UK's Johnson cancels Moscow visit after Syria gas attack

[Morch]

On 4/10/2017 at 6:38 AM, ilostmypassword said:

Not in this case. It's clear that this is all part of an anti-Iranian campaign headed by MacMaster and Mattis. While the real threat to the Muslim world - Salafi fanaticism - is in effect being supported by the Trump administration.

 

It's clear that you believe this.

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

It's clear that you believe this.

If Isis and Al Qaeda aren't proof enough of this then what about Saudi Arabias subsidies to proselytize their insane version of Islam throughout the Muslim world?   The Shias are doing nothing comparable.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

If Isis and Al Qaeda aren't proof enough of this then what about Saudi Arabias subsidies to proselytize their insane version of Islam throughout the Muslim world?   The Shias are doing nothing comparable.

 

Which still doesn't offer much by way of support for - "It's clear that this is all part of an anti-Iranian campaign headed by MacMaster and Mattis."

 

Iran, under current management, is relatively a new player (compared to the practices of Saudi Arabia and the like). Meanwhile, it exports and promotes the brand (and it's political or violent offshoots) where it can. Good luck trying to market it as benign.

[ilostmypassword]

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Which still doesn't offer much by way of support for - "It's clear that this is all part of an anti-Iranian campaign headed by MacMaster and Mattis."

 

Iran, under current management, is relatively a new player (compared to the practices of Saudi Arabia and the like). Meanwhile, it exports and promotes the brand (and it's political or violent offshoots) where it can. Good luck trying to market it as benign.

Well, MacMaster and Mattis have made no secret of their distaste for Iran and their willingness to work with the Saudis.

And I noticed that you said the Iran "exports and promotes the brand" which is not the same thing as promoting the detestable and dangerous version of Islam which Saudi and some of the Gulf States do. In actuality ideologically speaking, there is very little difference between Isis' version of Islam and the Saudis'.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/21/opinion/saudi-arabia-an-isis-that-has-made-it.html

[Morch]

22 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Well, MacMaster and Mattis have made no secret of their distaste for Iran and their willingness to work with the Saudis.

And I noticed that you said the Iran "exports and promotes the brand" which is not the same thing as promoting the detestable and dangerous version of Islam which Saudi and some of the Gulf States do. In actuality ideologically speaking, there is very little difference between Isis' version of Islam and the Saudis'.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/21/opinion/saudi-arabia-an-isis-that-has-made-it.html

So it's downgraded from being "part of an anti-Iranian campaign" to "distaste for Iran" and " "willingness to work with the Saudis". Not much provided to back either, or to show how this is parting with long-term established US policy.

 

If it wasn't clear, I'm not suggesting that SA is a force for good or anything of the sort. Just making the point that Iran plays these games too, simply a relative newcomer on this stage.

[ilostmypassword]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

So it's downgraded from being "part of an anti-Iranian campaign" to "distaste for Iran" and " "willingness to work with the Saudis". Not much provided to back either, or to show how this is parting with long-term established US policy.

 

If it wasn't clear, I'm not suggesting that SA is a force for good or anything of the sort. Just making the point that Iran plays these games too, simply a relative newcomer on this stage.

No, Iran doesn't play the same games as Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has been propagating it's vicious and degenerate form of Islam throughout the Islamic world. And it's been very successful at it. There is no such comparable effort on the part of Iran. And the mullahs have been ruling over Iran now for almost 40 years now. Time to give that "relative newcomer" meme a rest.

And the reason I'm not pursuing that "anti-Iranian campaign" angle is that it will certainly invite the attention of the moderators.

[Morch]

21 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

No, Iran doesn't play the same games as Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has been propagating it's vicious and degenerate form of Islam throughout the Islamic world. And it's been very successful at it. There is no such comparable effort on the part of Iran. And the mullahs have been ruling over Iran now for almost 40 years now. Time to give that "relative newcomer" meme a rest.

And the reason I'm not pursuing that "anti-Iranian campaign" angle is that it will certainly invite the attention of the moderators.

 

How do you mean Iran doesn't play these games? Like it doesn't use religious affiliation, economic and military support to further its regional aims? Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen are obvious examples. This does not happen in a vacuum, nor necessarily in a peaceful manner.

