Iran Caught Red-Handed Shipping Arms to Taliban

[JerrySeinfeld]

No. But is this thread about an incessantly violent part of the world, or is it about the supposed intelligence of screen names you don't like very much?

I vote for a third option: this thread is about the absurd-on-its face claim that the Iranian government would support a faction that they have oppossed in the past (violently) just to poke a stick in the collective eye of the West. Think about it: what's in it for Iran? How does a strong Taliban benefit them? Oh I forgot: those are details. And we all know how you feel about them...

There are many possibilities as to whats in it for Iran.

First of all - Iran's islamic fundamentalist mullahs hate american and it's allies - and so does the taliban. America wasn't great fans of the USSR eaither, but wars make strange bedfellows.

Second possibility (and likely): Part of why Iran is able to thumb it's nose at the rest of the world is because there is no accountability. The forces in place in Iraq and Afghanistan, by their very definition, represent the only countries in the world willing to actually take action. The rest of the world is a worse version of the league of nations. Those forces are currently occupied. Everyone - including Ahmedinjad - knows that another front in the war on terror could stretch the forces far too thin. An extended war in Afghanistan and Iraq keeps the coalition forces busy while ahmedinejad prepares his israel nuke.

There are many other possibilities as well but those are two possibilities.

[Black Dog]

First of all - Iran's islamic fundamentalist mullahs hate american and it's allies - and so does the taliban. America wasn't great fans of the USSR eaither, but wars make strange bedfellows.

Not all fundamentalists are created equal. Iran is Shia, the Taliban Sunni. They don't like each other very much.

Second possibility (and likely): Part of why Iran is able to thumb it's nose at the rest of the world is because there is no accountability. The forces in place in Iraq and Afghanistan, by their very definition, represent the only countries in the world willing to actually take action. The rest of the world is a worse version of the league of nations. Those forces are currently occupied. Everyone - including Ahmedinjad - knows that another front in the war on terror could stretch the forces far too thin. An extended war in Afghanistan and Iraq keeps the coalition forces busy while ahmedinejad prepares his israel nuke.

That makes a bit more sense, I suppose (though it still relies a bit heavily on the Ahmedinjad=Cobra Commander narrative).

[Higgly]

Part of why Iran is able to thumb it's nose at the rest of the world is because there is no accountability.

Interesting. Accountable for what, and to whom?

[ScottSA]

Secifically, by explaining why a strong Taliban is in Iran's interests now when it was not the case six years ago. Also why Iran's support is more significant than the support the Taliban is getting from our allies in Pakistan.

I would have thought that would be glaringly...nay, startlingly...obvious to even the most obtuse and sedentary armchair general. Do you really have no answer to your own question?

[jbg]

And I suppose your definition of "extreme left-winger" is someone who:

- unconditionally supports Israel no matter how many Palestinians/Lebanese they kill

If the Frankenstinians/Molestinians/Palestinians/Lebanese stop killing Israelis the killing will stop. The '"left-wing" view should be to support the more open and progressive Israeli people and government over the bloodbath groups.

- believes in restrictions on abortion

I'm for total freedom of choice in first 3-4 months of a pregnancy;

- is opposed to same-sex marriage

Not if they think out how same sex divorces will work, and various creditor and insurance related issues. I more think that the details have not been thought through.

- denies that global warming exists

Contrast NYC annual temperatures

1. (average temperature for 1950 was 54)(link to details);
   
2. (average temperature for 1951 was 55) (link to details);
   
3. (average temperature for 2003 was 54) (link to details);
   
4. (average temperature for 2004 was 55) (link to details);
   

Q.E.D. - Looks pretty trendless to me.

- supports the war in Iraq

What was liberal or left-wing about Saddam?

- believes in aboloshing (or severely decreasing) the minimum wage

Never said I was;

- supports conservative parties, such as the Republicans or CPC

I usually vote Democratic, and have been a member of the Democratic Party since 1974.

