- Joined
- Mar 30, 2016
- Messages
- 81,814
- Reaction score
- 20,427
- Location
- Chicago
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Agan, nobody said anything about justifying terrorism. Nor does it make sense to argue that the ocupation of the Tehran embassy is an act of terrorism. The issue is the DOUBLE standards which people use when they selectively the bar high for Iran compared to other countries. By the way, just recently we had an act of terrorism killing a scientist in Iran. So spare with your nonsense.
Here are some embassy occupations when Kurds were potesting
Kurds leave Greek embassy in London
and here are some indefinite detentions in Israel without charges
Human rights in Israel and Occupied Palestinian Territories
Stay up to date on the state of human rights in Israel and Occupied Palestinian Territories with the latest research, campaigns and education material from Amnesty International.www.amnesty.org
Israeli authorities used renewable administrative detention orders to hold Palestinians without charge or trial. Some 4,638 Palestinians from the OPT, including 458 administrative detainees, were held in Israeli prisons as of 30 November, according to the Israel Prison Service. Many families of Palestinian detainees in Israel, particularly those in Gaza, were not permitted entry to Israel to visit their relatives.
Palestinian civilians, including children, from the OPT were prosecuted in military courts that did not meet international fair trial standards.
The only “point“ you made was that the ACLU has a laughably broad definition of “kidnapping”.
So now the ACLU is a branch of Iranian fanboys.
And it was not just the ACLU's point.
The same point is derived from Bush's admission of the US practice of holding detainees in undisclosed locations. That is what kidnappers do, and it strkes down your laughable claim that the detainees were treated as Pows! And based on the fact that most were released soon, we can see that the US kidnapped people based in suspicions of their possible ties to terrorism which in most cases was not correct.
Like I said..... the ACLU has a laughably loose definition of the term.
The point is that there is no obligation to inform a terrorist group where its members are being held, although I know to a Iranian fanboy the thought of being unable to rescue terrorists captured on the battlefield is heart breaking.
You cannot make a serious point by just making a claim about the ACLU
Others made the same point
'The findings that the UK intelligence agencies knew of torture during the Iraq War reveals the dark side of the special relationship'
The only thing the British seem not to have done (probably) is actually waterboard the prisoners concerned or bundle them onto the planes to Guantanamo Baywww.independent.co.uk
The report of the Commons Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), for all its lawyerly hedging and cautious caveats, could really not be clearer. The British government, through its security agencies, acquiesced in the use of torture during the war on terror after 9/11. It was “inexcusable”. During the subsequent invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, of Iraq and a variety of other military and covert operations, MI5 and MI6 were complicit in what was euphemistically described as “extraordinary rendition” – official extrajudicial kidnappings and illegal detention. The British helped to fund such operations, supplied intelligence to facilitate them, knew more widely about cases of maltreatment, directly witnessed some 13 identifiable examples, and usually did nothing about it, and went along with the American way of war for many years.
The above came from the UK Parliament
Yawn. Politicians posturing for the sake of bleeding heart idiots and out and out fifth columnists. You posting an editorial is nothing more than someone else’s opinion.
Ohh....
Apparently whoever does not agree with you is a bleeding heart idiot and fifth columnist. Before it was the ACLU and now it is the British Parliament.
I judge people' s intelligence based on the arguments they make and thus far your name calling and lack of counterpoints do not constitute serious arguments.
Yawn. More meaningless posturing. Your attempts to justify the storming of the American embassy and torture of the civilians there already wrecked your argument long before you started mewling about my “lack of counterpoints”.
More meaningless posts of yours because your claims of what I did durig my previous arguments have not been supported by counterarguments. You just count on distorting my points which you cannot addresss.
I’ve repeatedly addressed your desperate whataboutism.
When you cannot be honest enough to present accurately what I am arguing, you cannot address what I am arguing. My claim of double standards by definition require a comparison of how people behave in similar circumstances. When people like you dismiss such comparison as "whataboutism," they show that they are just hypocrites. And the claim of double standards does not by itself say anything regarding the justification or not of the actions that are discussed. One can both believe that terrorism or other state actions that violate international law which harm civilians are evil, and the saem person can and also believe that people are using double standards in the way they treat different countries when such countries violate the international law and harm civilians.
So we don't actually have confirmation that any of this actually happened?Trump is just plain ffn nuts and knows that an attack would seal the deal on a wider war in the ME
Trump has already taken actions, others planned to lock in the Biden Admin on Iran policy
Reuters | Breaking International News & Views
Find latest news from every corner of the globe at Reuters.com, your online source for breaking international news coverage.uk.reuters.com
I’ve already repeatedly addressed your efforts to defend Iran’s decades of terrorism by using endless amounts of whataboutism, as I already stated.