 

Wouldn't know that seeing Iran as a relative newcomer to this was mentioned enough times to be  considered a "meme", or to merit the demand to "give it a rest".  Iran's regional ambitions took a while to mature, pending consolidation of domestic power and the war with Iraq. 

 

Quote

And the reason I'm not pursuing that "anti-Iranian campaign" angle is that it will certainly invite the attention of the moderators.

 

And yet you brought it up, while offering nothing of substance as support.

Edited April 20, 2017 by Morch

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

How do you mean Iran doesn't play these games? Like it doesn't use religious affiliation, economic and military support to further its regional aims? Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen are obvious examples. This does not happen in a vacuum, nor necessarily in a peaceful manner.

 

Wouldn't know that seeing Iran as a relative newcomer to this was mentioned enough times to be  considered a "meme", or to merit the demand to "give it a rest".  Iran's regional ambitions took a while to mature, pending consolidation of domestic power and the war with Iraq. 

 

 

And yet you brought it up, while offering nothing of substance as support.

Iran is not propagating a vicious and degenerate form of Islam throughout the world. Countries that once had peaceful and tolerant forms of Islam have been inundated with cash and Salafi missionaries who have successfully proselytized their version of Islam. Iran may be helping their fellow shiites or semi-fellow shiites in the case of the alawites but they are not doing the proselytizing that the Saudis are.

 

And as for America's tilt against Assad, he is an ally of the Iranians. And we had this just today:

What made this pronouncement particularly bizarre and nasty was that it came immediately after the State Dept. said that Iran was complying with the terms of the nuclear agreement.

 

And then there's this:

"Indifferent to Assad, anti-Iran: Trump's Syria Policy Baffles Experts
While saying it will not demand Assad's ouster, the Trump administration has also vowed to push back against Iran's influence in Syria. Experts are wondering how the two go together.
http://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-1.781314

 

 

Edited April 20, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[boomerangutang]

Children killed by sarin are just as dead as those killed by bombs dropped from Russian jets.

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, boomerangutang said:

Children killed by sarin are just as dead as those killed by bombs dropped from Russian jets.

As are children in Yemen killed by bombs sold by the USA to Saudi Arabia. Or by fragmentation bomblets sold by the UK to Saudi Arabia.

[Morch]

28 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Iran is not propagating a vicious and degenerate form of Islam throughout the world. Countries that once had peaceful and tolerant forms of Islam have been inundated with cash and Salafi missionaries who have successfully proselytized their version of Islam. Iran may be helping their fellow shiites or semi-fellow shiites in the case of the alawites but they are not doing the proselytizing that the Saudis are.

 

And as for America's tilt against Assad, he is an ally of the Iranians. And we had this just today:

 

 

 

The "help" Iran "may" be providing to fellow Shiites is often at the expanse, or to the disadvantage of others (read Sunni). That you may prefer one over the other if fine, but doubt it makes much of an argument for Iran's ambitions being benign.

 

Iran repopulates Syria with Shia Muslims to help tighten regime's control

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/13/irans-syria-project-pushing-population-shifts-to-increase-influence

 

Shiite Proselytizing in Northeastern Syria Will Destabilize a Post-Assad Syria

https://jamestown.org/program/shiite-proselytizing-in-northeastern-syria-will-destabilize-a-post-assad-syria/

 

 

With regard to US policy, not exactly news. And not really up to the "It's clear that this is all part of an anti-Iranian campaign headed by MacMaster and Mattis." comment. Grasping at straws there.

 

 

[tonbridgebrit]

The British prime minister, Theresa May, has totally humiliated Boris Johnson, by ordering him to not go to Moscow.

And Washington is not that bothered. Basically, Boris was regarded as being not important enough to 'warm up' the visitor's chair prior to America going there.

I've noticed the Saudi Arabia and Iran bit in the above posts. Look, Washington and Iran hate each other. Why ?  Okay, back in the early 1950s, the CIA backed (or carried) a coup in Iran. The coup removed the almost democratically elected government of Iran, and installed the 'puppet' Shah.  It was in the late 1970s, when Iran removed the puppet, and cheered on the Ayatollah. The Ayatollah, he was the one with the big white beard and headgear. The guys who control Iran today are all from the same philosophy as the Ayatollah. The Ayatollah did NOT like Washington.
And Washington has not liked Iran since the late 70s.

