4 hours ago, BangkokHank said:

He is clearly an intelligent and knowledgeable person. I found his case well thought out and plausible. That matters more to me that diplomas.

Here's another well respected professor

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

You are presenting yourself as an expert on this but frankly it's a waste on me as I'm just not very interested in such details and I also see you have an agenda that I'm not convinced is fully correct.

I am convinced (whatever you say) that the murdered supreme leader was indeed an influential leader to Shia Muslims everywhere. Never said he was the equivalent to a Pope. Of course not.

Of course even if it was only about Iranian Shias (which it is not) there are a lot of them who are loyal to their religion and the regime and the memories of such people will be very long lasting.

So my point stands, if you're a Trump now or 50 years from now, you'll never really be safe from the "holy" revenge of fanatical Shai Muslims.

Nah, you capitalised "ALL". If there is loyalty to him, its because of political loyalty, not because of him being a spiritual leader. Hence all the fakery to get him the job, and later on to give him a promotion. The fact the Iranian leadership felt they needed to do that indicates they weren't completely convinced all Iranians would follow him into the Islamic equivalent of the halls of Valhalla. I think its extremely simplistic to suggest Shia Muslims equate loyalty to their religion to loyalty to a foreign government. Look at Iraq; its very complex. The Shia leaders who returned after the fall of Saddam Hussein mostly represented groups that had a political affiliation to Iran. The dogma that Khomenai created was quite curious; he spent many years in exile, in France. A group of Iranian exiles, at some point, came into contact with a Farsi translation of the Muslim Brotherhood's manifesto.

The Muslim Brotherhold developed a political belief, very influenced by European political movements of the 1920s, with bits of Maxism, Fascism, Anti-Capitalism. Its very grass roots. In Islam, certainly in the Persian Gulf area, traditionally the Shia'a were the down trodden lot. Poor. The rulers were Sunni, whether it was the Turks or the Sheikhs.

Its wrong to characterise the system of government in Iran as somehow primative. Its very sophisticated and modern. The Republic's Constitution is based on the French model, which was inspired by the US Constitution. There's irony for you. They learnt to dress up things in a veil of tradition. One of the reasons the Shah did a runner was that Iranians didn't like the pace of change, the enforced Westernisation; something that resonates in Western societies with the immigration debate (basically, people don't like change).

Pol Pot did something similar. Went to France, in the 50s/60s, mixed up fairly conventional Communism with some pretty disturbing French intelligentia thought, throw in a dash of Khmer nationalism. And you end up with Year Zero, and the Killing Fields.

Why France? France generally celebrates when it killed off Royalty in a fairly bloody fashion. Over in England, we get apologetic over Regicide. When Cromwell died, his rotting corpse was dug up, and the head stuck on a spike, presumably in some attempt to apologise. It seems French history gets coffee drinkers in smoke filled rooms to think of some pretty apopcalyptic approaches to social change. Anglo Saxons are innately more cautious unless their genes get mixed up with Mittel Europa craziness.

30-35 years or so, an Iranian stuck a fatwa on Salman Rusdie. There were street disturbances, and he was attacked. But he's still alive. Not every Shia is coming for him. A few are, but generally they are nutters looking for an excuse, and often acting out of some position of perverse atonement (ie. criminals).

Not sure what effing agenda you think I have, not that I particularly care.

Most leaders of major economies leaving office will face the rest of their lives looking over their shoulder. Trump is of an age that, like George Bush senior, it won't be for that long. The Iraqis took a pop at Bush after he left office. I think people honestly won't care that much about the rest of his family. No one really cares about Tony Blair's kids.

But there is a whole subject of political assassinations in wartime, or as a prelude to war. Of course WW1 was triggered by a Grand Duke being shot in Sarajevo, but by the end, few really remembered that. In WW2, the Free Czechs infiltrated occupied Czechoslavakia, and assassinated Heydrich (Operation Anthropoid), a wicked man. Did it really alter the course of the war? Not really. The Czechs suffered for it, with the reprisals afterwards. The Free Czechs though felt good about it. Operation Foxley was a plan to assassinate Hitler. Churchill approved of it. If it had succeeded, would Churchill have to look over his shoulder for the rest of his life? Possibly. Nazis were fanatica, and for some, it was a religion.