Anything else I'm missing?

If that's extremely left-wing, then I guess Jack Layton is extremely, extremely, extremely, extremely, extremely left wing.

Draw your own conclusions. I consider Layton to be a reactionary.

[gc1765]

The '"left-wing" view should be to support the more open and progressive Israeli people and government over the bloodbath groups.

I'd say the "left-wing" view should be to not support killing by either side.

I'm for total freedom of choice in first 3-4 months of a pregnancy;

IOW, you want to restrict abortions to the first 3-4 months, as I said.

Not if they think out how same sex divorces will work, and various creditor and insurance related issues. I more think that the details have not been thought through.

How about exactly the same way as its done with heterosexual marriages?

What was liberal or left-wing about Saddam?

Nothing. What's your point? Bush isn't left-wing either, but I don't think we should invade the U.S....(and they are the ones WITH the weapons of mass destruction)

I usually vote Democratic, and have been a member of the Democratic Party since 1974.

Who did you vote for in the last presidential election? And if I remember correctly, didn't you also vote for Reagan and Bush Sr.? Which political party do you support in Canada?

[jbg]

Who did you vote for in the last presidential election? And if I remember correctly, didn't you also vote for Reagan and Bush Sr.? Which political party do you support in Canada?

Interesting you ask. I don't know enough about Canadian political parties to have a choice.

However, Bill Clinton, in 1986, started the Democratic Leadership Counsel ("DLC") in order to steer the party to a more pragmatic position. Quite simply, he believed, correctly, that candidates such as George McGovern (and later Michael Dukakis and John Kerry) were unelectable as being outside the American mainstream. The DLC members and their supporters were generally called "New Democrats", sort of like Britain's "New Labour". Thus, I suppose I would support the New Democratic Party of Canada.

I will allow that I did attend the March 2005 CPC Policy Convention, met Stock Day and was underwhelmed by him. I met many other fine people, both delegates and otherwise, there.

[Figleaf]

Secifically, by explaining why a strong Taliban is in Iran's interests now when it was not the case six years ago. Also why Iran's support is more significant than the support the Taliban is getting from our allies in Pakistan.

I would have thought that would be glaringly...nay, startlingly...obvious to even the most obtuse and sedentary armchair general. Do you really have no answer to your own question?

Seemingly you have no answer -- at least none you cared to share in preference to launching peurile slights. Why DO you post here?

Anyway, what is increasingly obvious is that there is a hawkish whispering/media stealth campaign to build Iran into the big villain of the day. The hawks responsible seem to have little sense or sensitivity to the rhymes and reasons of international realities and so their campaign continues to produce such easily puncturable miscues as Iran arming the Taliban, or drug growers in pickup truck amounting to government convoys. The only people who buy into such crap are the ignorant or those ideologically predisposed.

The funny thing is, you'd think it would be enough to paint Iran with things it is really known to do ... detentions without trial, religiously motivated repression, torture of prisoners, intervention in the internal affairs of other countries in the region, ...

Hm... maybe there would be too much irony in criticising them for those things.

[ScottSA]

Secifically, by explaining why a strong Taliban is in Iran's interests now when it was not the case six years ago. Also why Iran's support is more significant than the support the Taliban is getting from our allies in Pakistan.

I would have thought that would be glaringly...nay, startlingly...obvious to even the most obtuse and sedentary armchair general. Do you really have no answer to your own question?

Seemingly you have no answer -- at least none you cared to share in preference to launching peurile slights. Why DO you post here?

Anyway, what is increasingly obvious is that there is a hawkish whispering/media stealth campaign to build Iran into the big villain of the day. The hawks responsible seem to have little sense or sensitivity to the rhymes and reasons of international realities and so their campaign continues to produce such easily puncturable miscues as Iran arming the Taliban, or drug growers in pickup truck amounting to government convoys. The only people who buy into such crap are the ignorant or those ideologically predisposed.

