Rome, Titus, Zealots and Al Queda

[Patrick Degan]

And just when we thought the doctors had readjusted your meds...

Utter tripe. Counterintel operations don't rise to the level of an action meriting military retaliation on any rational plane of thought.

So that’s why you keep using the word “counterintel.” You want us to believe that Iran was conducting an everyday affair here. Something equivalent to, say, hiding the latest evolution of one’s missile program from the prying eyes of an enemy. But, of course, that wasn’t the case at all, and instead of launching a campaign of misinformation designed to conceal domestic activities, Iran instead sought to lead the United States into a shooting war.

No, you stupid fuck —counterintelligence includes disinformation efforts designed to derail foreign policy and always has. And for the thousandth fucking time, Iran didn't lead us anywhere.

More bullshit. A disinformation campaign is in no wise akin to an act of war no matter how much you try to redefine it as such. Particularly in this instance as this White House wasn't duped or led into anything.

Once again, your attempts to water down and re-imagine Iran’s treachery by pegging their attempt to bring this country to war alongside something like routine concealement are absolutely stunning.

Nowhere near as stunning as your attempt to redefine a counterintelligence strategy as an actual act of war and pretending that it had so much influence upon a White House hellbent on having its war from day one.

An especially obvious and pathetic STRAWMAN. Pointing out the responsibility held by the Bush White House is a citation of fact, no matter how many times you shout "Iran is the DEVIL". Sorry if fact doesn't suit you.

A citation of fact that has absolutely no relevance to the argument at hand, other than to serve as a spectacular distraction.

It is no distraction at all except to a warped mind determined to morph any action by Iranian counterintel as an act of war requiring a military response.

Semantical hairsplitting does not erase the sense of the argument you've been so desperately flogging here for the last several days, which is indeed as I've characterised it. Not a strawman, but a representation of your own position.

Worthless semantic hairsplitting like, say, attempting to argue that a misinformation campaign designed to lead one’s target into military conflict is the same as hiding a missile base or letting leak false data on troop movements?

Man of Straw. You just continue to ignore the fact that what Iran provided through Ahmad Chalabi, internationally-known liar, was exactly what the Bush White House wanted to justify its course toward war with Iraq; a course it had mapped out from day one. And no, not all disinformation efforts are the same in intent or effect, but neither are they akin to an actual attack upon the forces or citizens of another country —your idiotic equation.

And do you smack somebody with a brick because you see them standing near you and merely "assume" they "might" push you into a hole? I see threats, but I do not leap to wild conclusions on the basis of blind paranoia.

Now this, this is the utter tripe. We’re beyond assumptions, you blithering idiot.

Forgive me. I had forgotten for a moment that your brain is too tiny to grasp analogies.

Iran’s passed the point of pushing. No more “mights” or “maybes.” Now, we have a clear and present danger on our hands. There is no “next step” beyond trying to bring the United States to war through subterfuge and trying to destroy American targets with terrorists. When we pick up the brick now, it’s in self-defense.

This is utter insanity. You STILL refuse to grasp the concept of proportionality of response. SOME elements of the Iranian military support SOME terrorist groups which have hit SOME American targets in a campaign aimed mostly at another nation and you actually imagine that the only response is war.

I never made any such claim, so we'll just chart this one as another of your more pathetic lies.

Your words, shithead: “Killing Iranians for the fuckups of this White House isn't going to alter that fact.”

My words but NOT my meaning at all, liar. YOU and ONLY YOU altered that into the strawman that I was saying any bombing campaign was aimed primarily at killing Iranians. There is just no end to your dishonesty, is there?

U.S. national survival is not at stake by any action Iran is capable of, nor are they capable of pushing us out of the region by direct force.

The United States is not existentially threatened by Osama bin Laden, either. Does that mean we should not have sought to punish him for his actions against us? “National survival” is a big term that somebody like you ought not to be throwing around as a definite term.

Nice little Hasty Generalisation Fallacy there. Osama binLaden was guilty of an actual action against us and not a spoofing campaign. Try considering that before you start tossing about terms you clearly do not comprehend, like "existential threat", and start babbling about punishment like a deranged 12-year old.

That elements of the Iranian military back terrorist groups does not translate into wholesale support by the Iranian government as national policy —as indicated by their arrest and detention of Al-Qaeda operatives as enemy aliens. The only person moving goalposts around here is yourself, and it is getting quite tedious.

The government’s position is now worthless as long as they remain demonstrably impotent. Arresting a handful of al-Qaeda members while letting men like al-Zarqawi slip through their fingers and failing to put the muzzle on a significant number of active al-Qaeda sympathizers within their own ranks is far from an effective response.

Hate to tell you this, but we let Osama binLaden slip through our fingers in Afganistan and we've failed to put a muzzle on a significant number of Al-Qaeda sympathisers. Does that make our government "demonstrably impotent"? The question still remains whether or not Iran's government is facing overthrow by its own military and further whether this even has any bearing upon Iran's status as a sovereign nation, which it clearly does not.

I knew it was only a matter of time before you started chanting the September 11th Mantra. Unfortunately, since terrorism is an abstraction, it is not amenable to brute military force. Neither our war in Afganistan nor our Iraq misadventure have done anything substantive toward putting Al-Qaeda out of business and has instead multiplied the problem.

An interesting position to be sure, considering the lack of significant terrorist attacks against the mainland United States of America since September 11, 2001. Al-Qaeda is now under duress, for all the sympathy our action in Iraq has generated. An attack is now much more difficult – and much more uncertain – today than it was only two or three years ago.

Begging the Question Fallacy. The "lack of significant attacks" since September 11th may have as much to do with Al-Qaeda having shot its wad and being incapable of mounting another such effort so far from their regional base.

Israel has been trying to bomb its way to victory against terrorism for twenty years and has failed to achieve its objective. This suggests a fundamental flaw with the entire War on Terror Theory as presently promulgated. Nor was I talking of "police activity" but counterintel and covert ops which fall into the purview of intelligence and special military services.

Holding nation-states responsible for their support of terrorism does not mean allowing counter-intelligence and covert operations by limited teams of special operatives to fall by the wayside, so you can drop the strawman right now.

Since you brought up the "police activity" strawman in the first place, I've nothing to drop.

Except there is no indication that the Revolutionary Guards are dictating policy to the government, is there? Nor that there is a present danger of a wholesale mutiny of the army or military coup?

Utterly irrelevant to the fact that the Revolutionary Guards still funnel resources to al-Qaeda outside the realm of retribution. Just because Tehran won’t fall tomorrow doesn’t mean that subversive elements among it military apparatus aren’t deserving of immediate containment.

By declaring war on the country as a whole? You don't even see how ludicrous you are at this point, do you?

THAT was the nonsensical argument of yours my rebuttal addressed, in which you make the implicit and ludicrous assertion that the mere existence of a nuclear power programme in and of itself represents a threat. Concealing the original context of the argument you attempt to rebut with a strawman is one of the more obvious of dishonest debate tactics.

Of course it’s a fucking threat in the first place.

By that "logic", so is Canada's nuclear power programme.

What makes it a threat worth acting against, however, is Iran’s long history of negative action against the United States – one which extends to the present day, no less.

Um, no it doesn't, O Warped One. Iran having nasty thoughts against us and having some elements of its military supporting terrorist cels does not equate to their having committed acts of war egregious enough to warrant military retaliation, nor does it provide evidence that Iran is aiming for a bomb of its own.

No, it is leaping to unfounded conclusions based upon leaps of paranoid speculation and no reliable evidence which is the height of blind stupidity. Leads to al sorts of trouble; the late war in Iraq being one telling example.

Oh, that’s right. Because after Iran attempts to draw us into a war, we’d be over-speculating to say that they probably don’t like us.

Just beating this little Red Herring to death, aren't you? Iran didn't draw us into anything.

Fucking moron.

Yes, you certainly are.

Radicalising the entire population by an unprovoked attack upon their country will kill any impulse toward outward reform and that is what will make the difference, numbskull.

Outward reform is a lost cause at this point in time; the Tehran government isn’t having any of it, and the reform movements themselves can’t do anything about that.

Which means exactly jack and shit —the present setback of reformists is not an indicator of long-term trends in and of itself. But an American military attack will certainly swing even reform-minded Iraninans into hostility against the United States.

During the height of the Cold War, Cuba was sending armies of foreign mercenaries around the world. And Soviet counterintelligence and disinformation ops were aimed at crippling directly the effectiveness of the CIA, Defence and State Departments and thereby compromising national security at its core by neutralising intelligence gathering and wrecking effective measures to protect our own secrets and thus imperiling the very capacity to deter a Soviet attack. Actions of a far larger scale and far more serious than VEVAK writing Ahmad Chalabi's material for him.

Iran funds and supports cells of terrorists around the world. And Iranian counterintelligence and disinformation ops are aimed at leading us into crippling situations and dehabilitating pitfalls. You’ve just won the fucking argument for me, dipshit.

Only in that deranged little mind of yours, because I've pointed out situations from the past far more serious than any Iranian action which we've ever had to contend with. But by all means, nurse your delusions.

It is you who spews false points by the bucketful. Iran has not invaded its neighbours nor interfered with the open intercourse of the Persian Gulf. They have not fired missiles at our planes, such as Iraq has, nor did they attack one of our frigates in the Gulf, as Iraq did in 1987. They did not retaliate against us in the wake of our accidentally shooting down one of their passenger jets in 1987. Iran did not attempt to interfere in either our war in Afganistan nor either campaign against Iraq. They did agree to rescue downed American fliers coming within their territory during the Afganistan conflict and have arrested and detained Al-Qaeda operatives wanted by U.S. and regional authorities. They have shown far less hostility than Iraq had in fifteen years. The fact that some elements of their military support terrorist organisations shows no greater propensity toward anti-American hostility than those elements in the Pakistani military who similarly support Al-Qaeda elements. Iran is not an ally, but they are not yet the outright enemy you keep trying to inflate them into.

You’ll have to excuse me. The reason I’ve not been able to respond in the past several days involves this post. I was too busy laughing at your attempts to portray Iran as the “nice-but-not-quite-friendly” type.

I've often read that one symptom of insanity is the inability of the subject to absorb information which contradicts his own delusional beliefs, so this reaction of yours is not at all surprising. Fits your pathology to a T.

Formulating a list of the problems they did not cause, you realize, does nothing to alleviate or make up for the problems they did evidently cause. How you can call Iran’s attempt to drag the United States into a war anything less than obviously hostile is beyond me.

Because THIS IS A FUCKING RED HERRING WHICH YOU'VE DRAGGED ACROSS THIS BOARD FOR THE LAST SEVERAL DAYS. Certainly the findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee do not support any contention that Iranian disinformation was what "led us" into the late war with Iraq and the clear record of this White House demonstrates that they accepted Ahmad Chalabi's bullshit even knowing that he and his organisation were considered unreliable and had ties to Tehran because it justified their predetermined course of action. Their interests were parallel to George Bush's —the downfall of Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party.

Immaterial. Iran could have but did not mount any sort of diplomatic opposition against our actions, because they had a parallel interest in seeing the Taliban and Saddam Hussein removed. You continue to make no point of any substance.

Actually, many in Iran condemned the American action in Afghanistan, as I have pointed out.

Which means exactly dick as far as the position their government actually adopted.

Tehran has neither been shy in attempting to infiltrate their agents into Iraq.

Because Iraq was their enemy; that might have had something to do with it.

That they do not openly oppose the United States means nothing. An open declaration of overt opposition would not further their position in any way whatsoever.

Then this is yet another of your pointless points and therefore meaningless.

And your support for this assertion is... Oh yes —pulled out of your own ass as usual.

TIME Magazine, actually. The issue on prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib.

And naturally, the fact that our people were torturing and abusing these people had no contribution to furthering such an attitude among those prisoners?

They don't have to launch a general drive into Iraq, numbskull. Nor are they going to simply leave their airforce out to be destroyed at our convenience and would likely disperse forces to obviate against any Pearl Harbour-type strike on their militar capability.

Strawman. I never suggested at all that the Iranians would not attempt to defend their airspace. Whether they would be successful, however, is something else entirely.

Do you even keep track of your own arguments or do you just simply lie about your own words? YOU said:

Your assessment is faulty. First of all, the preponderance of Iran’s strength lies with its ground-based forces, the vast majority of which will be irrelevant in any air campaign. It is also doubtful that Iran would launch a general drive into Iraq as a response to American air strikes – we’d naturally have forces on stand-by to prevent this anyway.

YOU brought up the idea of the Iranians launching a general drive into Iraq, doubtful as the prospect may be. Another out-of-context quote, you lying little shit, does not a Strawman make.

They could certainly strike at our lines of supply, disrupt operations at Basra, launch a Silkworm barrage at shipping in the Gulf, and mine the sealanes.

Disrupt operations at Basra by deploying military units our air forces could quickly destroy. Launch Silkworms from launchers we would annihilate. Or mine the sealanes we already control?

Which means launching a general war and not the "limited operation" you originally were arguing for, which was the point of the Policy Watch analysis quoted in this thread several days ago.

Our own troops are spread out in-country and dependent upon long supply lines stretching from Baghdad to Basra. And Kosovo has certainly demonstrated that a campaign cannot be won entirely by airpower; in fact not at all. This doesn't even begin to touch upon the diplomatic and political effects of this little mastubatory fantasy you've spun out; which simply assumes that Iran is nothing but a big, inviting target.

No, that “mastabatory fantasy” is nothing but a lie of your manufacture.

No, I don't think so:

First of all, the preponderance of Iran’s strength lies with its ground-based forces, the vast majority of which will be irrelevant in any air campaign. It is also doubtful that Iran would launch a general drive into Iraq as a response to American air strikes – we’d naturally have forces on stand-by to prevent this anyway. Hence the major portion of our attention must be focused on the Iranian Air Force and air defense networks, the first of which is composed largely of older aircraft. Against two hundred American warplanes flying multiple and simultaneous sorties, the Iranians can actually offer up what is at best a mediocre defense that will decline substantially as time passes.

Lying about your own words, Axi, is even more pathetic than lying about my own.

Not to mention that the aim of Kosovo was not to destroy a limited number of target facilities, and so has no bearing whatsoever on this discussion.

Theoretically, the aim of any attack against Iran would be to destroy a limited number of targets, but as the Iranians aren't at all likely to simply lie back and take it, and would actually attempt to defend their homespaces, the operation bears a definite risk of expanding beyond its intended scope. The example is relevant, whether you wish to recognise it or not.

If an attack upon Iran spins out into a ground war, they have a larger army than we can bring to bear in the immediate phase of the conflict, and that is where they have the advantage.

Ground forces we would detect mobilizing and collecting long before they could do us more than token harm.

In your opinion...

The only way out of such a quagmire would be to conquer and occupy the country, and we're already stretched thin maintaining the occupation of Iraq as it is. And there won't be a Coalition of the Bribed to aid us in Iran; not even the British will assist us in such lunacy. There is no advantage to be gained in an attack upon Iran, but a lot of potential for disaster of military and political scope —particularly the latter.

There is the advantage of postponing their nuclear research and potential weaponization by several years or more.[/quote]

At the cost of a general war if the thing goes wrong. Utterly brilliant...

I've mentioned UNMOVIC and IAEA throughout the course of this particular discussion, and Cheney's public repetition of INC bullshit as fact speaks for itself as to his not verifying its accuracy with any other source of intel. So take your "concession accepted" pronouncement and shove it up your ass.

Except that you can’t prove he took INC’s statements at face value without any further input. And so your point cannot be properly sustained. Too bad.

No, Dick Cheney has already proved that for me on Meet The Press. Too bad for you.

No, that's called a jibe, moron . And Iran's disupte was with Saddam Hussein, who actually invaded their country —which sort of justified their hostiity towards Iraq. Their relations with the new government are yet to be determined. Rather, it is your automatic assumption that Iran will threaten Iraq post-Saddam is what is delusional here.

The entire Arab world sans only Syria under-wrote Iraq’s war. The Arab nations were thoroughly terrified of the Ayatollah and the power at his disposal. Hell, in 1991, we stopped short of disarming and disemboweling Saddam primarily because of Iran.

And this supports your alleged point... how, exactly? Iran wasn't the aggressor in that war, whether the rest of the Arab world, sans Syria, supported Iraq or not out of fear of the Ayatollah. Iran certainly did not have the capacity to invade and conquer the rest of the Middle East in 1980 and does not in the present time either. Furthermore, Iran has been forced to turn its attentions further inward and repair their economy. They're in no position to launch aggression against anybody in the region.

And if the relations of their new government can’t be determined by you after their sponsorship of terrorism and attempts to bring us to war, then you might want to see a doctor as soon as possible.

You really need to start taking your own advice. Iran's actions toward Israel or even toward ourselves is not an indicator as to their relations with other Arab states, which have proceeded at a smoother pace than with the United States. This remains true no matter how many times you insist upon dragging your favourite Red Herring out for us.

The Jerusalem Force was covered in the Asia Times article as well as the OCNUS analysis piece also cited. Furthermore, the article you cite says no more than has already been hashed over in this thread or in the other articles cited

First of all, this attempted rebuttle is nothing more than a pile of bullshit.

Yours, actually, but do rant on:

Comparing Iraq’s attempts to build a credible terrorist network with those of Iran is like comparing the United States Army to that of Honduras, and assuming that the later must somehow be a reliable indicator for the capability of the former merely because both fulfill the same ostensible roles in their respective nations. Saddam’s failure to actualize the power of his own clandestine operations groups has absolutely no bearing on Iran’s luck in the same endeavors.

Um, the Asia Times article didn't talk about Saddam Hussein. Neither did the OCNUS analysis piece. Nor even did your vaunted MSNBC article which merely repeated material which was covered in the AT piece. At this point, I don't think you even know what you're replying to or citing anymore.

Sadly for you, your article provides no proof that the Jerusalem Force is indeed powerless save for a silly and baseless comparison.

And far more sadly for you, that was nothing about what I was arguing, and you clearly have lost track of the thread.

and still does not speak to the point I've been arguing, which is whether or not Iran's government is facing overthrow from its own military forces or even its Revolutionary Guard. No, I'm not gong to be eating anything today. So take your GOTCHA and cram that up your ass as well.