What action completely eliminates the threat of a nuclear Iran other than an invasion/occupation?Why? The deal didn't end Iran pursuit of nuclear weapons. It simply kicked the can ten years down the line.
If you quote my posts, put an effort to also addresss the points I make within these quotes.
Even your last response is a clear example of a generic comment which you can articulate without even the need of the quote which you supposedly try to address.
This is clear evidence that you do not bother with actually addressing the other side's points. You are only interested in repeating your claims.
I’ve already repeatedly addressed your desperate whataboutism and attempts to justify Iran‘s atrocities.
As I stated before.
So, you continue with your " whataboutism" and justification of Iran's attrocities claims without addressing the points I made in this thread and which I summarized in a recent post
pamak said:
When you cannot be honest enough to present accurately what I am arguing, you cannot address what I am arguing. My claim of double standards by definition require a comparison of how people behave in similar circumstances. When people like you dismiss such comparison as "whataboutism," they show that they are just hypocrites. And the claim of double standards does not by itself say anything regarding the justification or not of the actions that are discussed. One can both believe that terrorism or other state actions that violate international law which harm civilians are evil, and the saem person can and also believe that people are using double standards in the way they treat different countries when such countries violate the international law and harm civilians.
Really? Is that the way North Korea should be handled too?Kim has shown that poverty does not slow a determined nation from acquiring nuclear weapons. Hurting the Iranian people with sanctions only strengthens the hardliners who believe aggression is the only way to keep Iran safe from invasion. Inviting Iran to join the league of respectable nations is the only way to take power from those that want war with the west.
What action completely eliminates the threat of a nuclear Iran other than an invasion/occupation?
Bombing a nuclear facility pushes back the timeline just like the Iran deal did.
Kim has shown that poverty does not slow a determined nation from acquiring nuclear weapons. Hurting the Iranian people with sanctions only strengthens the hardliners who believe aggression is the only way to keep Iran safe from invasion. Inviting Iran to join the league of respectable nations is the only way to take power from those that want war with the west.
When did this work?
Not to mention the fact that Iran uses an oil thirsty China.
.Millions of Barrels of Iranian Oil Are Piled Up in China’s Ports
Tankers are offloading millions of barrels of Iranian oil into storage tanks at Chinese ports, creating a hoard of crude sitting on the doorstep of the world’s biggest buyer.www.bloomberg.com
Millions of Barrels of Iranian Oil Are Piled Up in China’s Ports
Good luck expecting the Chinese to actually side with your objectives (in the middle also of a trade war)
Defying U.S., China and Iran Near Trade and Military Partnership
The investment and security pact would vastly extend China’s influence in the Middle East, throwing Iran an economic lifeline and creating new flash points with the United States.www.nytimes.com
Defying U.S., China and Iran Near Trade and Military Partnership
The investment and security pact would vastly extend China’s influence in the Middle East, throwing Iran an economic lifeline and creating new flash points with the United States.
For the US, the objective with respect to Iran seems to be (again) regime change to make sure that a new pro-western regime will not develop nuclear weapons in secrecy . Which Iranian leader will accept such objective? On the contrary, developing nuclear weapons will seem as the rational thing to do because nuclear armed rivals are treated with more respect (see N. Korea).
Iran is not N. Korea. Kim's regime will not be toppled from within. There are no "moderate factions" there like there is in Iran. But like with Iran the one term mistake made the most detrimental move humanly possible in N. Korea. He gave China an excuse to continue helping Kim's regime to become a major nuclear power. They even petitioned the U.N. to remove N. Korea's sanctions using Mr. One and done's talks and visits as proof that N. Korea is a legitimate State and not a rogue nation.Really? Is that the way North Korea should be handled too?
The only way North Korea's regime is toppled from within. Much like Iran's. Dealing with two similar terror states should be similar; it just makes sense. Both want nuclear weapons to spread terror; both need to be stopped if possible and strongly handled if not possible.Iran is not N. Korea. Kim's regime will not be toppled from within. There are no "moderate factions" there like there is in Iran. But like with Iran the one term mistake made the most detrimental move humanly possible in N. Korea. He gave China an excuse to continue helping Kim's regime to become a major nuclear power. They even petitioned the U.N. to remove N. Korea's sanctions using Mr. One and done's talks and visits as proof that N. Korea is a legitimate State and not a rogue nation.
China is why N. Korea exists and it will always be why it still exists. There is no chance of the N. Korean people rising up unlike Iran which has a very educated and modern population. The one term mistake should never have recognized N. Korea as an independent State. It gave China cover for their continued support of the regime. I believe Putin put him up to it as another way to make us look like ignorant fools to the rest of the world and it worked.The only way North Korea's regime is toppled from within. Much like Iran's. Dealing with two similar terror states should be similar; it just makes sense. Both want nuclear weapons to spread terror; both need to be stopped if possible and strongly handled if not possible.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?