The funny thing is, you'd think it would be enough to paint Iran with things it is really known to do ... detentions without trial, religiously motivated repression, torture of prisoners, intervention in the internal affairs of other countries in the region, ...

Hm... maybe there would be too much irony in criticising them for those things.

Hey sweal, at least I'm allowed to post here...you've already been banned.

Is the answer to my rhetorical question not obvious to you?

[Figleaf]

Hey sweal, at least I'm allowed to post here...you've already been banned.

[Rue]

For him, the only good Jew or Christian is a dead one.

LOL Nothing gets by you eh?

Nice theatrics, but I hope you argue better than that in court.

I will mention it again. I fight Fiigleaf tooth and nail and completely disagree withmost everything he says and even personally think he deliberately baits people who believe Israel has the right to exist, but I do not think for one second Figleaf has said anything to warrant accusing him of hatred for Jews or Christians. That is not fair.

[Rue]

First of all - Iran's islamic fundamentalist mullahs hate american and it's allies - and so does the taliban. America wasn't great fans of the USSR eaither, but wars make strange bedfellows.

Not all fundamentalists are created equal. Iran is Shia, the Taliban Sunni. They don't like each other very much.

Second possibility (and likely): Part of why Iran is able to thumb it's nose at the rest of the world is because there is no accountability. The forces in place in Iraq and Afghanistan, by their very definition, represent the only countries in the world willing to actually take action. The rest of the world is a worse version of the league of nations. Those forces are currently occupied. Everyone - including Ahmedinjad - knows that another front in the war on terror could stretch the forces far too thin. An extended war in Afghanistan and Iraq keeps the coalition forces busy while ahmedinejad prepares his israel nuke.

That makes a bit more sense, I suppose (though it still relies a bit heavily on the Ahmedinjad=Cobra Commander narrative).

I am glad Blackdog someone has pointed out that the Taliban (Sunni) and the Iranians (Shiites) are not

true allies. There are many shifting alliances of convenience in the Middle East. One can be your enemy but suddenly become a temporary ally if both of you have an even more pressing enemy. Then once that enemy goes away, you revert back to being enemies again.

Time and time again we have seen alliances between Muslim fundemantalist groups who have no love for one another but work together against a common enemy, say Russia, the US, Israel, etc.

Taliban is an extremely complex web of mujahadeen warriors who were brought together by the CIA to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. They are very orthodox Sunni Muslims and I really doubt they would treat Shiite fundamentalists who tried to come in their country and control it any differently then they would Americans, etc.

[Figleaf]

I will mention it again. I fight Fiigleaf tooth and nail and completely disagree withmost everything he says and even personally think he deliberately baits people who believe Israel has the right to exist, but I do not think for one second Figleaf has said anything to warrant accusing him of hatred for Jews or Christians. That is not fair.

Just to clarify one point ... while I don't know what the formulation that a state has a 'right' to 'exist' is supposed to mean, I do believe (and have said before) that in the present state of affairs, the people of Israel have the right to self-determination and that any conceivable way of depriving them of that, or of moving them out of the territory of Israel, would amount to crimes against humanity or human rights.

[ScottSA]

I will mention it again. I fight Fiigleaf tooth and nail and completely disagree withmost everything he says and even personally think he deliberately baits people who believe Israel has the right to exist, but I do not think for one second Figleaf has said anything to warrant accusing him of hatred for Jews or Christians. That is not fair.

Just to clarify one point ... while I don't know what the formulation that a state has a 'right' to 'exist' is supposed to mean, I do believe (and have said before) that in the present state of affairs, the people of Israel have the right to self-determination and that any conceivable way of depriving them of that, or of moving them out of the territory of Israel, would amount to crimes against humanity or human rights.