Who said anything about overthrowing a government? Another lie on your part, hm?

An especially pathetic display of empty bluster on your part. Typical.

I’m talking about an organization that is beyond the scope of Tehran’s control or effective retaliation. Whether or not they can take direct control is immaterial to that point.

Yet another assertion for which you have little if any substantive support, and in no way advances your attempted argument challenging Iran's actual status as a sovereign nation.

And in case you want to keep crying about Pakistan, let me reiterate: they already have the bomb we want to keep Tehran from acquiring, thus placing Iran, too, outside restraint.

Nobody's "crying" about Pakistan, asshole. For all your sophistries, Iran is far more stable and under self-restraint than Pakistan, our nominal ally, and the evidence to date does not present a credible case for military action against Iran.

Since the entire previous posting was addressing the issue at hand, we'll just put this down as yet another of your strawmen.

You’re the one who’s spent the better part of five pages masturbating to random accusations of George Bush.

Insane babble.

That is not FACT, that is OPINION. The two terms are not interchangeable despite your ongoing effort to make them so. Nor has there been any attempt to argue for an Iranian atomic energy programme taking place with no monitoring from the IAEA. You've been asked repeatedly to present evidence that the Iranians are in fact aiming for a bomb and you continue to put forth opinion and wild speculation in its place. I can only assume you are too stupid to understand what the definition of the world "evidence" actually is.

Are you missing the point intentionally, or were you just dropped on your head as a kid?

A question you should be asking yourself, assuming you have that degree of self-awareness.

The step from civilian to military use of atomic energy is relatively small.

Since the same thing can be said of any civilian nuclear programme in any nation, this is a meaningless argument and still provides no evidence that Iran is in fact conducting a clandestine bomb effort.

If left unchallenged, Iran will have more than sufficient time and capability to produce atomic weapons once the IAEA is finished conducting searches we already know Iran has attempted to block.

Which is why the IAEA are not about to stop their searches, nor are they going to simply look away once any such searches are done. IAEA monitoring of nuclear power programmes is in the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

This not withstanding their already horrendous record when it comes to Iran’s relationship with both terrorists and the United States.

You mean... the "relationship with terrorists" which is every bit as bad as that of our nominal ally Pakistan? Or a poisoned relationship with the United States which came upon the wake of our support for a dictatorship and twenty years of hostility expressed against them? It's a two-way street, Axi. But beyond that, I still don't see you presenting concrete, testable evidence of a clandestine Iranian bomb effort to back your joke of an argument.

What others? What consequences? What "precedent"? Try actually citing something instead of making blind assertions.

The Chinese faced a huge uproar from the United States after their spies were found here. They nearly lost important trade agreements.

Wachington made no effort whatsoever to undo trade agreements which we depend upon every bit as much as the Chinese do, and we certainly didn't contemplate military retaliation as a response. Not then, when we found their spies in our nuclear weapons programme or when they shot down our spy plane either. So we'll just put this down as yet another of your Red Herrings.

In the end, all you've done is take a three-day break from spewing the same bullshit you've polluted four pages of this thread with already to give us more of the same. It would have been nice if you could have at least tried to come up with more original bullshit. A pity...

[Patrick Degan]

This is going to sound an awful lot like an Appeal to Motive Fallacy.

Let me guess, Axi; you spotted the two new posts put up by rational people and just had to preempt the possibility of an intelligent discussion breaking out on this thread again, didn't you?

[Axis Kast]

No, you stupid fuck —counterintelligence includes disinformation efforts designed to derail foreign policy and always has. And for the thousandth fucking time, Iran didn't lead us anywhere.

Iran attempted to do more than merely derail or inconvenience us, you blind moron. They attempted to bring us to war. This is indicative of a hostile attitude, and militates strongly against our giving them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the development of nuclear resources. Certainly it makes those who believe there can yet be a “middle road” with Iran appear thoroughly deluded, yourself included.

Nowhere near as stunning as your attempt to redefine a counterintelligence strategy as an actual act of war and pretending that it had so much influence upon a White House hellbent on having its war from day one.

Whether the White House was or was not influenced has nothing to do with the matter! We are talking about what Iran’s actions mean in and of themselves, not what implications should follow regarding the Central Intelligence Agency, or any other arm of U.S. intelligence-gathering.

It is no distraction at all except to a warped mind determined to morph any action by Iranian counterintel as an act of war requiring a military response.

Iran can’t get much more overt per its intentions than by firing a missile at the closest carrier battle group. At this point, they’ve certainly done everything else – including using proxies to commit physical violence against Americans and American interests in the form of international terrorists.

It is no distraction at all except to a warped mind determined to morph any action by Iranian counterintel as an act of war requiring a military response.

Complete and utter strawman. This is not “any action by Iranian counterintel.” This is a clear and obvious attempt to bring the United States to war. Iran’s ultimate intention was that the United States mire itself in Iraq.

Man of Straw. You just continue to ignore the fact that what Iran provided through Ahmad Chalabi, internationally-known liar, was exactly what the Bush White House wanted to justify its course toward war with Iraq; a course it had mapped out from day one. And no, not all disinformation efforts are the same in intent or effect, but neither are they akin to an actual attack upon the forces or citizens of another country —your idiotic equation.

They are absolutely akin to an actual attack when their objective is to inflict severe harm on the national security of the United States of America. Combined with Iran’s lengthy history of support for terrorists across the globe and its current inability to police its own borders and manage its own military resources, there is an obvious threat to America.

This is utter insanity. You STILL refuse to grasp the concept of proportionality of response. SOME elements of the Iranian military support SOME terrorist groups which have hit SOME American targets in a campaign aimed mostly at another nation and you actually imagine that the only response is war.

No. Significant elements of Iran’s premier military arm support al-Qaeda, a terrorist group responsible for September 11th, and are beyond apprehension by Iranian authorities acting on behalf of Tehran. In addition we have this latest attempt to draw America into war.

My words but NOT my meaning at all, liar. YOU and ONLY YOU altered that into the strawman that I was saying any bombing campaign was aimed primarily at killing Iranians. There is just no end to your dishonesty, is there?

If it wasn’t emotive bullshit, you wouldn’t have left it at that. But it was, and so you did. The only liar here is you.

Nice little Hasty Generalisation Fallacy there. Osama binLaden was guilty of an actual action against us and not a spoofing campaign. Try considering that before you start tossing about terms you clearly do not comprehend, like "existential threat", and start babbling about punishment like a deranged 12-year old.

Iran is also guilty of action against us, moron. It’s called the Jerusalem Force. It’s called using Ahmed Chalabi. Not to mention that this in and of itself is a shift in goalposts on your part. Iran is every bit as much as threat as Osama bin Laden, and is more than capable of striking American targets. Once again, however, you wish only to focus on conventional military power, rather than recognize that threats can emerge from beyond the beaten path.

Hate to tell you this, but we let Osama binLaden slip through our fingers in Afganistan and we've failed to put a muzzle on a significant number of Al-Qaeda sympathisers. Does that make our government "demonstrably impotent"?

According to the Realist definition, Iran is not fully sovereign because it could not contain internal insubordination by an arm of its own government. Osama bin Laden is not a resident of the United States, and his supporters are not fully beyond our retribution.

The question still remains whether or not Iran's government is facing overthrow by its own military and further whether this even has any bearing upon Iran's status as a sovereign nation, which it clearly does not.

Utter tripe. The Jerusalem Force is not a threat because it isn’t in Tehran? I suppose you think that al-Qaeda isn’t a threat because it’s no longer in Kabul? But wait! It never was! Idiot. Terrorists don’t need direct control of a government to create a problem and defy a nation’s power.

Begging the Question Fallacy. The "lack of significant attacks" since September 11th may have as much to do with Al-Qaeda having shot its wad and being incapable of mounting another such effort so far from their regional base.

And al-Qaeda hasn’t recovered because it’s on the run, you fucking moron. The War on Terror has produced obvious results in that area.

Since you brought up the "police activity" strawman in the first place, I've nothing to drop.

Not at all. Focusing exclusively on “police activity” is stupid and ineffective in the long term. That does not mean that police activity has no place in effective counter-terrorism, fucker.

By declaring war on the country as a whole? You don't even see how ludicrous you are at this point, do you?

Iran is responsible for what goes on in its territory. Or do you disagree? Not that it’s even tried to curb these problems.

By that "logic", so is Canada's nuclear power programme.

Red herring. Canada isn’t a demonstrably hostile nation.

Um, no it doesn't, O Warped One. Iran having nasty thoughts against us and having some elements of its military supporting terrorist cels does not equate to their having committed acts of war egregious enough to warrant military retaliation, nor does it provide evidence that Iran is aiming for a bomb of its own.

I know you’re a pathological liar, but Iran’s dossier contains far more than “nasty thoughts.” Surely you know this.

As for its military, Iran is responsible for elements of its own armed forces. It must be held accountable for their undertakings. If it cannot stop them, then others will do it to ensure their own security. If Iranians suffer, that cannot be helped.

As for the bomb, it’s past being a “good sport” about every other nation and their fucking uncle having nuclear programs. If they’re anti-American and have taken action to evince it, that’s enough to worry about shutting them down.

Just beating this little Red Herring to death, aren't you? Iran didn't draw us into anything.

And if all the Japanese bombs missed on Pearl Harbor, we wouldn’t have gone to war? Iran tried to do something obviously hostile. They’ll clearly continue again if not punished.

Which means exactly jack and shit —the present setback of reformists is not an indicator of long-term trends in and of itself. But an American military attack will certainly swing even reform-minded Iraninans into hostility against the United States.

“Present setback?” We’re talking decades; an effective reform movement doesn’t yet exist.

Only in that deranged little mind of yours, because I've pointed out situations from the past far more serious than any Iranian action which we've ever had to contend with. But by all means, nurse your delusions.

What? The Cuban actions to which we responded militarily, or the Soviet actions to which we would have responded military if capable of doing so without inviting nuclear reprisal? We invaded Afghanistan for failing to curb terrorists. Why not Iran?

Because THIS IS A FUCKING RED HERRING WHICH YOU'VE DRAGGED ACROSS THIS BOARD FOR THE LAST SEVERAL DAYS. Certainly the findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee do not support any contention that Iranian disinformation was what "led us" into the late war with Iraq and the clear record of this White House demonstrates that they accepted Ahmad Chalabi's bullshit even knowing that he and his organisation were considered unreliable and had ties to Tehran because it justified their predetermined course of action. Their interests were parallel to George Bush's —the downfall of Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party.

Tell me, do you consider theft a crime? How about dishonesty in matters legal or financial? Or is it your opinion that only physical violence mandates a response?

Iran attempted to provide information to the United States that they believed would help ensure we went to war with another nation. That is an OPENLY HOSTILE ACTION. We now know their intentions as per the United States. This isn’t a friendly or even neutral nation. It’s an open ENEMY.

Which means exactly dick as far as the position their government actually adopted.

Perhaps because there was no other public option possible without incurring our wrath?

Because Iraq was their enemy; that might have had something to do with it.

Just because somebody has an excuse for hitting you or scamming you doesn’t mean you should accept it.

Then this is yet another of your pointless points and therefore meaningless.

No, it doesn’t at all, since they are obviously taking overt action to challenge the United States when it suits them best. We call it state-sponsored terrorism and intelligence action.

And naturally, the fact that our people were torturing and abusing these people had no contribution to furthering such an attitude among those prisoners?

The source of the attitude doesn’t matter. It’s now fact. Don’t stray from the issue at hand. Leaving the Middle East and letting well alone will no longer ensure our security. Not that it ever would have once we arrived and began generating an interest in their oil.

Do you even keep track of your own arguments or do you just simply lie about your own words? YOU said

What the fuck?!?!

Stating the FACT that a majority of Iran’s forces are ground-based is not a rejection of the existence of an air force.

What the fuck are you trying to get at? That my opinion that a counter-attack on their part would be unsuccessful was actually, somehow, in a parallel fucking universe, a statement that a counter-attack would never come?

Which means launching a general war and not the "limited operation" you originally were arguing for, which was the point of the Policy Watch analysis quoted in this thread several days ago.

In the case of most of what you have suggested, it means responding to a handful of retaliatory strikes using air power and limited sea power. In the worst case scenario – and one of the most unlikely –, it means blunting an Iranian strike with American and British forces – some of which were put on standby to take action during the British sailor issue.

Lying about your own words, Axi, is even more pathetic than lying about my own.

You have yet to tell me what I lied about, so this is little more than a random venture into the unknown and nonsensical for you.

Theoretically, the aim of any attack against Iran would be to destroy a limited number of targets, but as the Iranians aren't at all likely to simply lie back and take it, and would actually attempt to defend their homespaces, the operation bears a definite risk of expanding beyond its intended scope. The example is relevant, whether you wish to recognise it or not.

Entirely an air campaign, not a general war. But you keep wanking.

At the cost of a general war if the thing goes wrong. Utterly brilliant...

The chances of which are miniscule.

No, Dick Cheney has already proved that for me on Meet The Press. Too bad for you.

Concession accepted, asshat. If you can’t quote it, then don’t say it.

And this supports your alleged point... how, exactly? Iran wasn't the aggressor in that war, whether the rest of the Arab world, sans Syria, supported Iraq or not out of fear of the Ayatollah. Iran certainly did not have the capacity to invade and conquer the rest of the Middle East in 1980 and does not in the present time either. Furthermore, Iran has been forced to turn its attentions further inward and repair their economy. They're in no position to launch aggression against anybody in the region.

The people of Kuwait, who shelled out over $1 billion in loans to prevent an Iranian victory, would disagree with you. Had they succeeded in conquering portions of Iraq and spreading their terrorists and agents as intended, the Middle East would be a very different place today. But once again, all you care for are the tanks and airplanes – nothing else matters in your small-minded calculus.

Not to mention that Iran’s capability to occupy territories it strikes has no bearing on its ability to hit them using terrorists, intelligence assets, or guided missiles. And as for aggression, it’s already too late. Their agents have been in Iraq, and their money has supported terrorism for several decades.

You really need to start taking your own advice. Iran's actions toward Israel or even toward ourselves is not an indicator as to their relations with other Arab states, which have proceeded at a smoother pace than with the United States. This remains true no matter how many times you insist upon dragging your favourite Red Herring out for us.

Of course. THAT’S why Iraqis hate them and Kuwaitis fear them. Because they have SMOOTH RELATIONS. MORON.

Um, the Asia Times article didn't talk about Saddam Hussein. Neither did the OCNUS analysis piece. Nor even did your vaunted MSNBC article which merely repeated material which was covered in the AT piece. At this point, I don't think you even know what you're replying to or citing anymore.

FUCKING LIAR. YOUR OWN FUCKING WORDS.

Although for some European intelligence sources the Jerusalem force is "a state within a state, able to offer protection to al-Qaeda", there's great skepticism towards its supposed, effective internationalist role. "Saddam Hussein also had a Jerusalem Liberation Army. It proved to be invisible, just a propaganda coup," adds another European counter-terrorist operative.

And far more sadly for you, that was nothing about what I was arguing, and you clearly have lost track of the thread.

Why don’t you read your own previous post again, and then get back to me once you’ve taken all of your medicine and had a visit to the fucking eye doctor?

Yet another assertion for which you have little if any substantive support, and in no way advances your attempted argument challenging Iran's actual status as a sovereign nation.

Except for the fact that Realists don’t recognize a country as fully sovereign if it cannot so much as actualize control over elements of its own military, to whom it devotes resources. Tehran can no longer reliable control what goes on within its own territory. It cannot respond to or punish those aberrations, either.

Nobody's "crying" about Pakistan, asshole. For all your sophistries, Iran is far more stable and under self-restraint than Pakistan, our nominal ally, and the evidence to date does not present a credible case for military action against Iran.

Under whose attentions? Yours? The man who claims Iran has only the best for us?

And Iran is far from being as cooperative as the Pakistanis.

Since the same thing can be said of any civilian nuclear programme in any nation, this is a meaningless argument and still provides no evidence that Iran is in fact conducting a clandestine bomb effort.

That’s why it’s a generality, shit-for-brains. The problem lies that in Iran’s case, this generality comes with a ton of exceptional baggage. Like their hostility for the United States of America.

Which is why the IAEA are not about to stop their searches, nor are they going to simply look away once any such searches are done. IAEA monitoring of nuclear power programmes is in the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Yes, a handful of inspectors solves everything.

You mean... the "relationship with terrorists" which is every bit as bad as that of our nominal ally Pakistan?

Pakistan is beyond reproach. We are now forced to compromise. The reason we would strike Iran is to stop it from getting that far. And once again, you win the argument for me.

Or a poisoned relationship with the United States which came upon the wake of our support for a dictatorship and twenty years of hostility expressed against them? It's a two-way street, Axi. But beyond that, I still don't see you presenting concrete, testable evidence of a clandestine Iranian bomb effort to back your joke of an argument.

Who says we need to respect traffic? We try, but when that fails, our options don’t exactly end, moron. Just because Iranians have reasons to dislike us doesn’t mean the President should let them strike or threaten us.

If everybody you ever hit came back to do the same to you, you’re telling me you’d just fucking sit there? What if India nuked Britain for its colonial legacy?

Wachington made no effort whatsoever to undo trade agreements which we depend upon every bit as much as the Chinese do, and we certainly didn't contemplate military retaliation as a response. Not then, when we found their spies in our nuclear weapons programme or when they shot down our spy plane either. So we'll just put this down as yet another of your Red Herrings.

Because it couldn’t, moron. But we certainly rattled sabers as much as fucking possible. In Iran, our options are thankfully more potent.

[Patrick Degan]

No, you stupid fuck —counterintelligence includes disinformation efforts designed to derail foreign policy and always has. And for the thousandth fucking time, Iran didn't lead us anywhere.

Iran attempted to do more than merely derail or inconvenience us, you blind moron. They attempted to bring us to war. This is indicative of a hostile attitude, and militates strongly against our giving them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the development of nuclear resources. Certainly it makes those who believe there can yet be a “middle road” with Iran appear thoroughly deluded, yourself included.

No, all they attempted to do was make Saddam Hussein look bad. They did not pass along bogus information indicating that they represented an imminent threat, or that they were planning an immediate attack on U.S. forces, or anything beyond the lies which suited this White House. The rest was in Bush's hands, all the fucking way.