As for Saudi Arabia, they've got nothing against Washington. Why would they ? There hasn't been any coup or attempted coup backed by the CIA, in Saudi Arabia.

 

[ilostmypassword]

On 4/20/2017 at 9:41 PM, Morch said:

 

The "help" Iran "may" be providing to fellow Shiites is often at the expanse, or to the disadvantage of others (read Sunni). That you may prefer one over the other if fine, but doubt it makes much of an argument for Iran's ambitions being benign.

 

Iran repopulates Syria with Shia Muslims to help tighten regime's control

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/13/irans-syria-project-pushing-population-shifts-to-increase-influence

 

Shiite Proselytizing in Northeastern Syria Will Destabilize a Post-Assad Syria

https://jamestown.org/program/shiite-proselytizing-in-northeastern-syria-will-destabilize-a-post-assad-syria/

 

 

With regard to US policy, not exactly news. And not really up to the "It's clear that this is all part of an anti-Iranian campaign headed by MacMaster and Mattis." comment. Grasping at straws there.

 

 

You really don't seem to be able to get the point. So much wrong in your reply:

 

1)This isn't about proselytizing per se. It's about what's being proselytized. Who would care if for all these years the Saudis and other Gulf States had been proselytizing for some version of Islam that was no more intolerant than local versions? Nobody. So if Iran is, in fact proselytizing in some parts of syria is a problem only valid if it makes those locals more intolerant and receptive to committing violence in the name of Islam.

2)Then there's the question of scale. What Iran is up to is part of a local war between an ally of theirs and Salafists. The affected population they are converting to their form of Islam is very small  And they have a dog in this fight. Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States are spreading their vicious version of Islam worldwide where they have no security interests.  It's ridiculous to treat the Iranians efforts and the Saudis as somehow being equal in impact.

 

As for the anti-Iranian angle.  It seems very odd that the country that is a far greater threat to world peace,-Saudi Arabia, is once again being tightly embraced by the current administration which is once again heavily assisting the Saudis in their horrendous war on Yemen - while magnifying the threat posed by Iran. You must believe that Mattis and McMaster suffer from some peculiar form of tunnel vision.

 

[Morch]

On 4/28/2017 at 8:53 AM, ilostmypassword said:

You really don't seem to be able to get the point. So much wrong in your reply:

 

1)This isn't about proselytizing per se. It's about what's being proselytized. Who would care if for all these years the Saudis and other Gulf States had been proselytizing for some version of Islam that was no more intolerant than local versions? Nobody. So if Iran is, in fact proselytizing in some parts of syria is a problem only valid if it makes those locals more intolerant and receptive to committing violence in the name of Islam.

2)Then there's the question of scale. What Iran is up to is part of a local war between an ally of theirs and Salafists. The affected population they are converting to their form of Islam is very small  And they have a dog in this fight. Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States are spreading their vicious version of Islam worldwide where they have no security interests.  It's ridiculous to treat the Iranians efforts and the Saudis as somehow being equal in impact.

 

As for the anti-Iranian angle.  It seems very odd that the country that is a far greater threat to world peace,-Saudi Arabia, is once again being tightly embraced by the current administration which is once again heavily assisting the Saudis in their horrendous war on Yemen - while magnifying the threat posed by Iran. You must believe that Mattis and McMaster suffer from some peculiar form of tunnel vision.

 

 

The only thing "wrong" in my reply is that I do not subscribe to your views. And rather, it is you who doesn't seem to get the point - instead answering imagined arguments I did not make. So, again - I'm not all that bothered by who's worse. Both are bad, each in its own way. Hence, there was no "defense" of SA practices offered. In the same way, I'm not all that interested in contrived "dictates"  regarding the scope of this off-topic discussion.

 

There is no war between Iran and "Salafists". Iran is involved in the Syrian war to support a friendly regime, which practices a similar brand of faith. It is not even a "local war" - there's not even a shared border. The "affected population" isn't "very small". As for the bogus claim about equating the impact of SA and Iran's practices - see above.