The "formulation" that a state has a right to exist is at the very core of international law as it is understood today. It's called the principle of "sovereignty", and I'm surprised that someone who bills themself as all knowing as you do doesn't know that (see article 2, the very first principle). In fact, most would argue that because of its centrality in the UN Charter, it even trumps the so-called right of self-determination that often stands as one of those many pesky contradictions in what passes for international law. How you arbitrarly elevate opposition to right of self-determination to a "crime against humanity" or "human rights," when it often stands in opposition to the right of non-interference (Canada and the Indians), just shows how little you actually understand about this topic.

[Figleaf]

I will mention it again. I fight Fiigleaf tooth and nail and completely disagree withmost everything he says and even personally think he deliberately baits people who believe Israel has the right to exist, but I do not think for one second Figleaf has said anything to warrant accusing him of hatred for Jews or Christians. That is not fair.

Just to clarify one point ... while I don't know what the formulation that a state has a 'right' to 'exist' is supposed to mean, I do believe (and have said before) that in the present state of affairs, the people of Israel have the right to self-determination and that any conceivable way of depriving them of that, or of moving them out of the territory of Israel, would amount to crimes against humanity or human rights.

The "formulation" that a state has a right to exist is at the very core of international law as it is understood today.

Perhaps as it is understood by you. I am unaware of anything that says states have free-standing 'existence' rights.

It's called the principle of "sovereignty", ...

Really? I understood sovereignty to mean a state's assertion of supreme authority within a given territory. I've understood that between states (at least at peace), sovereignty is to be respected. However, to construe that as a 'right' to 'exist' seems like a substantial mutation of the concept.

[blah blah blah] just shows how little you actually understand about this topic.

You never tire of that same threadbare whinge, do you? (No matter how absurd or misplaced.)

[sharkman]

I will mention it again. I fight Fiigleaf tooth and nail and completely disagree withmost everything he says and even personally think he deliberately baits people who believe Israel has the right to exist, but I do not think for one second Figleaf has said anything to warrant accusing him of hatred for Jews or Christians. That is not fair.

It's true, it's pretty hard to know what goes on in someone elses head for sure. (Let me preface this next remark by saying I'm not specifically referring to figleaf). But when a poster dogmatically posts anti Israel tirades, and defends the Iranian president, defending also anyone who attacks or bombs Israel, you know there are unbalanced attitudes at the least, and possibly racist attitudes under the surface. I understand jbg's frustration, and there are some here who do bait on this topic which is disappointing since the majority of us post in good faith.

[ScottSA]

I will mention it again. I fight Fiigleaf tooth and nail and completely disagree withmost everything he says and even personally think he deliberately baits people who believe Israel has the right to exist, but I do not think for one second Figleaf has said anything to warrant accusing him of hatred for Jews or Christians. That is not fair.

Just to clarify one point ... while I don't know what the formulation that a state has a 'right' to 'exist' is supposed to mean, I do believe (and have said before) that in the present state of affairs, the people of Israel have the right to self-determination and that any conceivable way of depriving them of that, or of moving them out of the territory of Israel, would amount to crimes against humanity or human rights.

The "formulation" that a state has a right to exist is at the very core of international law as it is understood today.

Perhaps as it is understood by you. I am unaware of anything that says states have free-standing 'existence' rights.

Henceforth you'll be aware:

Article 2, Principle 1: The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members. Implicit in this, the founding principle of the UN Charter, is the "free-standing" right to exist. You can argue semantics until you're blue in the face, sweal, but the spirit, the letter, and the intent of the Charter is based upon this understanding.

[Figleaf]

Article 2, Principle 1: The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members. Implicit in this, the founding principle of the UN Charter, is the "free-standing" right to exist.

That's pathetic.

Are you purporting there to quote that Article? Because it looks like you are simply refering to it and providing your own lameass interpretation of what it means. If it supports your view, why not quote it? If it doesn't support your view, what dishonest intent impells you to tender it in this manner?

Quote the actual Article, then get back to me.

[jbg]

I understand jbg's frustration, and there are some here who do bait on this topic which is disappointing since the majority of us post in good faith.

I sure try to but I'm not perfect either.