The only person deluded here is yourself. Diplomacy occurs with less-than-honest and even unfriendly nations all the time, because it holds better advantage than war. Your moronic fantasies where we deal only with those who are completely honest or friendly with us don't fit into any real world.

Nowhere near as stunning as your attempt to redefine a counterintelligence strategy as an actual act of war and pretending that it had so much influence upon a White House hellbent on having its war from day one.

Whether the White House was or was not influenced has nothing to do with the matter! We are talking about what Iran’s actions mean in and of themselves, not what implications should follow regarding the Central Intelligence Agency, or any other arm of U.S. intelligence-gathering.

No, what we're doing is hashing over your bullshit endlessly and it is getting quite tiresome. Iran's actions meant nothing more than an effort to bolster Chalabi's credibility. That you are so fucking stupid that you can equate this with an act of war is what has made this idiotic argument spin on for far longer than it ever had to.

It is no distraction at all except to a warped mind determined to morph any action by Iranian counterintel as an act of war requiring a military response.

Iran can’t get much more overt per its intentions than by firing a missile at the closest carrier battle group.

Except they didn't, and your insane hyperbole doesn't make the equation no matter how much you dearly believe it does.

At this point, they’ve certainly done everything else – including using proxies to commit physical violence against Americans and American interests in the form of international terrorists.

The terrorist groups may get support from elements of the Revolutionary Guards, but they do not coordinate their operations or pick their targets.
And before you make the inevitable moronic knee-jerk comeback, we certainly faced proxy-armies of other powers in the past, presenting a far larger threat to U.S. forces than the odd bombing attack or two, and did not go to war with said powers over the fact. Proportionate response.

It is no distraction at all except to a warped mind determined to morph any action by Iranian counterintel as an act of war requiring a military response.

Complete and utter strawman. This is not “any action by Iranian counterintel.” This is a clear and obvious attempt to bring the United States to war. Iran’s ultimate intention was that the United States mire itself in Iraq.

No, their ultimate intention was to make Ahmad Chalabi look credible and to put the screws to Saddam Hussein. The decision to go to war —which was not imperative and not even made to look imperative by anything written for Chalabi by VEVAK— was entirely our own and no fault of the Iranians no matter how many times you say otherwise.

Man of Straw. You just continue to ignore the fact that what Iran provided through Ahmad Chalabi, internationally-known liar, was exactly what the Bush White House wanted to justify its course toward war with Iraq; a course it had mapped out from day one. And no, not all disinformation efforts are the same in intent or effect, but neither are they akin to an actual attack upon the forces or citizens of another country —your idiotic equation.

They are absolutely akin to an actual attack when their objective is to inflict severe harm on the national security of the United States of America. Combined with Iran’s lengthy history of support for terrorists across the globe and its current inability to police its own borders and manage its own military resources, there is an obvious threat to America.

No, asswipe —an act of war is a tangible ACTION, such as an actual military attack. A disinformation campaign doesn't rise to that definition, but we've already established that you're too fucking thick to comprehend the distinction between an ACTION and a spoofing op. The rest of your babble makes the case against Iran no stronger than a case against Pakistan.

This is utter insanity. You STILL refuse to grasp the concept of proportionality of response. SOME elements of the Iranian military support SOME terrorist groups which have hit SOME American targets in a campaign aimed mostly at another nation and you actually imagine that the only response is war.

No. Significant elements of Iran’s premier military arm support al-Qaeda, a terrorist group responsible for September 11th, and are beyond apprehension by Iranian authorities acting on behalf of Tehran.

No, some elements of the Revolutionary Guard back the Qoods Force —which is not Al-Qaeda. The Qoods Force has its own alliance with Al-Qaeda. But the government arrested and detained a dozen Al-Qaeda lieutenants including Saed binLaden and Ayman al-Zawahiri as reported in the Christian Science Monitor report quoted earlier in this thread.

In addition we have this latest attempt to draw America into war.

An attempt which exists solely in your imagination. The reality of events says otherwise.

My words but NOT my meaning at all, liar. YOU and ONLY YOU altered that into the strawman that I was saying any bombing campaign was aimed primarily at killing Iranians. There is just no end to your dishonesty, is there?

If it wasn’t emotive bullshit, you wouldn’t have left it at that. But it was, and so you did. The only liar here is you.

Lie. It is YOU who is keeping this alive and spinning it into perhaps your moldiest strawman to date.

Nice little Hasty Generalisation Fallacy there. Osama binLaden was guilty of an actual action against us and not a spoofing campaign. Try considering that before you start tossing about terms you clearly do not comprehend, like "existential threat", and start babbling about punishment like a deranged 12-year old.

Iran is also guilty of action against us, moron. It’s called the Jerusalem Force. It’s called using Ahmed Chalabi. Not to mention that this in and of itself is a shift in goalposts on your part. Iran is every bit as much as threat as Osama bin Laden, and is more than capable of striking American targets. Once again, however, you wish only to focus on conventional military power, rather than recognize that threats can emerge from beyond the beaten path.

You'll pardon me for laughing, I trust.

Hate to tell you this, but we let Osama binLaden slip through our fingers in Afganistan and we've failed to put a muzzle on a significant number of Al-Qaeda sympathisers. Does that make our government "demonstrably impotent"?

According to the Realist definition, Iran is not fully sovereign because it could not contain internal insubordination by an arm of its own government. Osama bin Laden is not a resident of the United States, and his supporters are not fully beyond our retribution.

No, according to the UN definition (which is the only one that counts), Iran's sovereignty exists by definition of its status as an independent state not under foreign control. This exists regardless of the stability of its government, and that government is far more stable than Pakistan's at present. There is no codicil of international law which strips that sovereignty by fiat and permits outside intervention or conquest. Any such argument to the contrary is pure sophistry and nothing more.

The question still remains whether or not Iran's government is facing overthrow by its own military and further whether this even has any bearing upon Iran's status as a sovereign nation, which it clearly does not.

Utter tripe.

Another perfect description of your arguments.

The Jerusalem Force is not a threat because it isn’t in Tehran? I suppose you think that al-Qaeda isn’t a threat because it’s no longer in Kabul? But wait! It never was! Idiot. Terrorists don’t need direct control of a government to create a problem and defy a nation’s power.

Sifting through this babble of yours, we still end up with an equation which has no validity. Afganistan was in no way similar to Iran, and Iran's government, despite the actions of rogue elements to the contrary, has no even remotely similar linkage with Al-Qaeda as existed between that organisation and the Taliban. The Jerusalem Force is a threat best dealt with where it exists and at the level it exists, and does not require a general war which would be counterproductive in terms of overall Mid East policy.

Begging the Question Fallacy. The "lack of significant attacks" since September 11th may have as much to do with Al-Qaeda having shot its wad and being incapable of mounting another such effort so far from their regional base.

And al-Qaeda hasn’t recovered because it’s on the run, you fucking moron. The War on Terror has produced obvious results in that area.

Al-Qaeda is regenerating, and spinter cels are forming. Terrorism cannot be defeated the same way as defeating an organised government. Again, you assume the premise of the argument as its proof.

Since you brought up the "police activity" strawman in the first place, I've nothing to drop.

Not at all. Focusing exclusively on “police activity” is stupid and ineffective in the long term. That does not mean that police activity has no place in effective counter-terrorism, fucker.

Which was never part of my argument either and therefore is yet another of your moronically obvious strawmen. I see I'll just have to reiterate the quote in question:

FACT —terrorism is a weapon of the weak, and is defeatable through counterintelligence and covert operations. It is not a threat which requires a general war as the sole option and certainly not one which can imperil the existence of the United States.

To which YOU offered the following strawman:

And when terrorism is backed by nation-states, those nation-states must be held accountable, or the ability of terrorists to defy the means and reach of police activities is too great.

You really imagine you can bury your bullshit and it will stay buried?

By declaring war on the country as a whole? You don't even see how ludicrous you are at this point, do you?

Iran is responsible for what goes on in its territory. Or do you disagree? Not that it’s even tried to curb these problems.

But according to your "nullification of sovereignty" sophistries, the Iranian government cannot be held responsible for what goes on in their territory because they supposedly do not control everything occuring therein. Now you're arguing that the same government must be held responsible for every action. Your positions shift with the breeze. They also represent a continuing double-standard since you do not apply the same logic toward Pakistan, which is facing far worse problems along these lines both in terms of rogue terrorist support and the stability of its government.

By that "logic", so is Canada's nuclear power programme.

Red herring. Canada isn’t a demonstrably hostile nation.

And the mere existence of a nuclear power programme is not in and of itself a demonstrably hostile act or threat-source; an argument you are attempting to perpetuate. Not my Red Herring but definitely your Strawman yet again.

Um, no it doesn't, O Warped One. Iran having nasty thoughts against us and having some elements of its military supporting terrorist cels does not equate to their having committed acts of war egregious enough to warrant military retaliation, nor does it provide evidence that Iran is aiming for a bomb of its own.

I know you’re a pathological liar

Sigh... Yet another example of Projection.

but Iran’s dossier contains far more than “nasty thoughts.” Surely you know this.

"Nasty thoughts" was an expression, shitwit.

As for its military, Iran is responsible for elements of its own armed forces. It must be held accountable for their undertakings. If it cannot stop them, then others will do it to ensure their own security. If Iranians suffer, that cannot be helped.

What breathtaking arrogance! It just beggars description. If elements of the Revolutionary Guards are operating outside the fold of government sanction, that government cannot be held accountable to the level of war. Since no action undertaken by any of those elements has amounted to nothing beyond random violence, the scale of those acts do not amount to a wholesale case for justifying anything as strong as a large-scale military response disproportionate to the initial acts. Killing Iranian civilians in a disproportionate action will be an act of war of a far more solid definition than what you've desperately tried to float in this thread.

As for the bomb, it’s past being a “good sport” about every other nation and their fucking uncle having nuclear programs. If they’re anti-American and have taken action to evince it, that’s enough to worry about shutting them down.

Um, no shitwit —the time to worry about shutting them down is when actual evidence for a bomb project is brought forth, not because we "think" they "may" make a bomb. Evidence —not wild, blind paranoia.

Just beating this little Red Herring to death, aren't you? Iran didn't draw us into anything.

And if all the Japanese bombs missed on Pearl Harbor, we wouldn’t have gone to war? Iran tried to do something obviously hostile. They’ll clearly continue again if not punished.

Why does it not surprise me that you've revived the Pearl Harbour Red Herring? Evidently you haven't filled your embarassment quota on that one as yet. And Iran did not do something hostile, they did something which is SOP in the counterintelligence game and which has never been interpreted as anything requiring military retaliation in response by anyone rational.

Which means exactly jack and shit —the present setback of reformists is not an indicator of long-term trends in and of itself. But an American military attack will certainly swing even reform-minded Iraninans into hostility against the United States.

“Present setback?” We’re talking decades; an effective reform movement doesn’t yet exist.

The same conditions obtain in the Peoples' Republic of China but we deal with them nevertheless.

Only in that deranged little mind of yours, because I've pointed out situations from the past far more serious than any Iranian action which we've ever had to contend with. But by all means, nurse your delusions.

What? The Cuban actions to which we responded militarily, or the Soviet actions to which we would have responded military if capable of doing so without inviting nuclear reprisal? We invaded Afghanistan for failing to curb terrorists. Why not Iran?

We never responded militarily to Cuba sending armies of mercenaries around the world in the late 70s/early 80s. If you're thinking of the Missile Crisis, you may notice that we didn't take the final step toward actual war but let diplomacy settle the problem. And nobody would have even considered a military response to Soviet disinfo and counterintel efforts even if they didn't have a nuclear deterrent sufficent to inflict massive reprisal on us. We invaded Afganistan because the people responsible for an action which killed 3000 Americans were located there. Iran has never sponsored any such action approaching such a scale of destruction and death, nor show any signs of risking American wrath by doing so.

Because THIS IS A FUCKING RED HERRING WHICH YOU'VE DRAGGED ACROSS THIS BOARD FOR THE LAST SEVERAL DAYS. Certainly the findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee do not support any contention that Iranian disinformation was what "led us" into the late war with Iraq and the clear record of this White House demonstrates that they accepted Ahmad Chalabi's bullshit even knowing that he and his organisation were considered unreliable and had ties to Tehran because it justified their predetermined course of action. Their interests were parallel to George Bush's —the downfall of Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party.

Tell me, do you consider theft a crime? How about dishonesty in matters legal or financial? Or is it your opinion that only physical violence mandates a response?

And this has any relevance to this discussion... how exactly?

Iran attempted to provide information to the United States that they believed would help ensure we went to war with another nation. That is an OPENLY HOSTILE ACTION. We now know their intentions as per the United States. This isn’t a friendly or even neutral nation. It’s an open ENEMY.

No, Iran provided false information designed to make Saddam Hussein look bad and Ahmad Chalabi look good. That is not an act of war, numbskull. Nor was anything fed to us by Chalabi and the INC of any significant influence toward the decisions leading up to the war, as the findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee are revealing. Iran did not engage in a military attack against us, and it was not their disinfo but this White House's decision-making which led us into the war with Iraq.

Which means exactly dick as far as the position their government actually adopted.

Perhaps because there was no other public option possible without incurring our wrath?

Which is immaterial to the issue at hand.

Just because somebody has an excuse for hitting you or scamming you doesn’t mean you should accept it.

Nor does it mean that when somebody scams you, the appropriate response is to kill him, burn everybody alive in his house, and hunt down and kill all his friends and family in the bargain.

No, it doesn’t at all, since they are obviously taking overt action to challenge the United States when it suits them best. We call it state-sponsored terrorism and intelligence action.

No, that is covert action and counterintelligence; not a direct challenge to our position in the region which they are not capable of making. And as they consider us a threat to their national security, their actions are from their perspective defensive.

The source of the attitude doesn’t matter. It’s now fact. Don’t stray from the issue at hand. Leaving the Middle East and letting well alone will no longer ensure our security. Not that it ever would have once we arrived and began generating an interest in their oil.

The source of the attitude has EVERYTHING to do with the matter, asshole. Actions such as our torturing prisoners in Abu Ghraib are what radicalise Muslims against us —these sentiments don't spring up in a vacuum. And not every Muslim vowing "eternal war against the Great Satan America" amounts to a threat to our national security in and of itself anymore than any group of Germans after World War II who vowed to do everything in their power to revive the Third Reich. And we've had a 70 year interest in their oil, but it is only since 1991 when we put troops in Saudi Arabia that we've had any siginificant problem with anti-American hatred and terrorism. These attitudes don't spring up in a vacuum.

What the fuck?!?!

My reaction exactly.

Stating the FACT that a majority of Iran’s forces are ground-based is not a rejection of the existence of an air force.

What the fuck are you trying to get at? That my opinion that a counter-attack on their part would be unsuccessful was actually, somehow, in a parallel fucking universe, a statement that a counter-attack would never come?

Certainly not the Strawman you're clearly trying to put up here.

In the case of most of what you have suggested, it means responding to a handful of retaliatory strikes using air power and limited sea power. In the worst case scenario – and one of the most unlikely –, it means blunting an Iranian strike with American and British forces – some of which were put on standby to take action during the British sailor issue.

I'd ask if you're insane, but any doubts along that score were erased long ago.

You have yet to tell me what I lied about, so this is little more than a random venture into the unknown and nonsensical for you.

Coming from a man who's spun whole threads which are "random ventures into the unknown and nonsensical", that's comedy. And 'twas your own words I quoted, liar:

First of all, the preponderance of Iran’s strength lies with its ground-based forces, the vast majority of which will be irrelevant in any air campaign. It is also doubtful that Iran would launch a general drive into Iraq as a response to American air strikes – we’d naturally have forces on stand-by to prevent this anyway. Hence the major portion of our attention must be focused on the Iranian Air Force and air defense networks, the first of which is composed largely of older aircraft. Against two hundred American warplanes flying multiple and simultaneous sorties, the Iranians can actually offer up what is at best a mediocre defense that will decline substantially as time passes.

THAT little fantasy about how easy the whole thing will go.

Entirely an air campaign, not a general war. But you keep wanking.

The wanking is entirely your own. The only way to ensure hitting the intended targets without resistance would be to suppress their defence, which means hitting far more than nuclear facilities. Which means the phenomenon known as mission-creep. To quote Policy Watch again:

Link

excerpt:

If the United States decided to preempt Iran's nuclear program, it could consider attacking a wider range of nuclear targets throughout the country, presumably including the Natanz centrifuge complex and, perhaps, the Arak heavy-water facility. Above-ground targets such as nuclear reactors could be attacked with cruise missiles, eliminating the challenge of securing basing rights and navigating air defenses. A wider strike would require the use of manned aircraft, however, which are much more capable of destroying buried and hardened targets. Although stealth aircraft could be used, their radar-defeating characteristics are typically supported with strikes on air defense systems. Iran's air defense system would require a substantial suppression effort, involving strikes on command centers, radar networks, and a largely unmapped web of mobile and fixed surface-to-air missile batteries. Because forward bases in the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean would probably not be made available to the United States, this larger effort would require intensive use of aircraft based on carriers, which could be vulnerable to Iranian antishipping attacks.

A U.S. preemptive strike would also have to take into consideration Iran's potential reaction (the subject of Part III of this series). The United States has security commitments to preempt Iranian retaliation against its Gulf bases, its Gulf Cooperation Council allies, and commercial shipping. That might require strikes on Iran's Shahab-3 long-range ballistic missiles, numerous mobile theater ballistic missiles, antishipping missiles, and certain Iranian naval and air units. Such commitments would draw considerably on those assets needed for strikes on nuclear targets, prolonging the length of any counterproliferation air campaign.

The bottom line is that the United States would find it difficult to limit an air operation against Iran to a small set of targets, as was done in the 1998 Desert Fox counterproliferation strike against Iraq. As a result, a preemptive strike against Iran could become a substantial operation.

It's necessary to consider all the angles, not just the ones which suit you.

The chances of which are miniscule.

—you HOPE...

Concession accepted, asshat. If you can’t quote it, then don’t say it.