 

What you consider being a threat to world peace may not be how things are considered by others. That you state it as fact does not make it any more compelling. So far, the differences between the current US administration policy and the previous one's is not all that significant. Not in real terms. I have no idea what you were on about with your last line.

 

And again, this topic - UK. Russia. Syria. Not much to do with US bashing, Iran or Saudi Arabia.

[ilostmypassword]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The only thing "wrong" in my reply is that I do not subscribe to your views. And rather, it is you who doesn't seem to get the point - instead answering imagined arguments I did not make. So, again - I'm not all that bothered by who's worse. Both are bad, each in its own way. Hence, there was no "defense" of SA practices offered. In the same way, I'm not all that interested in contrived "dictates"  regarding the scope of this off-topic discussion.

 

There is no war between Iran and "Salafists". Iran is involved in the Syrian war to support a friendly regime, which practices a similar brand of faith. It is not even a "local war" - there's not even a shared border. The "affected population" isn't "very small". As for the bogus claim about equating the impact of SA and Iran's practices - see above.

 

What you consider being a threat to world peace may not be how things are considered by others. That you state it as fact does not make it any more compelling. So far, the differences between the current US administration policy and the previous one's is not all that significant. Not in real terms. I have no idea what you were on about with your last line.

 

And again, this topic - UK. Russia. Syria. Not much to do with US bashing, Iran or Saudi Arabia.

"So, again - I'm not all that bothered by who's worse. Both are bad, each in its own way. "

This is like saying "Benjamin Netanyahu is bad and so is Kim Jong Il.  Each is bad in his own way."

Again, reducing them to the same level. It's clear that Saudi Arabia is massively exporting its vicious version of Islam worldwide so much more of a threat than Iran.

As for it not being a local war. I think right now borders in that are being as porous as they are it is a local war. And the number of converts in question is comparatively small. And whether the conversion they are undergoing makes the converts more or less benign is unknown. Whereas we know that Salafi converts become more bigoted.   And it's already happened to tens of millions.

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

"So, again - I'm not all that bothered by who's worse. Both are bad, each in its own way. "

This is like saying "Benjamin Netanyahu is bad and so is Kim Jong Il.  Each is bad in his own way."

Again, reducing them to the same level. It's clear that Saudi Arabia is massively exporting its vicious version of Islam worldwide so much more of a threat than Iran.

As for it not being a local war. I think right now borders in that are being as porous as they are it is a local war. And the number of converts in question is comparatively small. And whether the conversion they are undergoing makes the converts more or less benign is unknown. Whereas we know that Salafi converts become more bigoted.   And it's already happened to tens of millions.

 

No, it is nothing like the hypothetical idiotic comment suggested. If you insist on twisting my words or finding hidden meanings therein, you might as well carry on this off-topic discussion on your own. Some like that. I did not "reduce them to the same level", but rather opined that I'm obsessed by the hierarchy of who's-most-evil. Not really much of an intellectual hurdle, so guess the argument is once more, contrived.

 

As for borders being "porous", I think you may want to consult a map before posting nonsense. The nearest distance between Iran and Syria is about 200km. The "porous" argument would hold for Iraq, for it to be relevant to Iran, would be quite a stretch. The only reason this could be brought in to the argument would be if one considers Iran's regional ambitions - but that would run counter to presenting Iran as benign.

 

So the population effected is not "small" but "comparatively small"? Well done there. Gonna keep that gem for the next time I'm flogged for using a relativist argument on ME topics. And it is "unknown" if the conversion is benign - really? Another keeper - left wing posters defending conversions of faith in a war zone. Love it.

 

UK. Russia. Syria. Boris. Putin. Assad.

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

No, it is nothing like the hypothetical idiotic comment suggested. If you insist on twisting my words or finding hidden meanings therein, you might as well carry on this off-topic discussion on your own. Some like that. I did not "reduce them to the same level", but rather opined that I'm obsessed by the hierarchy of who's-most-evil. Not really much of an intellectual hurdle, so guess the argument is once more, contrived.

 

As for borders being "porous", I think you may want to consult a map before posting nonsense. The nearest distance between Iran and Syria is about 200km. The "porous" argument would hold for Iraq, for it to be relevant to Iran, would be quite a stretch. The only reason this could be brought in to the argument would be if one considers Iran's regional ambitions - but that would run counter to presenting Iran as benign.