2 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

Over the past decade, the apprehended terrorist plots and incidents are associated with iran and not Sunni Wahhabi.

Try again.

That's about as wrong as wrong can be.

https://www.fondapol.org/app/uploads/2020/06/enquete-terrorisme-gb-2019-11-18versionfinale-3.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Sunni terrorist organisations claimed responsibility for 89.4% of Islamist terrorist acts

The question arises as to what is the respective share of Sunni and Shia organisations in the Islamist terrorist attacks. In most cases, we were able to provide this information for organisations whose responsibility for an attack could be identified. The more well-known, which often means the deadlier, a group is, the easier it is to identify its affiliation. If we consider terrorist groups that carried out at least 10 attacks worldwide during the period 1979-2019, we see that they are responsible for almost all (93.8%) of Islamist terrorist attacks. The observation of these groups, whose affiliation is generally possible, shows that Sunni terrorist organisations are responsible for 89.4% of all terrorist acts over the period studied and that 2% come from Shia groups. The remaining 8.9% are from organisations that have committed at least 10 attacks but whose affiliation is not recorded in our database due to a lack of clear information. Finally, it is important to note that more than half (55.4%) of all Islamist terrorist attacks are carried out by Sunni organisations claiming to be part of the Jihadist Salafist ideology.

10 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

I have read Shakespeare and I have never read about a shyster.

There was Shylock, of course.

But, no shyster, IMHO.

You never heard of the common word shyster? Its nothing to do with Shakespeare, and appeared as a word long after the bard was dead. A shylock is an anti-Semitic term, a Jewish moneylender. Shyster is a word people think came from Shylock, but actually is a corruption of a German word, to originally refer to dishonest or fake lawyers. Ali Khamenei was basically a fake Grand Ayatollah.

21 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Intentional straw man game playing.

I don't get you. First I'm adding the MAGA commies to my blocked list, now you. A shame, because usually you have useful things to say, Ta ta.

12 hours ago, khaosokman said:

Both Iraq wars plus Afghan war if you look at the number of deaths. So that is three. I will go look up Vietnam now.

The Vietnam War (1955–1975) resulted in2–4 million total Vietnamese deaths (military/civilian). Key, verifiable military fatalities included over 58,220 U.S. deaths, 4,407–5,099 South Korean, 521 Australian, 351 Thai, and 37–38 New Zealanders. North Vietnamese/Viet Cong military deaths are estimated at 849,018 to 1.1 million. 

So that's four.

Utterly (abhorrently) risible.

By any civilised standard, the scale of slaughter a nation manages to perpetrate on an enemies civilian (or even military) population does not equate to "winning a war".

You really need to take a look at some of the <deleted> you post!

20 minutes ago, JAG said:

Utterly (abhorrently) risible.

By any civilised standard, the scale of slaughter a nation manages to perpetrate on an enemies civilian (or even military) population does not equate to "winning a war".

You really need to take a look at some of the <deleted> you post!

Death rate is how you measure wars. America won easily.

15 hours ago, John Drake said:

The "professor's" background (he is a high school teacher with only a BA degree in English):

• Education: Holds a Bachelor of Arts (BA) in English Literature from Yale College (1999).

• Current Position: Teacher of history and philosophy at Moonshot Academy in Beijing (2022–present).

• Former Positions: Previously served as Deputy Principal at Shenzhen Middle School (2008–2010) and Program Director at Peking University High School International Division (2010–2012).

But he votes Democrat! So he is an expert 555

15 hours ago, Lacessit said:

There are just over 2 billion Muslims in the world. It's the world's fastest growing religion. There are just under 16 million Jews.

I'd say math is not one of your strong points.

For a so called religious sect, I have to assume the followers of the Muslim faith, believe in the cruelest punishment for the most minor of crimes, and death to non believers. From what I read about the rulers of Iran, it certainly appears that way.

7 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

That's about as wrong as wrong can be.

https://www.fondapol.org/app/uploads/2020/06/enquete-terrorisme-gb-2019-11-18versionfinale-3.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com

I was responding to the Iran issue in respect to the USA. 2 Iranian plots to assassinate the POTUS and a reported 20 terrorist plots apprehended in various stages of planning linked to iran.