Once again, I'm not responsible for your delusional fantasies:

Linky

Whopper No. 3: A month earlier, Cheney claimed they had found conclusive proof of an illicit Iraqi bioweapons program in the form of two old trailers rusting in the desert.

In a Sept. 14, 2003, interview with NBC's Tim Russert, he called them "mobile biological facilities" that can be used to produce deadly germ agents for terrorist attack.

Only, Kay said he couldn't "corroborate" that. The trailers, which came back negative for traces of warfare agents like anthrax, were more than likely used to fill hydrogen weather balloons.

In fact, Iraq may not have had any mobile bioweapons labs at all. Turns out another unreliable Iraqi defector tied to Ahmed Chalabi was the source of that prewar intelligence. The exile failed a lie detector test by the Defense Intelligence Agency and was labeled a "fabricator" before the war, yet the White House used him anyway to help build its case for invasion.

Eat it.

The people of Kuwait, who shelled out over $1 billion in loans to prevent an Iranian victory, would disagree with you. Had they succeeded in conquering portions of Iraq and spreading their terrorists and agents as intended, the Middle East would be a very different place today. But once again, all you care for are the tanks and airplanes – nothing else matters in your small-minded calculus.

No, fuckface —I care about facts; chief among which is that Iran didn't attempt to invade Iraq. That Kuwait feared Iran has no bearing upon that fact. And there were no terrorist organisations such as Al-Qaeda in existence in 1980 and what terror organisations did exist were aimed at Israel. I don't go by the calculus of paranoia.

Not to mention that Iran’s capability to occupy territories it strikes has no bearing on its ability to hit them using terrorists, intelligence assets, or guided missiles. And as for aggression, it’s already too late. Their agents have been in Iraq, and their money has supported terrorism for several decades.

Yes, their agents were aimed at their enemies in Iraq; just as we had agents aimed at our enemies. And Iran has not attacked with guided missiles against anybody, nor is expressing intent to attack other Muslim states or interfere with the Persian Gulf. Iranian money may sponsor terrorism, but so does Pakistani money and Saudi money; this is not in and of itself a sufficent cause for war.

Of course. THAT’S why Iraqis hate them and Kuwaitis fear them. Because they have SMOOTH RELATIONS. MORON.

The Iraqis hate them because of the retaliations occuring in the course of the war THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT STARTED, MORON. Kuwait's fear from the 1980s has no bearing upon what threat Iran may present in the current time towards other Muslim states. A perspective:

Linky

US-Iran Relations since 9-11: A Monologue of Civilizations

Paul Sullivan*

American perceptions of Iran (1)
September 11, 2001 is seared into the minds of many Americans as 911. If you mention this number to anyone in the US they will think of the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon attacks, and the 3,000 persons who were murdered that day. If one mentions the number 444 to many Americans, they will immediately think of the hostages from the US Embassy held by Iran for 444 days.

For many Americans the first things that come to mind when one mentions Iran are: the hostage crisis, the bombing of the marine barracks and the embassy in Lebanon in the early 1980s, support for Hezbollah and other "terrorist" groups, and mullahs in black turbans leading demonstrators yelling "Marg bar Amrika" (Death to America).

Many Americans do not have good feelings about Iran (2). The press has not helped. The Congress, with its many laws and regulations, and resolutions, has hardened certain perspectives.(3). The lobbyists have pressured the President and Capitol Hill to keep the pressure on Iran. The voices in Iran that seem to get through the most are those of the hardliners who rant against the US at almost any opportunity. Not many Americans think of the many people who signed the sympathy books in Tehran after 9-11, or that reformist leaders in Iran made statements of sympathy toward the US. Even some of the hardliners condemned the 9-11 attacks. Many in the US may also be unaware of the growing pro-Americanism amongst the youth in Iran.

Many in the US government are wary of the revolutionary aspects of the Iranian government, especially the hardliners. However, the domino theory that was once proposed did not happened. Iran attempted to export its revolution to many parts of the Islamic world. One of the few places that it took hold seems to be in the Shia community of Lebanon, especially amongst members of Hezbollah. However, even they are working within the political system of Lebanon, and understand that it is unlikely that Lebanon, a multi-religious state, could ever be an Islamic republic.
Most of the violent or revolutionary movements in the Islamic world seem to be tied to local social, economic, and political circumstances. They are also mostly Sunni movements. The Iranian Revolution may have been somewhat inspiring to some who were considering Islamic revolution in their countries. However, all of these attempts, such as those in Algeria, Egypt, the West Bank and Gaza, and in Turkey (the most feeble attempt) proved to be failures. Also, the violent attempts at regime change in Egypt and Algeria did not pick up steam until after the return of the "Arab Afghans" in 1992, after the fall of Kabul. One could say that the real driving force behind jihadist movements in North Africa came from Afghanistan and the "Great Jihad", rather than from Iran.
Regime change in Sudan may have had some small Iranian aspect to it, but the power of the change came mostly from inside from the efforts of Omar Bashir and Hassan Al-Turabi, with some emphasis from Sadeq Al-Mahdi. The development of an Islamic republic in Sudan also seems to be something of a failure economically, politically, and socially. About of Sudan's population is animist or Christian. It is hardly an easy land to turn into another Iran.

The Taliban's Afghanistan was supported mostly by Iran's rival Pakistan, and its ISI, and, in a way, Saudi Arabia. (The only countries to recognize the Taliban were Pakistan, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia. Recognition is a form of support.)

Political Islam after 1979 was mostly due to the multiple failures of nationalist movements that occurred during and after the independence of the mostly Muslim states - and not because of the influence of Iran
Saudi Arabia's countermoves against Iran in their battle to "control" the ideological development of Islam may have helped stem the tied of Iranian attempts at exporting its mostly indigenously-based revolution. Certain negative things have been produced from the misuse of Saudi funds in their attempts to spread of Wahhabism (essentially an austere version of Islam that seems to not have the violent interpretations that the salafist-jihadists like the Taliban give to it). It may end up that the combination of this misuse of funds and other activities on the part of certain "Saudi and 'wahhabist' elements" (not in the Government, but private activities) added in to the effects of the blowback from the "Great Jihad" in Afghanistan could be much worse than anything Iran has done.
Many in the US are upset about Iran's interferences in the peace process between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Hardliners in Iran have often stated that the peace process is not in their advantage, or even that it is a sham. The Karine-A incident earlier this year has highlighted for some that Iran is still very much involved in disrupting the process. Even if it is only "Iranian elements", the government of Iran is still responsible for the activities of even its most extreme members.

There are also some in Congress and elsewhere who are convinced that Iran supplies weapons to certain Palestinian and Lebanese groups on a continuing basis via Syria. There are also some in the US Government who are convinced that Iran has some troops (Pasdaran) in Lebanon. Iran has been involved with Hezbollah, a Shia group, in Lebanon for a very long time.

The US on many occasions has mentioned that Iran has interfered in its interests in many parts of the world (but seemed to have turned a blind eye to Iranian supplies to the Bosnians during the "Balkans Crisis"). The State Department of the US has often listed Iran as one of the major sources of state-sponsored terrorism. Iran has been alleged to be involved in the attack on the military barracks called Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, although once again the term used is "Iranian elements".
George Bush's State-of-the-Union speech in January 2002, wherein he mentioned Iran as part of the "axis of evil" did not come out of a vacuum. There have been many persons in successive administrations who have claimed that Iran was a source of "evil". Ronald Reagan directly said it was a "source of evil". Back then he was dealing with the bombings of a Marine barracks and an embassy in Lebanon, and a series of hijacking and hostage taking.

There is also fear and distrust of Islam on the part of some persons in authority in the US, who could be put in a "confrontationist" camp. There are some others, who would rather be "accomodationalists". They do not see Islam as a threat, but as a challenge that has certain opportunities.
If anything, the US foreign policy establishment, the US media, and many in the US public have somewhat inflexible views about Iran. The fact that "dual containment" passed so easily, and that the renewal of ILSA last summer, before 9-11, passed with a 96-2 vote in the Senate show how much enmity there is in the US government toward Iran. The Byzantine and crushing regulations and laws on the books in the US directed against Iran and Iranian citizens are other examples. Citizens of Iran are fingerprinted upon arrival in the US. This started before 9-11. They are one of a very few groups of people that need to do this in order to gain entry into the US.

There seem to be very few in the US who are willing to take the risks to try to improve relations with Iran. (4). There are very few "reformists" in the US when it comes to US-Iran relations. One notable exception may be Senator Biden. He has been rather vocal in his attempts to open doors with Iran. He even invited Iranian parliamentarians to visit Congress in 2002. It is very rare for an Iranian official to be invited to Washington.

In October of 2001, Hadi Nejad-Hosseinian, Iran's representative to the US did meet with some persons from Congress and others. Then there was the famous handshake between Colin Powell and Iran's Foreign Minister Kemal Kharazi (now former Foreign Minister). These are small things, but given the bitterness and silence of the relations between the two countries for 22+ years, these were seen by many to be signals for a possible warming due, in part to the shock of 9-11, and also due to the common interests Iran and the US might have in Afghanistan and on other issues. In many ways, it might be like a couple that went through a bitter divorce 22+ years ago, and the recently had coffee together and shook hands in public. It is better than cold silence, but hardly reason for imagining wedding bells.

The only Iranian diplomatic office in the US is their representation to the UN in New York. People employed there are closely watched. An indication of this was when a group of diplomats associated with the Iranian delegation to the UN were caught videotaping sites in New York during June 2002. They were asked to leave the US. The Iranians were warned by the US not to be involved in such activities.

There has not been an Iranian embassy in Washington since 1979. There is an Iranian interest section in another country's embassy. One can be certain that the people who work there are under close scrutiny.

The building and physical assets of the former Iranian consulates in other parts of the US have been seized by the US government. Funds associated with the Iranian diplomatic presence have been frozen since 1979. There has been no recognized US "diplomatic" presence in Iran, outside of "Irangate" or the hostage negotiations, since 1979.

The Iranian government seized all US diplomatic properties in 1979. The former US embassy in Tehran is now an anti-American museum. The US interests section in Iran is found in the Swiss Embassy. This is where many Iranians signed the condolence book after 9-11.

There have been numerous court cases in the US, the EU and in Iran regarding disputes between the two countries, mostly involving money, contracts and damages. Many of these cases have been protracted and bitter, like US-Iran relations since 1979.

Iranian perceptions of the US:
Iranians still hold the US responsible for the coup against PM Mossadegh in 1953 that reinstalled into power a shah that many of them did not like - and a shah who was brutal and, in their views, un-Islamic. There is a great deal of resentment still stewing in Iran on this issue. This history is important in Iran, but mostly for the older generation of former revolutionaries and hardliners.

Iranians also resent the sanctions imposed on them, and the strong attempts by the US to isolate them from the world. They also have a sense that the US robbed them of wealth and income, not only from the sanctions, but also by freezing Iranian assets - especially the assets of the former shah. They are astonished that the US has expanded its own laws, like ILSA and others, to Iranian soil, and that Iran has lost its sovereign immunity in the courts of the US - as exemplified in the Flato case.
Many Iranians also see plots by the US behind many of their problems, although many of the youth seem to be getting beyond that. Even so, the US Congress approved $20 million not long ago to engage in covert activities to either change the Iranian leadership, or to change the way Iran looked at the world. This was done in an extraordinarily public manner. It also fed the resentments and conspiracy theories in Iran.
The Iranian Maglis (parliament) soon after that allocated $20 million to fight these covert activities. The recent crash of a US spy drone in Iran did not help matters.

Many Iranians also resent the fact that the US successfully blocked loans and other assistance from international organizations like the World Bank and the IMF until just recently, and that the US has been trying to block Iran's membership in the WTO. They see some of the attempts by PM Khatami to bring Iran back into the international system of trade and finance as being blocked by the US. (PM Rafsanjani started the opening up process after he was elected Prime Minister. He also had a difficult time with the US. )

The Iran-Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) is an example they often present. However, ILSA has proven to be something of a paper tiger. The sanctions that it states will be imposed on non-US companies that invest more than $20 million in Iran have been rarely imposed. Its intended purpose was to help cut off outside financial and other help to Iran to redevelop its oil, gas and other industries. The underlying purpose was also to cut off funding and economic development that Iran could use to export its revolution, and to engage in terrorist activities. However, there is a part of ILSA that states that the sanctions can be waved for national security purposes. That seemed to be vague enough for Petronas, Total and others to be immune from such sanctions.

The increasingly warm relations between the EU, Russia, China, and others with Iran seem to be helping Iran go around many of the extraterritorial sanctions and laws imposed by the US. Such unilateral sanctions cannot work without some cooperation from third parties. Such cooperation seems to have been weakening over time. The recent spate of EU investments in Iran in various sectors of the Iranian economy points further to this fact.
There are some nonproliferation laws in the US as they apply to Iran. In these cases sanctions are almost always applied. This is likely because of the nature of the potential threats to the US and its interests that such investments or exports to Iran may help produce. Some Chinese companies were recently sanctioned by the US. But the US has been wary to sanction Russian companies, even though Russia is helping Iran build the nuclear power plant in Bushehr, and has recently agreed to help them build six other nuclear plants. Sometimes US relations with the countries where these firms reside trump the application of these extraterritorial laws and regulations.

The Iranians see the US as trying to interfere in Iran's relations with many other countries. Iran would like to be a regional power in Central Asia, Northwest Asia and the Gulf. They see US power slowly encircling them in, and they resent and fear it. They are angry over US efforts to block pipelines from the Central Asian states through Iran to ports and outlets in the Gulf and on to Pakistan and India and beyond. They also see the US trying to interfere in its relations with the EU (without much success), Russia, China, India, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, and the many other countries that Iran has developed diplomatic and other relations with since 1979 - and especially since the election of PM Khatami in 1997.
Nevertheless, Iran has more diplomatic posts now than it did during the time of the Shah. Its relations with the EU and other US allies seem to be growing and warming-as its relations with the US seem to get worse and worse. Containment is a cup half empty. Nevertheless, many in Iran resent US hegemony in the region, US power worldwide, and US power targeting them.

Many of the more right wing elements in Iran think of the US as a monolith of western culture, which they, in turn, consider to be immoral and anti-Islamic. Many dislike the US for its seemingly unquestioning support for Israel. This is especially so during these most trying and brutal times.
There are holdover resentments about the US support for Iraq during the miserable 8-years war, in which Iran lost hundreds of thousands of people. During the war, its economy collapse, and its cities and all-important oil industry got severely damaged. The Iranian economy and society were seared by the war.

Many Iranians also hold resentments toward the US for the downing of the Iranian airliner by the Vincennes. They were livid when they heard the commanding officer of the Vincennes was later promoted. The fact that the US apologized to Iran, and compensated the families of the victims, does not seem to be enough to assuage some of the resentments and pain associated with this tragedy.

The Iranians were fairly quiet and acquiescent during the Gulf War of 1991, when Iraq was invaded by the US. Yet it seems to many of them that the US did not reward them for their neutrality.

The Iranians also resent the US for not putting some Iranian opposition groups on the US terrorist lists. They are angry at the US for putting the "freedom fighters" (from their perspective) of Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Palestine on those lists.

They are angered by the US interference in their development of nuclear power, missile programs and defense programs to defend their country in a region that is extremely dangerous and is nuclear. India, Pakistan and Israel are all nuclear powers. Many Iranians fault the US for interfering time and time again in its defense affairs.

It is clear from the data, that Iran has had a very strong increase in defense expenditures since 1996. They have also been developing missile systems with the help of North Korea and others. The US sees these developments as a significant threat. Many Iranians see this as the right of any sovereign state to defend itself. Some Iranians also mention that Israel is a nuclear power, but the US does not sanction them. They also find it curious how the sanctions imposed on Pakistan and India were taken off once it was clear that these two countries would help the US with the war on terrorism.

More than likely the Iranians asked for a similar reaction from the US when discussions were going on about what Iran might contribute to the Afghan war. Given the complexities of the legislative environment on Iran in the US, it would take extreme measures to significantly relax the sanctions against them. Also, there are not the long-term hardened resentments against the Pakistanis of the Indians that there are against the Iranians in the US. India and Pakistan are also not considered threats to Israel, like Iran is.

Iran got very little from the US, it seems, for the modicum of help it gave in the Afghan campaign of 2001-2002.

Many Iranians are also upset at what they see as US interference in many parts of the Islamic world, a world that some in Iran perceive to be within their spheres of influence. Many of the hardliners consider the US to be a crusading power and inherently anti-Islamic. Failures of the revolution, and there are many, are often blamed on the US and Israel, especially by the hardliners. One can see that, for them, ideology and "Islamism" trump realpolitik. The reformers, as weak as they are, seem to be more progressive on this.

Many of the youth seem thoroughly fed up with the views of their leaders, and do not seem to support the overwhelming "Islamization" that imbues today's Iran. It also seems that they would also like to see more jobs, better jobs, more housing, better housing, and more freedoms, rather than see Iran spending more money on external agendas (5)..

So after all of that: what are the problems?
This brings us to an important set of points. Indeed there are reformers like PM Khatami and the great majority of the people in the Maglis. Many of these persons would like to see some improvement in Iran's relations with the US, and to see Iran leave its partial isolation imposed on them by the US. However, the levers of real power when it comes to foreign affairs are in the office of the vilayet-I-faqi, commander and chief of the armed forces, and supreme leader of the revolution, Ayatollah Khamenie. He has many times slammed the reformers for trying to improve relation with the US. He has the power to change laws, effectively impeach leaders and vet candidates for election. He has almost total control over the foreign relations of the country - even if PM Khatami has traveled to many countries and signed many agreements. The ultimate authority in Iran rests with the Supreme Leader. He has recently outlawed any public discussions about improving relations with the United States.

Both parties seem caught in the traps of past resentments and present day ideologies and prejudices. The structures of power in both countries seem to militate against any real opening up and warming of relations. On the Iranian side we have the hardliners, Ayatollah Khatamie, and the exclusionists in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Intelligence and within the ulema.

On the US side we have the very powerful lobbyists, the conservative anti-Iranians, and others who wish to stop any improvement in relations even before it starts. Most of the power in Iran resides with the hardliners who think the US is mostly anti-Islam and anti-Iranian. Most of the power in the US on this issue resides with the anti-Iran lobbyists, and a Congress that often sees Iran as a monolithic threat the US and its values. Both sides often fall into more ideological positions, rather than more pragmatic ones. Instead of focusing on the geopolitical, strategic and economics of each the arguments often fall into other categories.