 

So the population effected is not "small" but "comparatively small"? Well done there. Gonna keep that gem for the next time I'm flogged for using a relativist argument on ME topics. And it is "unknown" if the conversion is benign - really? Another keeper - left wing posters defending conversions of faith in a war zone. Love it.

 

UK. Russia. Syria. Boris. Putin. Assad.

 

 

We're not talking theology here. I don't care who's more evil in the personal sense. I do care about who's doing more damage worldwide. And that's the Saudis. And  you  really think 200 kilometers is a big distance in a theater of war?

And where did I say that Iran was benign?

[Morch]

15 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

We're not talking theology here. I don't care who's more evil in the personal sense. I do care about who's doing more damage worldwide. And that's the Saudis. And  you  really think 200 kilometers is a big distance in a theater of war?

And where did I say that Iran was benign?

 

I did not mention theology nor reference any "personal sense". Try harder.

That you consider SA to be the cause of "more damage worldwide" is an opinion, not necessarily shared by all.

As for the 200km thing - yes, it is a big distance. There aren't any Iranians strolling over to Syria. And to be clear - that would be a direct line between Iran and the the edge of Syrian territory - way out on the north east. If relating to the whole of Syria, a greater distance. Do consult a map.

 

Coming up with any excuse to minimize Iran's involvement in ME conflicts, ignoring its attempts to exert regional and international pull. Yeah, well....go Team Iran.

 

Now, once again:  UK. Russia. Syria.

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

I did not mention theology nor reference any "personal sense". Try harder.

That you consider SA to be the cause of "more damage worldwide" is an opinion, not necessarily shared by all.

As for the 200km thing - yes, it is a big distance. There aren't any Iranians strolling over to Syria. And to be clear - that would be a direct line between Iran and the the edge of Syrian territory - way out on the north east. If relating to the whole of Syria, a greater distance. Do consult a map.

 

Coming up with any excuse to minimize Iran's involvement in ME conflicts, ignoring its attempts to exert regional and international pull. Yeah, well....go Team Iran.

 

Now, once again:  UK. Russia. Syria.

 

 

You said Iran and Saudi Arabia are both bad. I assume you meant morally and hence my reference to theology. The problem with statements like that is that they are qualitative, not quantitative. I will take it as read the both the the rulers of Saudi Arabia and the rulers of Iran are bad.  But that formulation takes no account of how their activities affect the world. Iran's focus is on contiguous territories which now have very porous border which allow militias to pass through willy nilly. They certainly can't count on the governments of Iraq or Syria to keep their Salifi enemies at bay.  Saudi Arabia on the other hand, is not only active militarily like Iran with its own forces and through proxies in the middle east , but in virtually every continent and several archipelagos in promoting its poisonous brand of Islam. A far greater threat to the world.

Nor have I minimized Iran's activities in the mideast.  But, like the Saudis, they have local reasons for doing so. But unlike the Saudis, they aren't proselytizing outside of their region.  And the people that the Saudis are supporting in Syria want to establish a caliphate throughout the Arab world. Iran's ally, Assad, has no extraterritorial ambitions of that scope.

[Morch]

41 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

You said Iran and Saudi Arabia are both bad. I assume you meant morally and hence my reference to theology. The problem with statements like that is that they are qualitative, not quantitative. I will take it as read the both the the rulers of Saudi Arabia and the rulers of Iran are bad.  But that formulation takes no account of how their activities affect the world. Iran's focus is on contiguous territories which now have very porous border which allow militias to pass through willy nilly. They certainly can't count on the governments of Iraq or Syria to keep their Salifi enemies at bay.  Saudi Arabia on the other hand, is not only active militarily like Iran with its own forces and through proxies in the middle east , but in virtually every continent and several archipelagos in promoting its poisonous brand of Islam. A far greater threat to the world.

Nor have I minimized Iran's activities in the mideast.  But, like the Saudis, they have local reasons for doing so. But unlike the Saudis, they aren't proselytizing outside of their region.  And the people that the Saudis are supporting in Syria want to establish a caliphate throughout the Arab world. Iran's ally, Assad, has no extraterritorial ambitions of that scope.