It is Iran that is funding the international terror networks. Hamas and Hezbollah are its proxy forces.

BTW, Your "study" is almost 7 years out of date. I stated over the past decade. Who in their right mind offers 3 years of international claims as a statement in respect to a decade of US activity?

It is up to the international community to respond to the international plots. The US is responding to the US focused plots and to the protection of its national security.

18 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Going as far as intentionally offing foreign leaders is crossing a line that is rarely crossed.

Think of the consequences going forward.

The Ayatollah of Iran is a major religious figure for ALL Shia Muslims in the world, and there are many Shia Muslims in other countries than Iran.

Everyone in the Trump family for generations to come is going to need to have really good security.

American culture isn't patient and always looking for the quick fix. Older cultures such as in Iran are very patient.

Going by their past track record,it might be optimistic expecting the Sunnis to go to bat for the Shia. Their intolerance of each other is well-documented. Only 10 - 15% of muslims worldwide are Shia.

19 hours ago, Lacessit said:

I can only see the US attack as radicalizing Muslims in the Middle East, and quite possibly further abroad. For example, Indonesia is 87% Muslim, Malaysia is 64%.

The filters American immigration uses to identify potential threats can't catch them all. and it only takes one willing to die for Allah.

Reminds me of a quote from the Irish Republican Army (IRA) that was issued after their failed attempt to kill then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in Brighton in 1984.

"You have to be lucky all the time. We only have to be lucky once".

52 minutes ago, philipsharpe said:

Going by their past track record,it might be optimistic expecting the Sunnis to go to bat for the Shia. Their intolerance of each other is well-documented. Only 10 - 15% of muslims worldwide are Shia.

Agreed.

I wouldn't expect that.

10 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

10 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Intentional straw man game playing.

I don't get you. First I'm adding the MAGA commies to my blocked list, now you. A shame, because usually you have useful things to say, Ta ta.

You’re being labelled as “game-playing” simply because he has no sensible, logical or factual argument to counter the clear, well-structured information and historical context you’ve been providing.

Some individuals struggle to separate emotion from analysis. They find it difficult to examine their own biases and, as a result, are unable to engage in a calm, thoughtful or intelligent discussion about complex issues. What you’ve been doing - sharing concise, informative context - is exactly what meaningful conversation should be built on.

22 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

The "Supreme Leader" whom I suspect you are referring to when you used the made up term "Ayatollah of Iran" is NOT a major religious figure for ALL Shia Muslims, unless you are suggesting all Shia share the same quasi Marxist-Islamist-Muslim Brotherhood mashup that the political classes in Iran share.

The characters who ARE major religious figures in the Shia world are the Grand Ayatollahs, or Marjas. There are 12 of them, mostly Iranian, but not all. For instance, Mohammad al-Sannad is a Bahraini Grand Ayatollah who lives in Iraq. The oldest is Hossein Wahid Khorasani, at 105 years old. Sayyid Reza Hosseini Nassab is a Grand Ayatollah born in Iran, but preaching from Canada.

Ali Khamenei was not a proper Grand Ayatollah. Originally the Iranian constitution was written saying the Supreme Leader had to be one of these 12. But guess what, just before Ruhollah Khomeini pegged it in 1989, they rewrote the constitution. The bloke, the Marja, that Khomeini thought was going to take over from him, had a falling out, because Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri didn't approve of the human rights abuses, he was a staunch defender of the rights of members of the baha'i faith, women's rights and civil rights in general. Khomeini canvassed the other Grand Ayatollahs, and none of them wanted anything to do with the job. Montazeri didn't think the Islamic Republic of Iran was much of an Islamic state. He was one of Ali Khamenei's teachers. Ended his days under house arrest for basically calling Khamenei an idiot.

Montazeri was a figure who inspired the Green Movement. Let Americans know; Iran will remain as an Islamic Republic, their religion will be the centre of their politics. There is no appetite for a Western style secular government (though arguably, the US Goverment is in the process of ditching its secular nature, with the institutionalisation of religion in the classroom outside of RE).