Sometimes both sides fall into a simplistic reductionism about the other side. From that no progress can be made. Both Iran and the US are complex countries with many viewpoints, beliefs and opinions on issues related to US-Iranian relations. Opinions opposite to the current "political correctness" (as defined by those who have the real power on these issues) are often not given much weight in policy developments in both countries.

Since 1979, there have been some attempts by the US at improving US relations with Iran. Irangate is a notorious example that backfired. Madeline Albright's talk in 1999 in response to PM Khatami's call for a "dialogue of civilizations" in 1998 was an important speech. Her apology to Iran about 1953 was a giant step in the right direction. The cultural, educational and sports exchanges that occurred have helped to soften the huge wall of mistrust a little bit. The relaxation of the sanctions that allowed the export of medical and humanitarian goods from the US was a possible optimistic opening. The relaxation of import sanctions allowing in Iranian pistachios (but at a 370%+ tariff rate), rugs and a small number of other items was another cautious, but important, move.

Trade between the US and Iran is miniscule. The US exports about $9 million of goods and imports from Iran about $51 million. Compared to the $10+ trillion US economy and the $100+ billion Iranian economy, these numbers are barely on the economic radar screen. US investment in Iran is pretty much nonexistent. US economic relations With Iran may be one of the most centrally planned, government-controlled economic relationships in the world. US firms have been harmed. Jobs have been lost. Some are wondering what the true benefits net of costs have been of "dual containment" and its successor policies.

Unfortunately, when the US government began overtures to Iran, almost always the hardliners in Iran seemed to have shut them down. It seems that the hardliners fear an improvement in relations with the US. What they say is that talk with the US is useless, and that all the US wants to do is dominate and control Iran. Reading between the lines one might see that projecting the United States as an enemy may be the hard-liners' best way of staying in power.

The reformists on many occasions welcomed these attempts at improving relations. PM Khatami optimistically (overly it turns out) called for a "dialogue of civilizations" during a CNN interview soon after his election. He also has been traveling the world to open up new and better relations with the world. However, the hardliners like Ayatollah Khatemei (the "unelected few") hold most of the keys to power, and hold almost all of the keys to foreign policy. Furthermore, in Iran any reformer going over the "red lines" when it comes to relations with the US might be ousted from office, and possibly imprisoned.

The hardliners control the judiciary and the Ministry of Intelligence. The Guardianship Council has also gotten involved in thwarting a warming of relations by bringing some reforms to a screeching halt, and by vetting certain candidates for office who might not be sufficiently Islamic (meaning, sometimes, that they are too open to the US). The Assembly of Experts, mostly controlled by the hardliners, also has on occasion done certain things to slow down or stop any kind of detente. There are deep and simmering divisions between and amongst the reformers and hardliners on how to deal with the US.

Then again, when some persons in the US government have tried to relax the manifold, comprehensive and complex laws and regulations on Iran, the US hardliners have often stopped them. And the lobbyists have hammered them. There do not seem to be the deep and simmering divisions on Iran-US relations in the US. Most of the policy is developed by the hardliners, with considerably lobbying support. The "reformists" are often way out on the periphery. President Bush now seems to have given up (maybe) on the reformists in Iran and is now focusing on internal sources of change within Iran. The "reformists" in the US seem now, more than ever, on the outside.

There have been exceptionally and consistently hostile relations between the two countries, excepting a few rare occasions, since 1979. Diplomatic exchanges have been almost nonexistent. Official dialogues have been extremely rare. Internal debates have often been shut off in Iran, and redirected in the US.

Are there any common interests that could lead to enlightened self-interest?

Within all of these resentments, misunderstanding and hatreds there are some common interests that could lead to better relations. However, many of these common interests seem to be sacrificed to the altar of resentment, bitterness and misunderstanding.

First of all, the US and Iran had common interests in getting rid of the Taliban. It seems that Iran helped with some sharing of intelligence and by acquiescing to the US military and other activities in Afghanistan until the Taliban were ejected from power. Soon after, however, Iran became involved not in cooperation, but competition, for influence -- especially in western Afghanistan. The US has been involved in civil affairs programs. Iran has been involved in building roads. Both countries have been vying for the hearts and minds of the people of western Afghanistan. There have been reports that Iran may be trying to destabilize parts of Afghanistan in order to make US influence in the country less easily won.

The US had obvious reasons to get rid of the Taliban after 9-11. Iran had many reasons to dislike the Taliban: the massacre of Shia near Herat, the killings of Iranian diplomats and journalists, and the general anti-Shia leanings of the Taliban. Iran also has interests in weakening Al-Qaeda. Many in Al-Qaeda are anti-Shia. However, Osama Bin Laden had made some ambiguous statements on the Shia. Once he called them "the only real Muslims".

Many Al-Qaeda were arrested in Iran. This also tended to soften relations with the US a bit. However, it is still uncertain how many crossed the border and may be in Iran now, or may have used Iran as a transit spot to go elsewhere. In Washington this is a major question, and yet another reason for tensions between the two countries.

The recent turning over of 16 Al-Qaeda from Iran to Saudi Arabia has been a source of discomfort in Washington. It was further proof that some Al-Qaeda fighters were in Iran. Another view might be that this shows that Iran may be more willing to work together on the war on terrorism than some might think Now, more than ever before this question is in the forefront of those who are looking at Iran for help in the war on terrorism. Those who are looking at Iran as an implacable enemy are also carefully observing what happened.

The border between Iran and Afghanistan is notoriously porous in places, and for a few tomen smugglers and others have been let through on many occasions. Bribery can work in other media of transport in other areas in and around Iran.

Iran did agree to help out US airmen if they got into trouble and landed in Iran. Iran was supporting the Northern Alliance for many years before the US decided to use them as the vanguard to oust the Taliban. Iran also expressed sympathy for what happened in the US on 9-11. However, Iran was not entirely supportive of the US attacks on Afghanistan.

After it was clear the Taliban were out, and as the new government of Afghanistan was being developed, Iran began to show that it was worried about an ostensibly pro-US government being set up in their neighbor. Iran has been also a bit nervous about US troops and bases being set up in Uzbekistan and other areas to its north. That sense of encirclement was getting stronger.

Iran and the US could also work together on the refugee issues that Iran faces. Iran for many years has been the host for the most refugees in any country. Most of these refugees, sometimes as high as 4.5 million, have been Afghans. The stability and redevelopment of Afghanistan can also be effected by whether these refugees return, how they return, how many return, and when they return. Many have already returned since the fall of the Taliban. Some still remain.

There are many Afghans in Iran who have never lived in any place but Iran. They have set up businesses there, work there, started families there, go to school there, and more. It may be to Iran's benefit to move many of them out. There are some indications that Iran is putting pressure on many of the refugees to leave. Iran is facing very high unemployment in its own people, a stagnant economy, and some civil unrest, especially amongst the youth who are finding it hard to find jobs and housing.
The US could benefit from the return and relatively greater prosperity of these refugees. Afghanistan could redevelop better. The US could have its example of semi-democracy and redevelopment of a former "Islamic" state to show the world. Although it is very clear that such redevelopment could take decades. Both countries could benefit greatly from a stable and prosperous Afghanistan.

Iran and the US could work together on narcotics trafficking issues. Afghanistan was for many years one of the largest sources of heroin in the world. A very large proportion of these drugs often went across into Iran on their way to the EU and beyond. The Iranians have made great progress in trying to stop the drugs trafficking. They have lost many police and soldiers in this battle. The US had recognized this by taking them off a list of countries that do not do enough to stop the drugs trade.

Iran also is facing what seems to be an increase in drug use and addiction. The US has had a major drugs problem for years. Both countries and their peoples could benefit with some cooperation on this issue. Iran is in an area that is a major drugs growing, processing and transport center. The US and Iran could also work together in helping to control the growing problem of organized crime in the region, and not just in drugs.

Iran and the US could also work together on energy projects. Central Asia is slowly coming on line as the next big producer of oil and natural gas. Iran wants to pipelines to go the shorter route through its territory to the Gulf and on to India, Pakistan and beyond. The US wants the pipelines to go in the other direction. So far it has been successful in getting its way, even if the pipelines through Iran would be cheaper to build. The US does not want the transport fees going to a country that it considers part of the "axis of evil".

[Patrick Degan]

Whoops —it actually appears that Comical Axi's bullshit exceeded my buffer-limits. Part two of my reply will be forthcoming.

[Patrick Degan]

Before I respond to anything else, THIS had to be answered:

Um, the Asia Times article didn't talk about Saddam Hussein. Neither did the OCNUS analysis piece. Nor even did your vaunted MSNBC article which merely repeated material which was covered in the AT piece. At this point, I don't think you even know what you're replying to or citing anymore.

FUCKING LIAR.

Yes, you certainly are.

YOUR OWN FUCKING WORDS.

Although for some European intelligence sources the Jerusalem force is "a state within a state, able to offer protection to al-Qaeda", there's great skepticism towards its supposed, effective internationalist role. "Saddam Hussein also had a Jerusalem Liberation Army. It proved to be invisible, just a propaganda coup," adds another European counter-terrorist operative.

Excuse me, but BWAHAHAHAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! ONE mention of Saddam Hussein, in a purely historical context, out of a body of text which is not talking about Saddam Hussein at all! And you actually are mad enough to imagine that THIS "proves" me a liar! Oh, this is rich —too fucking rich for words.

Let's have a look at the Asia Times piece you so dishonestly quoted out of context, shall we:

Linky

Iran and al-Qaeda: Odd bedfellows
By Pepe Escobar

Investigators from a special anti-terrorist cell in the European Union have expressed doubts over a Washington Post report this week in which sources claimed that Saad bin Laden, 24, Osama's eldest son, is now a top al-Qaeda member and that he runs operations out of Iran.

The paper reported its sources as saying that Saad and a close circle of about two dozen of bin Laden's trusted lieutenants are "protected by an elite, radical Iranian security force loyal to the nation's clerics and beyond the control of the central government".

Asia Times Online (see Iran lines up its al-Qaeda aces of July 2) has already reported that Iran has admitted to holding a number of al-Qaeda members in its custody.

But, Asia Times Online's European intelligence sources caution, "The leaks [to the Post], when put together, convey the impression that Iran, a Shi'ite Islamic Republic, is now supporting al-Qaeda, an Islamist, Wahhabi, terrorist, transnational organization. That is simply not true."

The attempt to throw all big cats - "axis of evil" Iran, "foreign terrorists" in Iraq and al-Qaeda - into one big bag is seen by European intelligence agencies as a crude attempt on the part of the Bush administration to "refocus" the "war on terror" from former "axis of evil" member Iraq to current member Iran, and from Saddam Hussein to the ayatollahs in Tehran. This, they say, bears a strong resemblance to the non-stop campaign in early 2003 to link Saddam to al-Qaeda, even though the evidence did not support this.

Anti-terrorist European intelligence raises several points. First, there is no proven connection between al-Qaeda and the Islamic Republic's religious leadership. And Saad is not the new Osama. According to one special investigator, "Our main target now is not Osama's son, but Muhamad Ibrahim Makkawi [aka Saif al-Adil, a former colonel in the Egyptian army, born in 1960 or 1963]. He is an explosives expert and most probably the successor of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed." Khalid Shaikh, widely reputed to be the mastermind of September 11, was captured in Pakistan in March.

Saif al-Adil has extensive combat and covert operation experience: after fighting alongside the mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Soviets in the 1980s, he founded the military branch of bin Laden's deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri's Islamic Jihad, and is considered to be the top al-Qaeda military operative still at large. Saif al-Adil has for several years been in charge of terrestrial operations, security, military education, intelligence and liaison with al-Qaeda's special forces, the infamous Brigade 055. The only known photograph of Saif al-Adil is a passport photo dating from when bin Laden was still in Sudan, in the mid-1990s.

The Americans, though, are convinced that Saif al-Adil is in Iran, along with top al-Qaeda financial expert Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah and a few dozen others, all of them under the regime's custody, but still operative.

The Europeans are not so sure: they insist that al-Qaeda's imprint is mostly in the Red Sea and the Arabian Gulf regions, not in Iran. "Most al-Qaeda leaders took refuge in the Hadramut, between Yemen and Saudi Arabia, where the bin Laden family comes from. The most influential ulemas from the Hadramut tribes are Wahhabis, as well as key officials of the Saudi security forces and the religious police." says a European intelligence operative. As for the Islamic Republic's authorities, they have always vehemently denied supporting al-Qaeda - although they have not disclosed the identities of their al-Qaeda detainees.

According to the leaks to the Post, Saad bin Laden is being protected by the elite unit among the five branches of Iran's Revolutionary Guards - the Jerusalem force (al-Quds) - which completely eludes "control from the central government".

Analysts question this possibility. Such a unit could well elude President Mohammad Khatami, but certainly not the Supreme Leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to whom all security services are subordinated. And for all practical purposes, "central government" means Khamenei, not Khatami.

US intelligence is persuaded that the Jerusalem force has trained more than three dozen "foreign Islamic militant groups in paramilitary, guerrilla and terrorism" tactics, Sunni and Shi'ite alike, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Palestine. That sounds like an Israeli Mossad mish-mash - once again throwing all cats into the same bag, as the agendas of Hezbollah and Palestinian liberation groups are totally different.

Although for some European intelligence sources the Jerusalem force is "a state within a state, able to offer protection to al-Qaeda", there's great skepticism towards its supposed, effective internationalist role. "Saddam Hussein also had a Jerusalem Liberation Army. It proved to be invisible, just a propaganda coup," adds another European counter-terrorist operative.

European intelligence agrees that Saif al-Adil and Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah are indeed the current top deputies to bin Laden and al-Qaeda's number two, Ayman "the Surgeon" al-Zawahiri, who now contact their operatives only through human couriers. But the assumption that Ayman al-Zawahiri used his decade-old relationship with the Jerusalem force to negotiate a safe harbor for some of al-Qaeda's leaders bombed by the Americans in Tora Bora, in southeast Afghanistan, in December 2001, is also ludicrous: these al-Qaeda leaders escaped to Pakistan's tribal areas, where they remained ever since. There's evidence that only but a few crossed the border from Pakistan's to Iran's Balochistan desert.

According to the Post, Saudi Arabia has tried to convince Iran to extradite Saad bin Laden and his al-Qaeda brothers-in-arms because they are suspected of masterminding the May 12 Riyadh suicide bombing (35 dead). According to the Saudis and the Americans, they were in contact with an al-Qaeda cell in Riyadh. The Saudis have told the Americans that there may be up to 400 al-Qaeda members holed up in Iran. European intelligence also takes this information with a pinch of salt, considering the fact that the Saudis are trying to do everything at the moment to appease America's discomfort with their role vis-a-vis what is essentially a Saudi Arabian, hardcore Islamist, terrorist organization (al-Qaeda).

The authorities in Tehran have "challenged foreign intelligence services to come up with evidence" that they are supporting al-Qaeda, according to government spokesman Abdullah Ramezanzadeh: "We have announced time and again that we will not allow these activities to take place in Iran. This is a decision taken by the highest officials in the country. The report is an absolute lie."

The regime blames the leaks that led to the report on the powerful Israeli lobby in Washington: indeed, for neo-conservatives from Pentagon number two Paul Wolfowitz down, closely intertwined with the hardline Ariel Sharon government in Israel, Iran's ayatollahs are the next big target. According to a European counter-terrorist expert, for the neo-cons "an al-Qaeda free to operate in Iran is a dream ticket in their agenda. They have already started to prepare American opinion for an attack on Iran."

Ramezanzadeh, the Iranian government spokesman, acknowledges that Iran's porous borders with Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan are difficult to control, so "sometimes some elements suspected of cooperating with al-Qaeda may enter the country". Al-Qaeda is supposed to have its bases along the Afghan border: American satellite photos could easily provide some evidence. The official Iranian position was spelled out by Ramezanzadeh: "We are asking all the world's security services and anyone else who has any information about these suspects to come forward with the information. After substantiating the information, we will arrest them."

Saad bin Laden is one of at least 11 sons from Osama's first wife and also first cousin, Najwa Ghanem from Syria. Out of five marriages, Osama has fathered about 20 children. Saad arrived in Iran in 2002, from Afghanistan. He is fluent in English and information technology. European intelligence operatives somewhat agree that he may now be a key player in al-Qaeda's logistics. He may have been close to, and may have learned a lot from Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. But he is not the new Osama - at least not yet. And there's still no proof that he is the Tehran ayatollahs' new lethal weapon.

Sometimes the comedy just writes itself, doesn't it? There it is, Axi: the piece you imagine "refutes" me or brands me a liar but actually shows you to be the fundamentally dishonest little fuck you truly are.

Eat it.

[Axis Kast]

No, all they attempted to do was make Saddam Hussein look bad. They did not pass along bogus information indicating that they represented an imminent threat, or that they were planning an immediate attack on U.S. forces, or anything beyond the lies which suited this White House. The rest was in Bush's hands, all the fucking way.

Bullshit. Iran provided information through Ahmed Chalabi designed to corroborate prior American expectations and provide American policy-makers with more ammunition in arguing the case for war. The resultant campaign of misdirection was obviously intended to ensure that the United States chose war.

The only person deluded here is yourself. Diplomacy occurs with less-than-honest and even unfriendly nations all the time, because it holds better advantage than war. Your moronic fantasies where we deal only with those who are completely honest or friendly with us don't fit into any real world.

More Strawmen, I see? Nobody – least of all myself – has ever suggested that diplomacy must be transparent on all sides. This is merely your attempt to lie your way around having to face my actual argument, which is that Iran has passed from the “unfriendly” to the openly hostile.

No, what we're doing is hashing over your bullshit endlessly and it is getting quite tiresome. Iran's actions meant nothing more than an effort to bolster Chalabi's credibility. That you are so fucking stupid that you can equate this with an act of war is what has made this idiotic argument spin on for far longer than it ever had to.

Bolstering Chalabi’s credibility was an attempt to improve his reception by the United States and strengthen the case for war, asshole. The Iranians laid a trail they hoped would prevent us from straying off-target.