 

That's quite  an assumption based on a single word. Can always count on some to build contrived interpretations when it suits - which is exactly what the above nonsense is.

 

With regard to Iran's ambitions and them "porous" borders which you insist upon, regardless of fact - this does not apply to Lebanon, Syria or Yemen. The only meaning in which "contiguous" comes into it is by acknowledging Iran's ambitions for these territories to be so, and if need be, by altering demographics. There are no militias or salafists based in these countries and directly threatening Iran. 

Saudi Arabia does not have a similar presence to Iran's in Syria or in Lebanon. Certainly not "militarily".

 

Iran is pushing it's brand of Islam globally too and is involved in acts of terrorism as well. May want to read up on Argentinian and Peruvian examples. Or recall that botched Bangkok attack from a few years back. SA does not, I believe, support IS, but other outfits - dunno that these are bent on the idea of Caliphate. Generally speaking, the SA regime will not benefit much from the ascent of such a caliphate.

 

That you see one as more dangerous than the other is all very fine. It also lines up well with the usual bashing. But from a Western point of view - perhaps more attention is given to Iran for the reasons that it possess the hardware to carry out the regularly made threats, while being openly hostile. That, and not much point in pissing off most of the world's Muslims, which are Sunni.

 

UK. Russia. Syria.

[ilostmypassword]

5 hours ago, Morch said:

 

That's quite  an assumption based on a single word. Can always count on some to build contrived interpretations when it suits - which is exactly what the above nonsense is.

 

With regard to Iran's ambitions and them "porous" borders which you insist upon, regardless of fact - this does not apply to Lebanon, Syria or Yemen. The only meaning in which "contiguous" comes into it is by acknowledging Iran's ambitions for these territories to be so, and if need be, by altering demographics. There are no militias or salafists based in these countries and directly threatening Iran. 

Saudi Arabia does not have a similar presence to Iran's in Syria or in Lebanon. Certainly not "militarily".

 

Iran is pushing it's brand of Islam globally too and is involved in acts of terrorism as well. May want to read up on Argentinian and Peruvian examples. Or recall that botched Bangkok attack from a few years back. SA does not, I believe, support IS, but other outfits - dunno that these are bent on the idea of Caliphate. Generally speaking, the SA regime will not benefit much from the ascent of such a caliphate.

 

That you see one as more dangerous than the other is all very fine. It also lines up well with the usual bashing. But from a Western point of view - perhaps more attention is given to Iran for the reasons that it possess the hardware to carry out the regularly made threats, while being openly hostile. That, and not much point in pissing off most of the world's Muslims, which are Sunni.

 

UK. Russia. Syria.

Given that Isis until very recently was  about a 4 hour drive from Iran's border and given the condition of state control of the borders in that region, I'd say that for security purposes, that Syria is contiguous with Iran. As for Yemen, most knowledgeable people rated the rebellion as indigenous until Saudi Arabia decided to invade.

 

I googled Iran's efforts to proselytize worldwide. Did get a hit for Nigeria. As for Saudi Arabia, lots and lot so hits. Qualitative isn't enough. Quantitatively the Saudi effort dwarfs that of Iran.

As for the Iranian terrorist incident in Argentina..that dates back to 1992 and 1994.  Over 20 years ago. In Peru, an operative for hezbollah was caught and tested positive for nitroglycerin on his person but no terrorist incidents. 

 

As for my points lining up well with the usual bashing..really? Typically, Americans consider the Saudis more of a threat than Iran? Really? The latest poll I could find from 2007 said 31 percent of Americans considered Iran the greatest threat to stability in the world compared to 1 percent for Saudi Arabia. Given the continuing propaganda efforts by the US military and US government, I'd say not much has changed.

https://books.google.com/books?id=HWsfJAQALT8C&pg=PA542&lpg=PA542&dq=poll+iran+or+saudi+arabia+more+of+a+threat&source=bl&ots=fMDqLQOQBf&sig=FKxpSSgGayQlQsd1zCUxHQG0u34&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiPm7OsmczTAhXKoJQKHfPNDnIQ6AEIVjAH#v=onepage&q=poll iran or saudi arabia more of a threat&f=false

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Given that Isis until very recently was  about a 4 hour drive from Iran's border and given the condition of state control of the borders in that region, I'd say that for security purposes, that Syria is contiguous with Iran. As for Yemen, most knowledgeable people rated the rebellion as indigenous until Saudi Arabia decided to invade.

