and claimed that yeah it was help, but not enough help.

 

The USAToday article says members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard fought with Afghan rebels, and were present when US forces showed up to get them organized. This is a far cry from the Iranians helping us with the invasion - they were already on the ground when we happened upon the scene.

 

This goes nowhere to getting us to the point that "Iran is only our enemy because we insist they be." Iran is our enemy because they choose to be. They are equal partners in the "let's be enemies" dance.

 

So... the old "enemy of my enemy is my friend," at least temporarily. In one instance, for a while, Iran wasn't totally antagonistic towards the U.S., and vice versa.

 

In what way does any of this get you to the conclusion that "Iran is only our enemy because we insist they be." ???

 

Further, does this brief interlude of amicability amidst decades of hostility mean, in your opinion, that Iran really, truly wants peace with America, and is sitting on the edge of their seat waiting for us to extend our hand? Because if so, how do you explain their continued sponsoring of terrorism, up to and including continuing to arm the Taliban as recently as 2008?

[knapplc]

How does any of this show that "Iran is only our enemy because we insist they be." ???

[Sub-Husker]

How does any of this show that "Iran is only our enemy because we insist they be." ???

 

Next topic, let's discus one point at a time.

 

If we can't agree on the reality of a rather simple point, then there is no sense in going further.

 

Are you ready to acknowledge that Iran assisted us in our invasion of Afghanistan?

[knapplc]

I already addressed this:

So... the old "enemy of my enemy is my friend," at least temporarily. In one instance, for a while, Iran wasn't totally antagonistic towards the U.S., and vice versa.

 

In what way does any of this get you to the conclusion that "Iran is only our enemy because we insist they be." ???

 

Further, does this brief interlude of amicability amidst decades of hostility mean, in your opinion, that Iran really, truly wants peace with America, and is sitting on the edge of their seat waiting for us to extend our hand? Because if so, how do you explain their continued sponsoring of terrorism, up to and including continuing to arm the Taliban as recently as 2008?

 

You seem to want to take one moment of not-open-aggression and build that into some alliance, when it never was. It was two sworn enemies coming together for a moment to accomplish a shared goal. It was a few months where serendipitous circumstances allowed open hostility to take a back seat, and it was as tenuous as it was fleeting. At no time did Iran have American interests in the forefront of their strategy, nor did America have Iran's best interests at heart. The Cold War between America and Iran has continued unabated since the Shah was deposed.

 

It still gets us nowhere near showing that "Iran is only our enemy because we insist they be."

[strigori]

About a page ago this thread derailed into a pissing match declaring each others's candidates did this and your's did that. Meanwhile our embassies all over the middle east are being assaulted and in some cases over run. I think all personnel have been evacuated and more marines are being called in. Lets hope they have live ammo this time. Let's not forget the families grieving at the loss ot their husbands,fathers, sons and brothers. Does anyone know if the ambassador's body has been recovered? I heard that Libyan police had taken the body to a morgue yesterday.

 

I agree, its pretty said when we argue more about Romney's comments, than condemn the situation in the middle east. This is why politics suck, because voters are so stuck on which side is wrong or right, and not about finding a way to deal with the situation. Both sides of the aisle are to blame for this situation and neither seems ready to deal with it. Both Romney and Obama are showing very little leadership on this situation, Romney should have attacked the killers and Obama should have stopped campaigning and gone to work to figure out how to calm the situation. Some argue that McCain was silly to call for a campaign pause during the economic meltdown of '08, but I say he was being a leader and showing that the election paled in comparison to the damage about to happen to our economy.

I don't know what you expect any President to do about this situation. They only thing that would pacify those 16th century thinking people is to execute everyone involved in the youtube video. And that video is not illegal in this country. Poor taste, sure. But not illegal. The only thing he can even do is cut of diplomatic relations and pull and foreign aid. These countries involved are a perfect example of why letting priests or any religious leader have any power in any capacity am idiotic thing.