Except they didn't, and your insane hyperbole doesn't make the equation no matter how much you dearly believe it does.

If that is the only circumstance under which you’d consider an enemy nation worthy of military retaliation, then you sir, are one deluded son of a bitch. Iran has funded terrorists that struck American targets. Hell, a new preliminary report came out of the 9/11 commission today: Iran facilitated the movement of the September 11th hijackers across its fucking borders. Iran is now equally as much at fault as Afghanistan. But, wait – let me guess! You don’t think we should have gone to Afghanistan, either, because they didn’t fire actual bullets at us, right?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5457389/site/newsweek/

The terrorist groups may get support from elements of the Revolutionary Guards, but they do not coordinate their operations or pick their targets.

What the fuck’s your point? That it’s okay to support terrorists as long as you’re not the one who comes up with their ultimate plan? Are you fucking braindead? I could say the same thing of Afghanistan’s Taliban government.

Get it through your thick and damaged skull: those who provide weapons and financial support to terrorists are equally our enemies.

And before you make the inevitable moronic knee-jerk comeback, we certainly faced proxy-armies of other powers in the past, presenting a far larger threat to U.S. forces than the odd bombing attack or two, and did not go to war with said powers over the fact. Proportionate response.

During the Cold War, when an outright strike on a country like Cuba would have meant a potential Soviet military response, and resulting chances of Armageddon. Although you’ll notice that when Libya became too fervent a supporter of terrorists, we also bombed national assets in that country.

No, their ultimate intention was to make Ahmad Chalabi look credible and to put the screws to Saddam Hussein.

No, their ultimate intention was to make Ahmad Chalabi look credible enough to justify going to war on his statements and to put the screws to Saddam Hussein via an American invasion.

The decision to go to war —which was not imperative and not even made to look imperative by anything written for Chalabi by VEVAK— was entirely our own and no fault of the Iranians no matter how many times you say otherwise.

That’s right, because the victim should always know better. Free Martha Stewart and Kenneth Lay! If we were suckers, why punish Iran?

No, asswipe —an act of war is a tangible ACTION, such as an actual military attack. A disinformation campaign doesn't rise to that definition, but we've already established that you're too fucking thick to comprehend the distinction between an ACTION and a spoofing op. The rest of your babble makes the case against Iran no stronger than a case against Pakistan.

Iran has provided support via its police and intelligence agencies to terrorists – both officially (via purposely reducing border security to facilitate the movement of terrorists) and unofficially (via elements of its own government that it no longer directly controls). Furthermore, regardless of the outcome, Iran did attempt to lead the United States to war. This wasn’t merely an attempt to hide missiles, but an actual attempt to embroil the United States in armed conflict based on false pretenses. Your repeated attempts to portray Iran’s actions as “routine” or “minimal” are only evidence of your rampant dishonesty.

As for Pakistan, there is already casus belli. The problem lies in that they have nuclear weapons, and so must be negotiated with rather than made the targets of a military strike.

No, some elements of the Revolutionary Guard back the Qoods Force —which is not Al-Qaeda. The Qoods Force has its own alliance with Al-Qaeda. But the government arrested and detained a dozen Al-Qaeda lieutenants including Saed binLaden and Ayman al-Zawahiri as reported in the Christian Science Monitor report quoted earlier in this thread.

And yet the Qoods Force is still beyond their retribution, and Iran’s government directly aided the 9/11 hijackers – officially.

Lie. It is YOU who is keeping this alive and spinning it into perhaps your moldiest strawman to date.

Very amusing. “No, I didn’t mean to make an emotive red herring! I just wanted to spin your air strikes on specific targets into an indiscriminate campaign to kill civilians! No! You lie! Go away! Go away!”

No, according to the UN definition (which is the only one that counts), Iran's sovereignty exists by definition of its status as an independent state not under foreign control.

Unfortunately for you, the United Nations cannot enforce that definition. This is the realm of reality, not of philosophical waxing. Too bad.

This exists regardless of the stability of its government, and that government is far more stable than Pakistan's at present. There is no codicil of international law which strips that sovereignty by fiat and permits outside intervention or conquest. Any such argument to the contrary is pure sophistry and nothing more.

There does not need to be a law to permit outside intervention or conquest. Those Iran threatens will act regardless to ensure their own security.

As for sophistry, it is only you who are engaging in it, attempting to apply airy and unpractical definitions without any means of enforcing compliance.

Sifting through this babble of yours, we still end up with an equation which has no validity. Afganistan was in no way similar to Iran, and Iran's government, despite the actions of rogue elements to the contrary, has no even remotely similar linkage with Al-Qaeda as existed between that organisation and the Taliban.

Except for the fact that Iran facilitated the movement of those directly responsible for September 11, 2001 – officially, and not merely via the Qoods Force, mind you.

The Jerusalem Force is a threat best dealt with where it exists and at the level it exists, and does not require a general war which would be counterproductive in terms of overall Mid East policy.

By not dealing with it? Iran is doing nothing to seal the rift. It is incapable or unwilling to police itself.

Al-Qaeda is regenerating, and spinter cels are forming. Terrorism cannot be defeated the same way as defeating an organised government. Again, you assume the premise of the argument as its proof.

Terrorists are severely restricted without access to the resources or protection of friendly governments. Only by enforcing vigorous campaigns of counter-terrorism both at home and abroad – by military threat – can be hope to eliminate (or, realistically, significantly curb) terrorism.

Which was never part of my argument either and therefore is yet another of your moronically obvious strawmen. I see I'll just have to reiterate the quote in question:

It is automatically a part of your argument. If you reject counter-terrorism by focusing on nation-states primarily and police activity secondarily, you necessarily support the opposite approach.

You really imagine you can bury your bullshit and it will stay buried?

Counter-intelligence work is within the scope of “police activity,” retard.

But according to your "nullification of sovereignty" sophistries, the Iranian government cannot be held responsible for what goes on in their territory because they supposedly do not control everything occuring therein.

Lying again, are you? According to the Realist definition of “sovereignty,” Iran is no longer considered fully sovereign because it no longer exercises the ability to challenge the breakdown of its own government infrastructure within its borders. This legitimizes foreign intervention to end the threat.

Now you're arguing that the same government must be held responsible for every action. Your positions shift with the breeze. They also represent a continuing double-standard since you do not apply the same logic toward Pakistan, which is facing far worse problems along these lines both in terms of rogue terrorist support and the stability of its government.

WE DO EXERCISE THE SAME LOGIC TOWARD PAKISTAN, FUCKER! BUT SINCE THEY HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS, WE ARE FORCED TO COMPROMISE!

What breathtaking arrogance! It just beggars description. If elements of the Revolutionary Guards are operating outside the fold of government sanction, that government cannot be held accountable to the level of war. Since no action undertaken by any of those elements has amounted to nothing beyond random violence, the scale of those acts do not amount to a wholesale case for justifying anything as strong as a large-scale military response disproportionate to the initial acts. Killing Iranian civilians in a disproportionate action will be an act of war of a far more solid definition than what you've desperately tried to float in this thread.

Support for al-Qaeda is far from “random violence.” Not to mention that the Iranian government was apparently supporting terrorism officially in the form of official support, according to the 9/11 Commission.

And the government can certainly be held accountable for what goes on inside its territory, since we wouldn’t consider it a government at all if it couldn’t enforce its will, shitwit. Iran’s government is losing the power of control that makes it sovereign.

Um, no shitwit —the time to worry about shutting them down is when actual evidence for a bomb project is brought forth, not because we "think" they "may" make a bomb. Evidence —not wild, blind paranoia.

By the time we wait until bomb production is imminent, it will be too late to preempt, moron. Waiting until they have something and then saying, “Oh, well, how were we to know? We should have acted earlier!” is NOT intelligent policy. For the last time: Iran is the last country on Earth aside from North Korea to which we should be giving the benefit of the doubt. I understand that you nurse some kind of deluded opinion that Iran is friendly and wishes only the best for us, but the rest of the world – including the 9/11 Commission – says otherwise.

Why does it not surprise me that you've revived the Pearl Harbour Red Herring? Evidently you haven't filled your embarassment quota on that one as yet. And Iran did not do something hostile, they did something which is SOP in the counterintelligence game and which has never been interpreted as anything requiring military retaliation in response by anyone rational.

The frequency of an action – its normalcy – does not negate its hostility, fucktard. The reason nations often don’t respond to the intelligence activities of foreign powers is that they can’t as a result of balance-of-power issues.

The same conditions obtain in the Peoples' Republic of China but we deal with them nevertheless.

The People’s Republic of China is yet a nuclear power, genius. That’s what we’re trying to keep from happening in Iran.

We never responded militarily to Cuba sending armies of mercenaries around the world in the late 70s/early 80s.

Angola. Grenada. The Congo. Read much, dipshit? The United States used proxy armies of its own to continue the conflict, and in the second case, directly intervened.

If you're thinking of the Missile Crisis, you may notice that we didn't take the final step toward actual war but let diplomacy settle the problem. And nobody would have even considered a military response to Soviet disinfo and counterintel efforts even if they didn't have a nuclear deterrent sufficent to inflict massive reprisal on us.

Because the Soviets had a massive army within striking distance of Berlin and Paris, you blithering idiot. Comparing our handling to the Soviet Union to Iran is the height of unfounded stupidity.

We invaded Afganistan because the people responsible for an action which killed 3000 Americans were located there. Iran has never sponsored any such action approaching such a scale of destruction and death, nor show any signs of risking American wrath by doing so.

Newsflash: Iran helped.

And this has any relevance to this discussion... how exactly?

Because your entire fucking argument is based on two faulty premises: (1) the victim should always know better, and (2) nothing justifies war short of a physical first-strike with CONVENTIONAL FORCES by an enemy. You routinely ignore the fact that Iran has sponsored and aided terrorists against us.

No, Iran provided false information designed to make Saddam Hussein look bad and Ahmad Chalabi look good. That is not an act of war, numbskull. Nor was anything fed to us by Chalabi and the INC of any significant influence toward the decisions leading up to the war, as the findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee are revealing. Iran did not engage in a military attack against us, and it was not their disinfo but this White House's decision-making which led us into the war with Iraq.

But they tried to, you fucker. The police don’t release criminals who didn’t break all the way into the safe. They’re still guilty of criminal activity.

Which is immaterial to the issue at hand.

No, you fucking moron. It means that your arguments about Iran’s desire for change are almost certainly just public concessions to American power. Not that they’re standing motionless anyway.

Nor does it mean that when somebody scams you, the appropriate response is to kill him, burn everybody alive in his house, and hunt down and kill all his friends and family in the bargain

Again with the same disproportionate strawmen and red herrings you later deny having memory of. In this case, Iran has done far more than attempted to scam. More like attempted to kill. Not to mention their support of al-Qaeda, which you seem intent on ignoring to the last.

No, that is covert action and counterintelligence; not a direct challenge to our position in the region which they are not capable of making.

This is precisely a challenge to our position in the region. Iran also infiltrates men into Iraq to influence events there, moron.

And as they consider us a threat to their national security, their actions are from their perspective defensive.

Is that what we should tell the 9/11 families? “Sorry, but Iran’s support for the attackers was self-defense in their opinion, after all?” FUCKING IDIOT.

The source of the attitude has EVERYTHING to do with the matter, asshole. Actions such as our torturing prisoners in Abu Ghraib are what radicalise Muslims against us —these sentiments don't spring up in a vacuum. And not every Muslim vowing "eternal war against the Great Satan America" amounts to a threat to our national security in and of itself anymore than any group of Germans after World War II who vowed to do everything in their power to revive the Third Reich. And we've had a 70 year interest in their oil, but it is only since 1991 when we put troops in Saudi Arabia that we've had any siginificant problem with anti-American hatred and terrorism. These attitudes don't spring up in a vacuum.

We’ve radicalized so many now that the only way to effectively eliminate the threat is to first incur more hatred before reducing it to less. We have already been over why disengagement will not work.

THAT little fantasy about how easy the whole thing will go.

You’ve yet to provide a logical or sustainable counter-argument. In fact, all you’ve done is wank about blanket statements I never made about an Iranian air force not existing.

The wanking is entirely your own. The only way to ensure hitting the intended targets without resistance would be to suppress their defence, which means hitting far more than nuclear facilities. Which means the phenomenon known as mission-creep.

Let’s see. Power plants. Military bases. Military depots. Air defense sites. Ministry buildings. Select research facilities. Radars and warning stations. “Subtantial” does not mean all-out war, idiot.

Eat it.

Eat what? I don’t care what Chalabi said. I want proof that Cheney used his information EXCLUSIVELY when making those statements. Which you’ve yet to give. For the third time.

No, fuckface —I care about facts; chief among which is that Iran didn't attempt to invade Iraq. That Kuwait feared Iran has no bearing upon that fact. And there were no terrorist organisations such as Al-Qaeda in existence in 1980 and what terror organisations did exist were aimed at Israel. I don't go by the calculus of paranoia.

So the Kuwaiti government, in your opinion, spent one billion dollars helping Iraq fight enemies it did not really have, because Iran probably wouldn’t occupy them anyway? Interesting.

Yes, their agents were aimed at their enemies in Iraq; just as we had agents aimed at our enemies. And Iran has not attacked with guided missiles against anybody, nor is expressing intent to attack other Muslim states or interfere with the Persian Gulf. Iranian money may sponsor terrorism, but so does Pakistani money and Saudi money; this is not in and of itself a sufficent cause for war.

Uh, actually, Iran’s been squabbeling over Persian Gulf islands with its Gulf neighbors for YEARS. They have sought to LEAD US INTO WAR. They have also OFFICIALLY SUPPORTED THE 9/11 TERRORISTS.

As for that ridiculous false dichotomy about having to strike all enemies at once, using the same strategy, or none at all? Go shove it.

The Iraqis hate them because of the retaliations occuring in the course of the war THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT STARTED, MORON. Kuwait's fear from the 1980s has no bearing upon what threat Iran may present in the current time towards other Muslim states.

It does since Iran’s government hasn’t changed, fuckface.

A perspective:

A perspective that does not include the new findings of the 9/11 Commission. Or the Ahmad Chalabi issue. Once again, more wanking on your part about good-will that clearly doesn’t exist, as per the Iranian’s own admission.

Excuse me, but BWAHAHAHAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! ONE mention of Saddam Hussein, in a purely historical context, out of a body of text which is not talking about Saddam Hussein at all! And you actually are mad enough to imagine that THIS "proves" me a liar! Oh, this is rich —too fucking rich for words.

THE ENTIRE BASIS OF YOUR ARGUMENT AGAINST THE JERUSALEM FORCE’S IMPORTANCE RESTS ON A RIDICULOUS AND ILLOGICAL COMPARISON TO ITS COUNTERPARTS IN ANOTHER COUNTRY WITH UTTERLY DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES ATTENDING, DIPSHIT!

Anti-terrorist European intelligence raises several points. First, there is no proven connection between al-Qaeda and the Islamic Republic's religious leadership. And Saad is not the new Osama. According to one special investigator, "Our main target now is not Osama's son, but Muhamad Ibrahim Makkawi [aka Saif al-Adil, a former colonel in the Egyptian army, born in 1960 or 1963]. He is an explosives expert and most probably the successor of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed." Khalid Shaikh, widely reputed to be the mastermind of September 11, was captured in Pakistan in March.

That’s now false, according to the 9/11 Commission. Iran did indeed support terrorists directly. Al-Qaeda.

European intelligence agrees that Saif al-Adil and Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah are indeed the current top deputies to bin Laden and al-Qaeda's number two, Ayman "the Surgeon" al-Zawahiri, who now contact their operatives only through human couriers. But the assumption that Ayman al-Zawahiri used his decade-old relationship with the Jerusalem force to negotiate a safe harbor for some of al-Qaeda's leaders bombed by the Americans in Tora Bora, in southeast Afghanistan, in December 2001, is also ludicrous: these al-Qaeda leaders escaped to Pakistan's tribal areas, where they remained ever since. There's evidence that only but a few crossed the border from Pakistan's to Iran's Balochistan desert.

But that when they did pass, those “few” were officially aided. Eat it, fucker.

Sometimes the comedy just writes itself, doesn't it? There it is, Axi: the piece you imagine "refutes" me or brands me a liar but actually shows you to be the fundamentally dishonest little fuck you truly are.

Your “piece” is now full of opinions that contradict the 9./11 Commission’s findings. Thus, it’s not really a “piece” worth reading at all.

[Patrick Degan]

No, all they attempted to do was make Saddam Hussein look bad. They did not pass along bogus information indicating that they represented an imminent threat, or that they were planning an immediate attack on U.S. forces, or anything beyond the lies which suited this White House. The rest was in Bush's hands, all the fucking way.

Bullshit. Iran provided information through Ahmed Chalabi designed to corroborate prior American expectations and provide American policy-makers with more ammunition in arguing the case for war. The resultant campaign of misdirection was obviously intended to ensure that the United States chose war.

YOUR bullshit —at no point was war an imperative, and there was certainly nothing which indicated any imminent Iraqi attack in the works. Bush and co. were already pushing for war even on trying to urge Richard Clarke to manufacture a link between Iraq and 9/11. In any case, a disinformation campaign is in no way, shape, or form akin to a military attack and does not meet the definition of an act justifying a military response no matter how desperately you try to argue otherwise.

The only person deluded here is yourself. Diplomacy occurs with less-than-honest and even unfriendly nations all the time, because it holds better advantage than war. Your moronic fantasies where we deal only with those who are completely honest or friendly with us don't fit into any real world.

More Strawmen, I see? Nobody – least of all myself – has ever suggested that diplomacy must be transparent on all sides. This is merely your attempt to lie your way around having to face my actual argument, which is that Iran has passed from the “unfriendly” to the openly hostile.

I've been facing your actual argument for the last several days now —a huge steaming mound of your bullshit. Disinformation is not open hostility. It is not a military attack. No amount of verbage can make it one no matter how desperately you try to argue otherwise.

No, what we're doing is hashing over your bullshit endlessly and it is getting quite tiresome. Iran's actions meant nothing more than an effort to bolster Chalabi's credibility. That you are so fucking stupid that you can equate this with an act of war is what has made this idiotic argument spin on for far longer than it ever had to.

