bud

i've posted around 10 links citing how the alawites are considered shiites. you? you've posted 0. after how many pages, you are still welcome to post something, anything to backup your claims. until then, i am right and you are wrong.

i will post a longer reply later, but i thought i'd share this link if you get a chance. rarely do you see a bill not get passed when it is directly or indirectly connected with israel and the middle east. action on syria, policy on iran and support for the military in egypt. these have been the recent major agendas in the foreign policy and how they're approached is how AIPAC wants them to be approached. bills revolving around israel always receive bipartisan support. why? because politicians know that they're jeopardizing their time in office by not being AIPAC friendly. for example, the u.s. government passed a bill to impose even heavier sanctions on iran, just as the newly elected "friendly" iranian president, who has done nothing but advocate for peaceful diplomacy. why? because that's AIPAC's hawkish approach. when, accept when it comes to AIPAC sponsored bills, do you ever see a bill be passed by a 400-20 vote? support for AIPAC's policies is more than just ideological. there are industries who make a lot of $ when the militarily and politically aggressive policies are used.

maybe they can also compare their intelligence which say that iran will not be capable of developing ICBMs by 2015 with your intelligence that say that iranians already have ICBMs (and the definition of ICBM)

more typing but 0 credibility. you have yet to cite where you get your information that the alawites are not considered shiites. i mean, i continue to post reason and links proving my information, and you continue to do the opposite: just provide fluff, self opinion.

of course they don't control u.s. policy. but they do have a strong say in u.s. foreign policy. this is mostly due the number of u.s. congressmen and senators they give heavy donations to. i could post the amount of money some of these politicians make from AIPAC and their reason for advocating AIPAC's agenda, but we're mostly seasoned political analysts and already know it.

it was the pressure and the outrage from the public that got her a second trail. otherwise she was sentenced based on a stupid law that is obviously flawed.

from nbc news:

here is more good news - talking: Obama speaks with Iranian President Rouhani "Just now I spoke on the phone with President Rouhani," Obama said, noting that the conversation "underscores the deep mistrust between our countries, but also indicates the prospect of moving on that difficult history." link good news, right?

more typing without anything to back it up. show evidence that the pentagon is wrong about iran not having ICBMs at this time.

the DIA continues to claim that iran has ICBMs but has yet to provide any evidence.

here is a list of countries with satellites in space. OMG THEY'RE GOING TO NUKE US ALL!!!11 Source (Country) Number Argentina 1 Australia 2 Brazil 5 Canada 7 Egypt 4 ESA 5 EUMETSAT 1 Eutelsat 16 France 1 Greece 1 IMSO 2 India 50+ Israel 2 ITSO 12 Luxembourg 13 Malaysia 2 Mexico 3 Netherlands 2 Norway 2 Philippines 1 Russia 14 South Korea 1 Spain 3 Sri Lanka 1 Sweden 3 Turkey 2 US 60

DIA (doggy's intelligence agency) has gone against the findings of pentagon and the intelligence agencies around the world by claiming that iran has ICBMs.

an encouraging day. iran's foreign minister appeared quite upbeat after a chat with kerry, that was quite visible. The P5+1 discussed the "parameters of the end-game" zarif said, which is critical as the step by step process has suffered from a sense of direction without this conversation. and Kerry later said that sanctions can be lifted quickly, indicating that obama will finally use his waiver rights, if all goes well. kudos to the EU, iranian and u.s. diplomats who made good progress, though much remains to be done of course. still, never seen all side use such respectful and positive language. needless to say, the demandeurs of war on all sides will quickly come out with their knifes. watch the senate sanctions bill shortly. never before has it been so important to defend and protect the diplomatic process.

the safir was used to send a satellite into space. the safir is NOT an ICBM. is iran not allowed to do anything in your eyes? when are you going to talk about the nuclear and chemical weapons that actually do exist? more specifically, the ones held by india, pakistan and israel.

nice try buddy. i have never said anything about iran's rocket program. of course they have a rocket program. i am denying the false information you are trying to claim, which is that iran is "developing ICBMs" which are usually used for nuclear weapons.

where is your proof that iran has developed ICBM? could you check with your intelligence agency about this? because even the pentagon has not mentioned that iran has ICBM's.

so you as well are advocating for a discriminatory and racist immigration policy. okay then.

perhaps khamenei will go back into the dark state and/or perhaps the warmongers (israel/neo-cons) will succeed in stifling any diplomatic negotiations, but at this moment, there is room for optimism. maybe i'm being tricked by iran's new president's so-called charm, but i think he's done and has said the right things so far. so far: - he has freed many political prisoners such as human rights activists, journalists and bloggers - but mousavi and karoubi, the reformists who were put under house arrest after the previous elections are still not free - he allowed open access to social media sites such as facebook and twitter for a period of time - but then suddenly the filters were back on - still, it gives hope that something might happen - he has explicitly acknowledged the holocaust - publicly distancing himself from the assad regime for its brutal acts - he has opened the doors to direct negotiations on its nuclear program - kerry is set to meet iran's counterpart baby steps.

i'm assuming you are no longer trying to make things up about an iranian nuclear weapons program?

eh? where in the quote is your fantasy confirmed? post the quote and highlight 'where' in the quote it says that the alawites are not shiites. that's all you need to do. just quote it and show where. you don't know what you're typing. they accept muhammed to be their prophet. if you believe otherwise and have something to back it up, all you need to do is show some citations. all the major shiite groups in islam accept the alawites as shiites, but you, apparently, have more authority than they do. i realize that you have some kind of an issue when it comes to facts and will work tirelessly by typing non-stop, but i do challenge you to give some cites to prove any of your fiction. here are some links that will help with your inner challenge to accept the facts that alawites not only consider themselves as shiites but other major shiite groups do as well: Syria: Identity Crisis Musa Sadr and Alawites Syria’s Alawis and Shi‘ism Alawite leadership forms a branch of Shia Islam The Alawis of Cilicia Syria's Nusayri Side and Iran

so basically, you are advocating a racist and discriminatory immigration law.

eh? iran has long range missiles, therefore they have a nuclear weapons program? good one agent storyteller. oh and thank you for your personal opinion and not even one citation. by the way, who is going to keep israel in check with their nuclear and chemical weapons and long range missiles? yeah. no need to discuss the big fat elephant in the room.

so far there is no evidence that they have a nuclear weapons program. it's all accusations. that said, is israel going to stop it's nuclear weapons program? if not, then the west is a hypocrite for having yet another hypocritical demand.

here is an interesting talk about the huge loss of u.s. business due to the sanctions on iran. of all places, this is on fox! foxbusiness

dear michael, as someone who continuously reminds others about the rules, you've just broken it. as it's mentioned in the forum rules and guidelines: All posts must contain some aspect of an argument or attempt to stimulate discussion. Simply posting a URL to an outside source or posting statements that are only one or two sentences long will not be tolerated and the post will be deleted.