Ali Khamenei was a lower ranked Ayatollah. In 2018, he said he didn't think he was qualifed to be one of the Marja. But in 2022, one of the Marja, citing old age, resigned. This had never happened before, and Ali Khamenei was elevated. It was obviously rigged, to give this character some false grounding during a time when Iran was facing internal strife. The one who resigned is still alive, and not even the oldest.

You can see the reaction in the Shia world, or lack of, to Ali Khamenei's death. I am not reading of Southern Iraq becoming ungovernable, and ministers hanging from lamp posts. Bahrain remains orderly. I think few actually mourn him, recognising him as a bit of a shyster. Sure, there are proxies affiliated to Iran doing their bidding, but no mass outpouring of support.

He was mourned as a "martyr" by Al-Sistani, the most influencial cleric outside Iran...

Having said that, I don't see him calling for attacking US assets.

22 hours ago, Purdey said:

Standing back a bit, I would like all the UN to agree that whoever wants a war to put forward their political leaders to fight to the death. Khomeini versus Trump. Masoud Pezeshkian versus Isaac Herzog.

Stole the idea from the video When Two Tribes Go To War but it would satisfy me and others.

I agree and I think that going forward every presidential candidate should take a pledge that if they declare a war that their sons and daughters will be willing to fight on the front lines. That might be interpreted as a demonstration of commitment rather than the total cowardice involved in sitting behind a desk, while men and women go out there and die on the battlefield.

In previous centuries many kings would mount horses and lead their men into battle. Since Trump considers himself a king it's only appropriate that he put himself on the front lines.

12 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

You never heard of the common word shyster? Its nothing to do with Shakespeare, and appeared as a word long after the bard was dead. A shylock is an anti-Semitic term, a Jewish moneylender. Shyster is a word people think came from Shylock, but actually is a corruption of a German word, to originally refer to dishonest or fake lawyers. Ali Khamenei was basically a fake Grand Ayatollah.

"Shyster" is Yiddish for a sneaky, crooked lawyer.

Most often - but not always - applied to their own.

54 minutes ago, BonnieandClyde said:

13 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

You never heard of the common word shyster? Its nothing to do with Shakespeare, and appeared as a word long after the bard was dead. A shylock is an anti-Semitic term, a Jewish moneylender. Shyster is a word people think came from Shylock, but actually is a corruption of a German word, to originally refer to dishonest or fake lawyers. Ali Khamenei was basically a fake Grand Ayatollah.

"Shyster" is Yiddish for a sneaky, crooked lawyer.

Most often - but not always - applied to their own.

Indeed - a little further clarification - it is influence by German-Yiddish speach.

...and Yiddish is the historical language of Ashkenazi Jews - so there is a tenuous jewish link - but thats a very thin thread to be hanging on to...

... The term itself was adopted more widely into American slang - not referring of or too Jewish people - there are no racial / Anti-Semitic connotations - if thats the path people have been trying to go down...

IMO - Take it as it simply is - it means 'cheat'... someone dishonest, a scammer, a swindler... thats it - I've used it in the past (with no links to the USA, New York, or anyone related to Judaism).

7 hours ago, khaosokman said:

Death rate is how you measure wars. America won easily.

Death rate is most definitely not how you measure who won a war. In the second world war, Germany lost around 8 - 9 million people.

The Russians alone lost 24 - 27 million, and that's before you even start counting the losses of the other allies.

So by your metric, the Germans won the second world war.

3 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

You’re being labelled as “game-playing” simply because he has no sensible, logical or factual argument to counter the clear, well-structured information and historical context you’ve been providing.

Some individuals struggle to separate emotion from analysis. They find it difficult to examine their own biases and, as a result, are unable to engage in a calm, thoughtful or intelligent discussion about complex issues. What you’ve been doing - sharing concise, informative context - is exactly what meaningful conversation should be built on.

Garbage

What he actually did was to ascribe opinions to me that I never had and then debate those views that I never had.

Classic sleazy straw man game playing.

I have no tolerance for that.

Again my key on topic assertion remains.

Trump and his family going forward for generations will be targets of those seeking to avenge their martyr.

I once lived in Tehran and my heart goes out to the innocent and our US military.

24 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Again my key on topic assertion remains.

Trump and his family going forward for generations will be targets of those seeking to avenge their martyr.

That’s a possibility - but the same logic would apply to any leader of any NATO country or Gulf state that has acted against Iran, not just Trump.