Bolstering Chalabi’s credibility was an attempt to improve his reception by the United States and strengthen the case for war, asshole. The Iranians laid a trail they hoped would prevent us from straying off-target.

Except there was absolutely no guarantee that Washington would opt for a war which was not imperative and the case for which was not supported by anything Chalabi put forth. The decisionmaking was entirely in Bush's hands and no one else's. And in any case, disinformation is not a military attack and cannot be made to look like one no matter how desperately you try to argue otherwise.

Except they didn't, and your insane hyperbole doesn't make the equation no matter how much you dearly believe it does.

If that is the only circumstance under which you’d consider an enemy nation worthy of military retaliation, then you sir, are one deluded son of a bitch. Iran has funded terrorists that struck American targets. Hell, a new preliminary report came out of the 9/11 commission today: Iran facilitated the movement of the September 11th hijackers across its fucking borders. Iran is now equally as much at fault as Afghanistan. But, wait – let me guess! You don’t think we should have gone to Afghanistan, either, because they didn’t fire actual bullets at us, right?

YOU are the deluded son of a bitch. The world does not operate along the simplistic lines you keep imagining it does; particularly not when decisions for war are being assessed. No single action or even chain of actions makes a case for war in and of themselves, and it usually takes an extreme action to finally tip the balance. And as for your latest attempt at a GOTCHA, the 9/11 panel report on Iran says less than you think it does about the Islamic Republic's possible involvement in September 11th:

Link

excerpt:

The commission report does not address which Al Qaeda members specifically benefited from the clean passport policy. It also emphasizes that the panel has found no evidence suggesting that Iranian government officials had advance knowledge of bin Laden’s plans to attack the World Trade Towers and Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001.

And:

Bush administration officials emphasized today that the 9/11 report also included contradictory information that undercut the idea of a strong relationship between Iran and Al Qaeda-and even cast some doubt on the conclusion that the Iranians were providing special favors for bin Laden’s organization.

In interviews with U.S. interrogators, two high-level Al Qaeda detainees—September 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-Shibh—confirmed that some of the 9/11 hijackers had transited through Iran on their way to and from the Afghan training camps, the report says, according to knowledgable sources. But the two Al Qaeda captives insisted the hijackers did so mainly to take advantage of a general Iranian practice of not stamping "Saudi passports"—indicating that the Iranian policy may have been cast more broadly than just Al Qaeda members.

Y'see, Axi, it's necessary to read the WHOLE story and not just the bits that suit you.

The terrorist groups may get support from elements of the Revolutionary Guards, but they do not coordinate their operations or pick their targets.

What the fuck’s your point? That it’s okay to support terrorists as long as you’re not the one who comes up with their ultimate plan? Are you fucking braindead? I could say the same thing of Afghanistan’s Taliban government.

Nice try. The Taliban knew with no doubt whatsoever of Bin Laden's plans, raised no substantive objection despite conscious knowledge of their planned attack on America, and actively provided safe harbour before and after the attack. The case vis-a-vis Iran is more uncertain, but no there is no indication of intelligence support or military coordination to either HAMAS or Hezbollah or Islamic Jihad or even the Jerusalem Force (beyond those Revolutionary Guard elements already cited). Again you try to construct the False Dilemma that to not seek immediate retaliation is to grant approval of their activities; the argument of an imbecile.

Get it through your thick and damaged skull: those who provide weapons and financial support to terrorists are equally our enemies.

Pity the world doesn't work along such bipolar lines in reality, but that's your problem. Nor does every action rise to the level of justifying war as the sole response. Even the Bush administration aren't crazy enough to seek out another war on top of the one they're already mired in now.

And before you make the inevitable moronic knee-jerk comeback, we certainly faced proxy-armies of other powers in the past, presenting a far larger threat to U.S. forces than the odd bombing attack or two, and did not go to war with said powers over the fact. Proportionate response.

During the Cold War, when an outright strike on a country like Cuba would have meant a potential Soviet military response, and resulting chances of Armageddon. Although you’ll notice that when Libya became too fervent a supporter of terrorists, we also bombed national assets in that country.

No, we bombed Libya because they attempted to claim international waters as their own territory and actually shot at our planes. An actual, overtly hostile action. And your attempted Cuba argument fails on two grounds: one being that in the Missile Crisis, we were one step away from invasion when a political solution was found, and the second being our pledge not to invade Cuba; agreed to as part of the aforementioned political solution to the Missile Crisis.

No, their ultimate intention was to make Ahmad Chalabi look credible and to put the screws to Saddam Hussein.

No, their ultimate intention was to make Ahmad Chalabi look credible enough to justify going to war on his statements and to put the screws to Saddam Hussein via an American invasion.

Since nothing provided by VEVAK through Chalabi painted Saddam Hussein as preparing a military strike making him an imminent threat, there is no credible argument that Iranian disinfo was guaranteed to bring about a decision by Washington to go to war. And in any case, a disinformation campaign is not an act of war, no matter how desperately you try to argue otherwise.

The decision to go to war —which was not imperative and not even made to look imperative by anything written for Chalabi by VEVAK— was entirely our own and no fault of the Iranians no matter how many times you say otherwise.

That’s right, because the victim should always know better. Free Martha Stewart and Kenneth Lay! If we were suckers, why punish Iran?

I see you're still on your nonsensical effort to equate a disinformation campaign with criminal fraud; nevermind that there is no equivalency in the two situations. No matter what information is gathered from any foreign source, there is still not only an obligation but an expectation of subsequent investigation by your nation's own intelligence services to verify the accuracy of the information given that the stakes are war or peace. A case for war has to be proven in advance, not after the fact. So let's have an end to your utter bullshit comparisons to criminal law and move along.

No, asswipe —an act of war is a tangible ACTION, such as an actual military attack. A disinformation campaign doesn't rise to that definition, but we've already established that you're too fucking thick to comprehend the distinction between an ACTION and a spoofing op. The rest of your babble makes the case against Iran no stronger than a case against Pakistan.

Iran has provided support via its police and intelligence agencies to terrorists – both officially (via purposely reducing border security to facilitate the movement of terrorists) and unofficially (via elements of its own government that it no longer directly controls).

So has Pakistan, but this administration is not attempting to make a case for war either against them or Iran.

Furthermore, regardless of the outcome, Iran did attempt to lead the United States to war. This wasn’t merely an attempt to hide missiles, but an actual attempt to embroil the United States in armed conflict based on false pretenses. Your repeated attempts to portray Iran’s actions as “routine” or “minimal” are only evidence of your rampant dishonesty.

Despite your insane ravings to the contrary, a disinformation campaign is not an act of war, cannot be characterised as anything akin to an act of war, and never has or will justify a military response. For all your fulminations, there was nothing in Chalabi's material indicating that Iraq was posing an immediate attack threat. Trying to build a case for war solely on the basis of suspected arsenals, suspected WMD programmes, and suspected terror links never had any validity from the get-go, but this White House proceeded to do exactly that. At worst, Chalabi's material would have complicated any effort to loosen the sanctions regime locking Iraq down but there was no guarantee that the material could bring about a Washington decision to pursue war. That was wholly Bush's doing and made with the forewarning that Ahmad Chalabi was an internationally-known liar, bank fraud, and convicted swindler and that his organisation had ties to Tehran and was not to be trusted.

And you are the last person on Earth to speak of anyone else's alleged dishonesty.

As for Pakistan, there is already casus belli. The problem lies in that they have nuclear weapons, and so must be negotiated with rather than made the targets of a military strike.

No, the problem is that attacking Pakistan would tip its government and society into revolutionary chaos. And no, there isn't casus belli —no action of theirs has risen to the level requiring war as the response.

No, some elements of the Revolutionary Guard back the Qoods Force —which is not Al-Qaeda. The Qoods Force has its own alliance with Al-Qaeda. But the government arrested and detained a dozen Al-Qaeda lieutenants including Saed binLaden and Ayman al-Zawahiri as reported in the Christian Science Monitor report quoted earlier in this thread.

And yet the Qoods Force is still beyond their retribution, and Iran’s government directly aided the 9/11 hijackers – officially.

The Iranian government did not have foreknowledge of the 9-11 attacks when it permitted movement across their borders of those who turned out to be among the hijackers, nor knew which Al-Qaeda members would even be involved in such an action, as even the commission report is arguing and is related in Michael Ishikoff's story at MSNBC/Newsweek. Developments subsequent to 9-11 which includes the arrest and detention of Al-Qaeda lieutennants demonstrates that whatever cooperation there may have been between the two entities at one time is no longer operative.

No, according to the UN definition (which is the only one that counts), Iran's sovereignty exists by definition of its status as an independent state not under foreign control.

Unfortunately for you, the United Nations cannot enforce that definition. This is the realm of reality, not of philosophical waxing. Too bad.

The United Nations does enforce that definition, and every member state has a stake in its enforcement for very obvious reasons. That is the realm of reality, whether it suits you or not; a consideration which is frankly immaterial.

This exists regardless of the stability of its government, and that government is far more stable than Pakistan's at present. There is no codicil of international law which strips that sovereignty by fiat and permits outside intervention or conquest. Any such argument to the contrary is pure sophistry and nothing more.

There does not need to be a law to permit outside intervention or conquest. Those Iran threatens will act regardless to ensure their own security.

Wrong again, stupid —even Israel had to justify its airstrikes against the Tammuz nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1983 on the basis of Chapter 7's definitions of imminent threat, and the entire war to liberate Kuwait was promulgated upon Iraq's violation of international law and national sovereignty. Those who take it upon themselves to assume right of conquest make themselves subject to military retaliation as a consequence —as Iraq learned in 1991 and North Korea in 1950. Both actions which had the full authority of international law.

As for sophistry, it is only you who are engaging in it, attempting to apply airy and unpractical definitions without any means of enforcing compliance.

Tell that to Saddam Hussein, who got his ass kicked in 1991 for his invasion of Kuwait and never tried anything like that again, and never even got the chance due to twelve years of enforced UN sanctions.

Sifting through this babble of yours, we still end up with an equation which has no validity. Afganistan was in no way similar to Iran, and Iran's government, despite the actions of rogue elements to the contrary, has no even remotely similar linkage with Al-Qaeda as existed between that organisation and the Taliban.

Except for the fact that Iran facilitated the movement of those directly responsible for September 11, 2001 – officially, and not merely via the Qoods Force, mind you.

Iran had no way of knowing who was going to be involved in the September 11th attacks, as the MSNBC article points out. The 9-11 Commission says you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

The Jerusalem Force is a threat best dealt with where it exists and at the level it exists, and does not require a general war which would be counterproductive in terms of overall Mid East policy.

By not dealing with it? Iran is doing nothing to seal the rift. It is incapable or unwilling to police itself.

In your opinion.

Al-Qaeda is regenerating, and spinter cels are forming. Terrorism cannot be defeated the same way as defeating an organised government. Again, you assume the premise of the argument as its proof.

Terrorists are severely restricted without access to the resources or protection of friendly governments. Only by enforcing vigorous campaigns of counter-terrorism both at home and abroad – by military threat – can be hope to eliminate (or, realistically, significantly curb) terrorism.

Nice theory. Pity that's not how things are actually working out. Israel's operated on that theory for twenty years now and are no closer to their supposed Final Victory over terrorism than when they started.

Which was never part of my argument either and therefore is yet another of your moronically obvious strawmen. I see I'll just have to reiterate the quote in question:

It is automatically a part of your argument. If you reject counter-terrorism by focusing on nation-states primarily and police activity secondarily, you necessarily support the opposite approach.

Because YOU say so?! No, you are not getting away with that bullshit —either deal with my arguments as they are actually constructed and not by what you choose to interpret in them or stand revealed for the lying little fuck you are. And I will repeat the quote you've so conveniently left out of this discussion:

Since you brought up the "police activity" strawman in the first place, I've nothing to drop.

Not at all. Focusing exclusively on “police activity” is stupid and ineffective in the long term. That does not mean that police activity has no place in effective counter-terrorism, fucker.

Which was never part of my argument either and therefore is yet another of your moronically obvious strawmen. I see I'll just have to reiterate the quote in question:

FACT —terrorism is a weapon of the weak, and is defeatable through counterintelligence and covert operations. It is not a threat which requires a general war as the sole option and certainly not one which can imperil the existence of the United States.

I grow tired of your endless bullshit and your blatant lies.

Counter-intelligence work is within the scope of “police activity,” retard.

Wrong, stupid, it is the purview of military and civilian intelligence services.

But according to your "nullification of sovereignty" sophistries, the Iranian government cannot be held responsible for what goes on in their territory because they supposedly do not control everything occuring therein.

Lying again, are you?

No, that game I leave entirely to you.

According to the Realist definition of “sovereignty,” Iran is no longer considered fully sovereign because it no longer exercises the ability to challenge the breakdown of its own government infrastructure within its borders. This legitimizes foreign intervention to end the threat.

I'm not interested in whatever voice in your head which you've chosen to name "Realist" has to say on the subject. No government has authority to intervene in any other nation's internal troubles or to employ them as a justification for invasion and conquest:

Link

SOVEREIGNTY
James Roberts
Towson University

Sovereignty is the principle that establishes the nation-state as an independent actor within the international system. Sovereignty is defined in the glossaries of many introductory international relations texts as having supreme political authority. While this is true, there is much more to sovereignty that is not captured in this definition. Sovereignty has both an observable or emprical aspect and a juridical or legal aspect. Sovereignty is based on two doctrines in international law, the doctrine of nonintervention and the doctrine of formal equality. It is because of sovereignty that international relations is said to exist in a system of anarchy.

The modern concept of sovereignty traces its history back to the emergence of centralized absolutist states from the decentralized political systems of feudal Europe. While it is impossible to place an exact date on when the modern nation-state emerged, it is often associated with the signing of the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. This treaty ended the Thirty-Years War in Europe and established the national self-determination as a principle for the formation of a state. That is, states were recognized as political units associated with a population that had a common cultural, language, religious, or historic heritage. Sovereignty was embodied in the monarch who ruled with freedom from interference from other authorities and who enjoyed formal equality with other monarchs.

These rights enjoyed by the monarch became the doctrine of nonintervention and the doctrine of formal equality in modern international law. Nonintervention has been codified in many treaties and agreements. Most notably, it appears in Article 2, Principle #7 of the United Nations Charter:

"Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll."

Nonintervention, simply put, means that sovereigns have the right to be free from interference by others in their domestic affairs. The doctrine of formal equality was also codified in Article 2 of the UN Charter.

"The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members."

Certainly not all nation-states are equal in their capabilties, but the formal equality of sovereignty means that they are legally equal in terms of their rights and obligations in the international system. For example, China, with 1.2 billion people, has one seat in the United Nations General Assembly as does the Republic of Palau with 17,000.1/

These two doctrines together form the juridical or legal aspect of sovereignty. There is, however, an empirical or observable, aspect of sovereignty as well. For a political community to be sovereign, it must have some level of the following qualities:

* territory
* population
* effective rule over that territory and population; and
* recognition of other nation-states.

Indian nationals at the Ganges river are part of the population of the second largest nation-state.

Nation-states cannot exist without people and territory. To have territory is to control territory. Until recently, the Palestinian Authority claimed to represent one million people but the Authority did not have control over territory. With the Oslo Peace Accords, the Palesitnian Authority now can claim to have some control over territory. Is the Palestinian Authority legitimately sovereign? No, it still is not recognized by the other nation-states as the sovereign power over a state of Palestine. In the late 1980's, much of Lebanon was controlled either by competing militia or by the occupying forces of Syria and Israel. War damage in central Beirut - Did Lebanon maintain effective control? Although Lebanon could lay claim to having people and territory, it did not have effective rule over many of the people and much of the territory. Was Lebanon a sovereign? Yes, throughout the civil war, the government of Lebanon was able to retain the recognition of most of the world's nation-states and maintained its seat at the United Nations. It was recognized as the sovereign power, even though its ability to maintain order over its people within its borders was seriously diminished.

These two examples point out the importance of the juridical aspect of sovereignty. A political community is not formally sovereign until it is recognized as being sovereign. How many states must recognize it as being sovereign? That is impossible to determine. Most nation-states are recognized as sovereign by all the other states. A few are in dispute.2/ The United States Department of State maintains the list of states recognized by the United States government on a web-page.

Sovereignty, therefore, is granted in a socio-legal context. Yes, political communities must have some or all of the observable characteristics of sovereignty. This, however, is not enough. For a political community to be truly sovereign, it must gain recognition of a sufficient number of other states. Thus sovereignty is a legal and social phenomenon more than an empirical phenomenon.

Simply put, you have no argument.

Now you're arguing that the same government must be held responsible for every action. Your positions shift with the breeze. They also represent a continuing double-standard since you do not apply the same logic toward Pakistan, which is facing far worse problems along these lines both in terms of rogue terrorist support and the stability of its government.

WE DO EXERCISE THE SAME LOGIC TOWARD PAKISTAN, FUCKER! BUT SINCE THEY HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS, WE ARE FORCED TO COMPROMISE!

No, we very evidenlty do not exercise the same logic vis-a-vis Pakistan, and the danger is not their nuclear weapons but their shaky political situation and the fact that we presently need their support.

What breathtaking arrogance! It just beggars description. If elements of the Revolutionary Guards are operating outside the fold of government sanction, that government cannot be held accountable to the level of war. Since no action undertaken by any of those elements has amounted to nothing beyond random violence, the scale of those acts do not amount to a wholesale case for justifying anything as strong as a large-scale military response disproportionate to the initial acts. Killing Iranian civilians in a disproportionate action will be an act of war of a far more solid definition than what you've desperately tried to float in this thread.

Support for al-Qaeda is far from “random violence.” Not to mention that the Iranian government was apparently supporting terrorism officially in the form of official support, according to the 9/11 Commission.

Except that is NOT what the 9-11 commission report actually says:

Link

excerpt:

The commission report does not address which Al Qaeda members specifically benefited from the clean passport policy. It also emphasizes that the panel has found no evidence suggesting that Iranian government officials had advance knowledge of bin Laden’s plans to attack the World Trade Towers and Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001.