 

I googled Iran's efforts to proselytize worldwide. Did get a hit for Nigeria. As for Saudi Arabia, lots and lot so hits. Qualitative isn't enough. Quantitatively the Saudi effort dwarfs that of Iran.

As for the Iranian terrorist incident in Argentina..that dates back to 1992 and 1994.  Over 20 years ago. In Peru, an operative for hezbollah was caught and tested positive for nitroglycerin on his person but no terrorist incidents. 

 

As for my points lining up well with the usual bashing..really? Typically, Americans consider the Saudis more of a threat than Iran? Really? The latest poll I could find from 2007 said 31 percent of Americans considered Iran the greatest threat to stability in the world compared to 1 percent for Saudi Arabia. Given the continuing propaganda efforts by the US military and US government, I'd say not much has changed.

https://books.google.com/books?id=HWsfJAQALT8C&pg=PA542&lpg=PA542&dq=poll+iran+or+saudi+arabia+more+of+a+threat&source=bl&ots=fMDqLQOQBf&sig=FKxpSSgGayQlQsd1zCUxHQG0u34&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiPm7OsmczTAhXKoJQKHfPNDnIQ6AEIVjAH#v=onepage&q=poll iran or saudi arabia more of a threat&f=false

 

You can post whatever nonsense you like, but Syria and Iran are not contiguous territory. That Iran aims to make it that way is another matter - which obviously doesn't play all that well with your point of view. Same goes for Lebanon and Yemen. 

 

Obviously missed Iran's previous involvement in Sudan, for example. Similarly, Iran's involvement in Latin and South America is wider than you present. May want to check out HispanTV.  Or Hezbollah's (Iran's proxy), involvement in Peru's local politics.

 

Bashing, as in US (but really, any Western country would do, in a pinch) bashing, whenever it doesn't line up with your views or fails to meet certain ideals. No idea what you thought I meant, probably another imaginary construct of your own making.

 

UK. Russia. Syria. Just a reminder.

 

[ilostmypassword]

9 hours ago, Morch said:

 

You can post whatever nonsense you like, but Syria and Iran are not contiguous territory. That Iran aims to make it that way is another matter - which obviously doesn't play all that well with your point of view. Same goes for Lebanon and Yemen. 

 

Obviously missed Iran's previous involvement in Sudan, for example. Similarly, Iran's involvement in Latin and South America is wider than you present. May want to check out HispanTV.  Or Hezbollah's (Iran's proxy), involvement in Peru's local politics.

 

Bashing, as in US (but really, any Western country would do, in a pinch) bashing, whenever it doesn't line up with your views or fails to meet certain ideals. No idea what you thought I meant, probably another imaginary construct of your own making.

 

UK. Russia. Syria. Just a reminder.

 

I didn't know that Iran was planning to annex Iraq. Thanks for the tip.

As for Iranian "involvement". Love that word "involvement." It can mean any activity at all.  Since the Argentinian attacks in 1992 and 1994, what violence in South America can be laid at Iran's door?

It's a fair point about Sudan. But no evidence of proselytizing in that Sunni nation, Of course, Sudan has now cut off ties with Iran and is an ally of Saudi Arabia which is a much more congenial ideological fit.

"Bashing, as in US (but really, any Western country would do, in a pinch) bashing,"

Nice loaded word, "bashing" The kind of word that is designed to bring critical thinking to a halt. And what other western nations have I bashed?  Keep bashing that straw man.

General Mattis is the US secretary of defense. It is widely reported that he was fired by Obama for his preoccupation with Iran. Still I want to be fair to him. So I googled Mattis criticizes Saudi Arabia. Nothing came up except that he called for a political solution in Yemen. And in that same search there was this: http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/04/19/tillerson-mattis-seek-mend-fences-saudi-arabia-iran-deal-business-ties-yemen-war/

[Morch]

2 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

I didn't know that Iran was planning to annex Iraq. Thanks for the tip.

As for Iranian "involvement". Love that word "involvement." It can mean any activity at all.  Since the Argentinian attacks in 1992 and 1994, what violence in South America can be laid at Iran's door?