If revenge were framed as retaliation for the killing of Ali Khamenei, it would most likely come from a small number of religious ideologues within Twelver Shia Islam, the sect that forms the theological foundation of the Iranian clerical system. Even then, historically retaliation has tended to target states, military personnel, or symbolic political targets, rather than the families of political leaders.

A more realistic risk would be isolated revenge attacks carried out by ideological extremists claiming to act in defence of their religious leadership, sometimes linked to networks influenced by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or aligned groups such as Hezbollah.

It is also worth remembering that Twelver Shia Muslims represent a minority within the global Muslim population, and support for the Iranian clerical regime is far from universal - even within Iran itself.

Thus, any such revenge actions IF they were to occur would most likely come from a very small fanatical minority rather than the broader religious community. Is there a risk? Yes - but that risk has always existed and is not unique to one faith or sect. History shows that extremists or fanatics can emerge from any religion, creed, or ideology. Therefore, any risk to Donald Trump or his family in future generations would be possible only in the sense of an isolated fanatic, rather than an organised religious or sectarian campaign.

Then from that point - you could argue anything is possible.

On 3/5/2026 at 3:19 PM, Jingthing said:

Everyone in the Trump family for generations to come is going to need to have really good security.

Every American and Israeli abroad better beware.

You are both democracies, you've no one to blame except yourselves.

5 hours ago, Suetape said:

I once lived in Tehran and my heart goes out to the innocent and our US military.

Why would your heart go out to US military, they are not innocent?

10 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Indeed - a little further clarification - it is influence by German-Yiddish speach.

...and Yiddish is the historical language of Ashkenazi Jews - so there is a tenuous jewish link - but thats a very thin thread to be hanging on to...

... The term itself was adopted more widely into American slang - not referring of or too Jewish people - there are no racial / Anti-Semitic connotations - if thats the path people have been trying to go down...

IMO - Take it as it simply is - it means 'cheat'... someone dishonest, a scammer, a swindler... thats it - I've used it in the past (with no links to the USA, New York, or anyone related to Judaism).

Other accounts are that it has nothing to do with Yiddish, and is perhaps a corruption of the German word for <deleted>ter, or the name of a Philadelphia lawyer.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shyster

Etymology

probably from German Scheisser, literally, defecator

First Known Use

1844, in the meaning defined above

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/legal-app-ad-using-the-word-shyster-cleared-of-causing-offence/5111603.article

The Advertising Standards Authority investigated Legal Utopia after a complainant said the word was a derogatory term used to describe Jewish people and challenged whether it was offensive.

The television ad from last October opened with a voiceover that stated: ‘I’ve discovered Legal Utopia; the app to help you save time and potentially save money.’ It continued by giving examples of when the app could be used, including ‘claims against shoddy shysters’, accompanied by a shot of a woman speaking angrily on the phone as she examined leaky pipes under a sink.

The ASA said there were a range of opinions about the etymology of the word ‘shyster’ and sought a view from the Board of Deputies of British Jews, which had no concerns about its use.

Advert

Its ruling added: ‘We considered that in the context used in the ad, most viewers would understand the term ‘shyster’ as referring to an unscrupulous plumber who had carried out substandard work and failed to correct it.

‘We acknowledged that some viewers may find the term distasteful but we concluded that in the context of the ad it was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.’

Legal Utopia said it had based its interpretation of the word on the Oxford English Dictionary definition of a ‘dishonest or unscrupulous person’, and argued that most interpretations of where the word came from did not have an antisemitic basis. Linking the word to the Shakespeare play The Merchant of Venice and its Jewish character Shylock was ‘exceedingly remote and unsupported’, it was submitted.

The ad had been referred to Clearcast, which operates the clearance system for television broadcasts, which had no objection or concern. Overall, Clearcast considered it was very clear from the context of the ad that the word would be interpreted by the viewer as it was intended by the advertiser - to mean unscrupulous or disreputable tradesperson.

The ad was cleared of causing any harm or offence and no further action was deemed necessary.

The poster had tried to accuse me of something I am innocent of. An apology or clarification would be nice.

22 hours ago, khaosokman said:

Death rate is how you measure wars. America won easily.

In a comic book perhaps...