It's a fair point about Sudan. But no evidence of proselytizing in that Sunni nation, Of course, Sudan has now cut off ties with Iran and is an ally of Saudi Arabia which is a much more congenial ideological fit.

"Bashing, as in US (but really, any Western country would do, in a pinch) bashing,"

Nice loaded word, "bashing" The kind of word that is designed to bring critical thinking to a halt. And what other western nations have I bashed?  Keep bashing that straw man.

General Mattis is the US secretary of defense. It is widely reported that he was fired by Obama for his preoccupation with Iran. Still I want to be fair to him. So I googled Mattis criticizes Saudi Arabia. Nothing came up except that he called for a political solution in Yemen. And in that same search there was this: http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/04/19/tillerson-mattis-seek-mend-fences-saudi-arabia-iran-deal-business-ties-yemen-war/

 

And I did not claim Iran was planning to annex Iraq, thanks for demonstrating them low class debate skills. Same goes for making much of specific words used ("involvement", "bashing"), usually a good indication of grabbing at straws.

 

Iran pushes its agenda wherever it can - be it through proselytizing, terrorism, militarily and economically supporting regimes and movements. In order to satisfy your disingenuous denials, there would need to be a point by point argued on each example provided. No intention of playing such inane games, and not on an unrelated topic.

 

And the same goes for denials of bashing - US and UK policies, especially with regard to the ME, are a rather standard object of this. Not sure why you'd pretend otherwise.

 

What you don't seem to get is that not everyone is in your corner. Not everyone sees SA as a worse threat than Iran, not everyone sees the US best interests served by switching horses, or ditching the SA one. That such view do not concur with yours does not make them wrong, nor does it make for the sort of conspiracy nonsense you originally hinted at.

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

And I did not claim Iran was planning to annex Iraq, thanks for demonstrating them low class debate skills. Same goes for making much of specific words used ("involvement", "bashing"), usually a good indication of grabbing at straws.

 

Iran pushes its agenda wherever it can - be it through proselytizing, terrorism, militarily and economically supporting regimes and movements. In order to satisfy your disingenuous denials, there would need to be a point by point argued on each example provided. No intention of playing such inane games, and not on an unrelated topic.

 

And the same goes for denials of bashing - US and UK policies, especially with regard to the ME, are a rather standard object of this. Not sure why you'd pretend otherwise.

 

What you don't seem to get is that not everyone is in your corner. Not everyone sees SA as a worse threat than Iran, not everyone sees the US best interests served by switching horses, or ditching the SA one. That such view do not concur with yours does not make them wrong, nor does it make for the sort of conspiracy nonsense you originally hinted at.

 

 

 "You can post whatever nonsense you like, but Syria and Iran are not contiguous territory.That Iran aims to make it that way is another matter - which obviously doesn't play all that well with your point of view. "

"And I did not claim Iran was planning to annex Iraq, thanks for demonstrating them low class debate skills"

How else but by annexingIraq could Iran make Syria contiguous? Hyperspace?

 

"That such view do not concur with yours does not make them wrong, nor does it make for the sort of conspiracy nonsense you originally hinted at"

I don't claim that the views of others are wrong because they disagree with me. I provide evidence.  And "conspiracy nonsense you hinted at"? Really. Nice use of the word "hint". That way you get to associate me with conspiracy theory without actually saying so. A very low and dishonest move. Whenever you find yourself backed into a corner, this is what you do.  I'm done with you on this thread.

 

In fact, in general, your recourse when all else fails is to generalize about views rather

[Scott]

Please get back on topic and stop with the bickering.   Iran and Syria are not connected and any connection would mean concessions by Turkey or by Iraq, which is very, very unlikely.   It's also Kurdish territory and most of the Kurds are Sunni and not particularly enamored with Iran.  

[Ramen087]

http://www.npr.org/2016/12/16/505892967/russia-iran-alliance-complicates-u-s-role-in-syrian-conflict

 

Here is an transcript of an brief interview from December 2016 on htp://www.npr.org The topic is the iran-russia alliance.  Although it makes reference to former Pres. Obama's comments (and the US) there is specific commentary on Moscow-Tehran. 

[Scott]

A post that violates Fair Use Policy has been removed.