And:

Bush administration officials emphasized today that the 9/11 report also included contradictory information that undercut the idea of a strong relationship between Iran and Al Qaeda-and even cast some doubt on the conclusion that the Iranians were providing special favors for bin Laden’s organization.

In interviews with U.S. interrogators, two high-level Al Qaeda detainees—September 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-Shibh—confirmed that some of the 9/11 hijackers had transited through Iran on their way to and from the Afghan training camps, the report says, according to knowledgable sources. But the two Al Qaeda captives insisted the hijackers did so mainly to take advantage of a general Iranian practice of not stamping "Saudi passports"—indicating that the Iranian policy may have been cast more broadly than just Al Qaeda members.

Y'see, Axi, it's necessary to read the whole story, not just the bits that suit you.

And the government can certainly be held accountable for what goes on inside its territory, since we wouldn’t consider it a government at all if it couldn’t enforce its will, shitwit. Iran’s government is losing the power of control that makes it sovereign.

The encyclopaedia article cited above demonstrates that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Nor does the evident state of affairs in Iran, which do not show a government about to lose control.

Um, no shitwit —the time to worry about shutting them down is when actual evidence for a bomb project is brought forth, not because we "think" they "may" make a bomb. Evidence —not wild, blind paranoia.

By the time we wait until bomb production is imminent, it will be too late to preempt, moron. Waiting until they have something and then saying, “Oh, well, how were we to know? We should have acted earlier!” is NOT intelligent policy. For the last time: Iran is the last country on Earth aside from North Korea to which we should be giving the benefit of the doubt. I understand that you nurse some kind of deluded opinion that Iran is friendly and wishes only the best for us, but the rest of the world – including the 9/11 Commission – says otherwise.

So we go on the basis of blind paranoia and what the 9-11 commission says only in your deluded fantasy world? Nice formula for chaos from my perspective. And you can cram your strawmen: never have I once said that Iran is friendly and wishes only the best for us, and I defy you to produce one quote which says otherwise. NOT your bullshit lying interpretation of my words but AN ACTUAL FUCKING QUOTE where I say IN PLAIN TEXT that Iran is friendly and wishes us the best —produce, or stand revealed as the pathetic lying little shit you are.

Why does it not surprise me that you've revived the Pearl Harbour Red Herring? Evidently you haven't filled your embarassment quota on that one as yet. And Iran did not do something hostile, they did something which is SOP in the counterintelligence game and which has never been interpreted as anything requiring military retaliation in response by anyone rational.

The frequency of an action – its normalcy – does not negate its hostility, fucktard. The reason nations often don’t respond to the intelligence activities of foreign powers is that they can’t as a result of balance-of-power issues.

No, they don't respond to disinformation with military retaliation because nobody will believe that disinformation requires killing the nationals of another state as "an appropriate response" The one is a spoofing operation, the other a military attack. It is the latter nation that is counted the aggressor. They also don't respond because no government is going to put A FUCKING SPOTLIGHT ON THEIR INTEL SERVICES AND THEIR ACTIVITIES, shitwit. This is why the intelligence war is always an underground affair.

The same conditions obtain in the Peoples' Republic of China but we deal with them nevertheless.

The People’s Republic of China is yet a nuclear power, genius. That’s what we’re trying to keep from happening in Iran.

That is not the reason, shitwit. We don't break off relations with other nations because reformers are suppressed, as heartless as that may seem, but because in realpolitik there is room only for calculation of advantages. Attacking Iran because we think they might build a bomb presents far more disadvantage that advantage. The mere fact that Iran's reformers have been nullified is not sufficent reason to not deal with its government when the time comes for it, nor for not conducting whatever backchannel dealings we presently engage them with. That is how things operate in a rational world, but we already know you are unable to understand this.

We never responded militarily to Cuba sending armies of mercenaries around the world in the late 70s/early 80s.

Angola. Grenada. The Congo. Read much, dipshit? The United States used proxy armies of its own to continue the conflict, and in the second case, directly intervened.

We directly intervenend in Grenada because American citizens were in danger directly. In Angola and the Congo, we employed CIA mercenaries but did not engage in a direct attack nor ever contemplated such action. I read a lot, and unlike you can actually comprehend what I read.

If you're thinking of the Missile Crisis, you may notice that we didn't take the final step toward actual war but let diplomacy settle the problem. And nobody would have even considered a military response to Soviet disinfo and counterintel efforts even if they didn't have a nuclear deterrent sufficent to inflict massive reprisal on us.

Because the Soviets had a massive army within striking distance of Berlin and Paris, you blithering idiot. Comparing our handling to the Soviet Union to Iran is the height of unfounded stupidity.

No, it is your attempt to argue that a disinformation campaign in an act of war which is the height of unfounded stupidity. And since we were about to invade Cuba, the presence of Soviet armies within striking distance of Berlin and Paris was not a deterrent in and of itself. Those armies and their nuclear arsenal is not why we didn't contemplate a military response to Soviet disinfo but because disinfo is not an act of war, never has been defined as such and never could be credibly defined as such.

We invaded Afganistan because the people responsible for an action which killed 3000 Americans were located there. Iran has never sponsored any such action approaching such a scale of destruction and death, nor show any signs of risking American wrath by doing so.

Newsflash: Iran helped.

Newsflash: They didn't:

Link

excerpt:

The commission report does not address which Al Qaeda members specifically benefited from the clean passport policy. It also emphasizes that the panel has found no evidence suggesting that Iranian government officials had advance knowledge of bin Laden’s plans to attack the World Trade Towers and Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001.

And:

Bush administration officials emphasized today that the 9/11 report also included contradictory information that undercut the idea of a strong relationship between Iran and Al Qaeda-and even cast some doubt on the conclusion that the Iranians were providing special favors for bin Laden’s organization.

In interviews with U.S. interrogators, two high-level Al Qaeda detainees—September 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-Shibh—confirmed that some of the 9/11 hijackers had transited through Iran on their way to and from the Afghan training camps, the report says, according to knowledgable sources. But the two Al Qaeda captives insisted the hijackers did so mainly to take advantage of a general Iranian practice of not stamping "Saudi passports"—indicating that the Iranian policy may have been cast more broadly than just Al Qaeda members.

Y'see, Axi, it's necessary to read the whole story, not just the bits that suit you.

And this has any relevance to this discussion... how exactly?

Because your entire fucking argument is based on two faulty premises: (1) the victim should always know better, and (2) nothing justifies war short of a physical first-strike with CONVENTIONAL FORCES by an enemy. You routinely ignore the fact that Iran has sponsored and aided terrorists against us.

In this case, the "victim" was required to know better —any case for war requires positive proof in advance and verifiable proof. Secondly, Iranian disinfo did not characterise Saddam Hussein as preparing a military attack. Thirdly, an act of war is indeed A PHYSICAL FIRST STRIKE WITH THE ENEMY'S MILITARY FORCES. And fourth, Iran's sponsorship of terrorism in and of itself is no more a case for war than it is against Pakistan.

No, Iran provided false information designed to make Saddam Hussein look bad and Ahmad Chalabi look good. That is not an act of war, numbskull. Nor was anything fed to us by Chalabi and the INC of any significant influence toward the decisions leading up to the war, as the findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee are revealing. Iran did not engage in a military attack against us, and it was not their disinfo but this White House's decision-making which led us into the war with Iraq.

But they tried to, you fucker. The police don’t release criminals who didn’t break all the way into the safe. They’re still guilty of criminal activity.

Again with your bullshit false analogy. Stupidity like this doesn't even deserve a response.

Which is immaterial to the issue at hand.

No, you fucking moron. It means that your arguments about Iran’s desire for change are almost certainly just public concessions to American power. Not that they’re standing motionless anyway.

Which nevertheless does represent some concessions on their part, no matter the motivation behind them. Your argument is still as irrelevant as ever.

Nor does it mean that when somebody scams you, the appropriate response is to kill him, burn everybody alive in his house, and hunt down and kill all his friends and family in the bargain

Again with the same disproportionate strawmen and red herrings you later deny having memory of.

Since these are your disproportionate strawmen and red herrings which you keep bringing up ad-infinitum, it's not really possible to deny memory of them.

In this case, Iran has done far more than attempted to scam. More like attempted to kill. Not to mention their support of al-Qaeda, which you seem intent on ignoring to the last.

Disinfo kills? You are out of your tiny mind. And I ignore nothing, shitwit. But you very clearly have:

Link

excerpt:

The commission report does not address which Al Qaeda members specifically benefited from the clean passport policy. It also emphasizes that the panel has found no evidence suggesting that Iranian government officials had advance knowledge of bin Laden’s plans to attack the World Trade Towers and Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001.

And:

Bush administration officials emphasized today that the 9/11 report also included contradictory information that undercut the idea of a strong relationship between Iran and Al Qaeda-and even cast some doubt on the conclusion that the Iranians were providing special favors for bin Laden’s organization.

In interviews with U.S. interrogators, two high-level Al Qaeda detainees—September 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-Shibh—confirmed that some of the 9/11 hijackers had transited through Iran on their way to and from the Afghan training camps, the report says, according to knowledgable sources. But the two Al Qaeda captives insisted the hijackers did so mainly to take advantage of a general Iranian practice of not stamping "Saudi passports"—indicating that the Iranian policy may have been cast more broadly than just Al Qaeda members.

Y'see, Axi, it's necessary to read the whole story, not just the bits that suit you.

No, that is covert action and counterintelligence; not a direct challenge to our position in the region which they are not capable of making.

This is precisely a challenge to our position in the region. Iran also infiltrates men into Iraq to influence events there, moron.

I said DIRECT challenge, asswipe. Iran is not attempting to expel us by force from either Iraq or the region in general.

And as they consider us a threat to their national security, their actions are from their perspective defensive.

Is that what we should tell the 9/11 families? “Sorry, but Iran’s support for the attackers was self-defense in their opinion, after all?” FUCKING IDIOT.

Except Iran did not aid in 9-11:

Link

excerpt:

The commission report does not address which Al Qaeda members specifically benefited from the clean passport policy. It also emphasizes that the panel has found no evidence suggesting that Iranian government officials had advance knowledge of bin Laden’s plans to attack the World Trade Towers and Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001.

And:

Bush administration officials emphasized today that the 9/11 report also included contradictory information that undercut the idea of a strong relationship between Iran and Al Qaeda-and even cast some doubt on the conclusion that the Iranians were providing special favors for bin Laden’s organization.

In interviews with U.S. interrogators, two high-level Al Qaeda detainees—September 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-Shibh—confirmed that some of the 9/11 hijackers had transited through Iran on their way to and from the Afghan training camps, the report says, according to knowledgable sources. But the two Al Qaeda captives insisted the hijackers did so mainly to take advantage of a general Iranian practice of not stamping "Saudi passports"—indicating that the Iranian policy may have been cast more broadly than just Al Qaeda members.

Y'see, Axi, it's necessary to read the whole story, not just the bits that suit you.

The source of the attitude has EVERYTHING to do with the matter, asshole. Actions such as our torturing prisoners in Abu Ghraib are what radicalise Muslims against us —these sentiments don't spring up in a vacuum. And not every Muslim vowing "eternal war against the Great Satan America" amounts to a threat to our national security in and of itself anymore than any group of Germans after World War II who vowed to do everything in their power to revive the Third Reich. And we've had a 70 year interest in their oil, but it is only since 1991 when we put troops in Saudi Arabia that we've had any siginificant problem with anti-American hatred and terrorism. These attitudes don't spring up in a vacuum.

We’ve radicalized so many now that the only way to effectively eliminate the threat is to first incur more hatred before reducing it to less. We have already been over why disengagement will not work.

Yes, we've been treated to your endless sophistries on the matter.

THAT little fantasy about how easy the whole thing will go.

You’ve yet to provide a logical or sustainable counter-argument. In fact, all you’ve done is wank about blanket statements I never made about an Iranian air force not existing.

Another idiotic strawman. You just never tire of putting these up, do you?

The wanking is entirely your own. The only way to ensure hitting the intended targets without resistance would be to suppress their defence, which means hitting far more than nuclear facilities. Which means the phenomenon known as mission-creep.

Let’s see. Power plants. Military bases. Military depots. Air defense sites. Ministry buildings. Select research facilities. Radars and warning stations. “Subtantial” does not mean all-out war, idiot.

It may come to it, or you expect the Iranians to just lie back and take it when we bomb them?

I don’t care what Chalabi said. I want proof that Cheney used his information EXCLUSIVELY when making those statements. Which you’ve yet to give. For the third time.

And ONCE AGAIN:

Linky

excerpt:

Whopper No. 3: A month earlier, Cheney claimed they had found conclusive proof of an illicit Iraqi bioweapons program in the form of two old trailers rusting in the desert.

In a Sept. 14, 2003, interview with NBC's Tim Russert, he called them "mobile biological facilities" that can be used to produce deadly germ agents for terrorist attack.

Only, Kay said he couldn't "corroborate" that. The trailers, which came back negative for traces of warfare agents like anthrax, were more than likely used to fill hydrogen weather balloons.

In fact, Iraq may not have had any mobile bioweapons labs at all. Turns out another unreliable Iraqi defector tied to Ahmed Chalabi was the source of that prewar intelligence. The exile failed a lie detector test by the Defense Intelligence Agency and was labeled a "fabricator" before the war, yet the White House used him anyway to help build its case for invasion.

Whopper No. 4: Cheney in the same NBC interview claimed the pair of trailers discovered in Iraq could have been used to make smallpox.

"We've, since the war, found two mobile biological facilities that can be used to produce anthrax or smallpox or whatever else you wanted to use during the course of developing the capacity for an attack," he told Russert.

Major news, if true.

However, growing smallpox requires a bioreactor and a maximum containment lab. The trailers, which had canvas siding, had neither.

But then Cheney knew this.

He also knew that in the run-up to the war the U.S. intelligence community estimated the chances were only "even that smallpox is part of Iraq's offensive BW [biowarfare] program," according to the October 2002 NIE report.

I tire of your bullshit denials.

No, fuckface —I care about facts; chief among which is that Iran didn't attempt to invade Iraq. That Kuwait feared Iran has no bearing upon that fact. And there were no terrorist organisations such as Al-Qaeda in existence in 1980 and what terror organisations did exist were aimed at Israel. I don't go by the calculus of paranoia.

So the Kuwaiti government, in your opinion, spent one billion dollars helping Iraq fight enemies it did not really have, because Iran probably wouldn’t occupy them anyway? Interesting.

Strawman n. 50, I think.

Yes, their agents were aimed at their enemies in Iraq; just as we had agents aimed at our enemies. And Iran has not attacked with guided missiles against anybody, nor is expressing intent to attack other Muslim states or interfere with the Persian Gulf. Iranian money may sponsor terrorism, but so does Pakistani money and Saudi money; this is not in and of itself a sufficent cause for war.

Uh, actually, Iran’s been squabbeling over Persian Gulf islands with its Gulf neighbors for YEARS. They have sought to LEAD US INTO WAR. They have also OFFICIALLY SUPPORTED THE 9/11 TERRORISTS.

So, a territorial dispute is a casus belli, eh? And as for Iran supporting the 9/11 terrorists:

Link

excerpt:

The commission report does not address which Al Qaeda members specifically benefited from the clean passport policy. It also emphasizes that the panel has found no evidence suggesting that Iranian government officials had advance knowledge of bin Laden’s plans to attack the World Trade Towers and Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001.

And:

Bush administration officials emphasized today that the 9/11 report also included contradictory information that undercut the idea of a strong relationship between Iran and Al Qaeda-and even cast some doubt on the conclusion that the Iranians were providing special favors for bin Laden’s organization.

In interviews with U.S. interrogators, two high-level Al Qaeda detainees—September 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-Shibh—confirmed that some of the 9/11 hijackers had transited through Iran on their way to and from the Afghan training camps, the report says, according to knowledgable sources. But the two Al Qaeda captives insisted the hijackers did so mainly to take advantage of a general Iranian practice of not stamping "Saudi passports"—indicating that the Iranian policy may have been cast more broadly than just Al Qaeda members.

Y'see, Axi, it's necessary to read the whole story, not just the bits that suit you.

As for that ridiculous false dichotomy about having to strike all enemies at once, using the same strategy, or none at all? Go shove it.

Coming from a practitioner of False Dilemmas, a most amusing rant.

The Iraqis hate them because of the retaliations occuring in the course of the war THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT STARTED, MORON. Kuwait's fear from the 1980s has no bearing upon what threat Iran may present in the current time towards other Muslim states.

It does since Iran’s government hasn’t changed, fuckface.

Their policies have, whether you wish to acknowledge the fact or not.

A perspective:

A perspective that does not include the new findings of the 9/11 Commission. Or the Ahmad Chalabi issue. Once again, more wanking on your part about good-will that clearly doesn’t exist, as per the Iranian’s own admission.

Sigh:

Link

excerpt:

The commission report does not address which Al Qaeda members specifically benefited from the clean passport policy. It also emphasizes that the panel has found no evidence suggesting that Iranian government officials had advance knowledge of bin Laden’s plans to attack the World Trade Towers and Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001.

And:

Bush administration officials emphasized today that the 9/11 report also included contradictory information that undercut the idea of a strong relationship between Iran and Al Qaeda-and even cast some doubt on the conclusion that the Iranians were providing special favors for bin Laden’s organization.

In interviews with U.S. interrogators, two high-level Al Qaeda detainees—September 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-Shibh—confirmed that some of the 9/11 hijackers had transited through Iran on their way to and from the Afghan training camps, the report says, according to knowledgable sources. But the two Al Qaeda captives insisted the hijackers did so mainly to take advantage of a general Iranian practice of not stamping "Saudi passports"—indicating that the Iranian policy may have been cast more broadly than just Al Qaeda members.

Y'see, Axi, it's necessary to read the whole story, not just the bits that suit you.

THE ENTIRE BASIS OF YOUR ARGUMENT AGAINST THE JERUSALEM FORCE’S IMPORTANCE RESTS ON A RIDICULOUS AND ILLOGICAL COMPARISON TO ITS COUNTERPARTS IN ANOTHER COUNTRY WITH UTTERLY DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES ATTENDING, DIPSHIT!

And this relates to your blatant lie about what the Asia Times article actually said... how, exactly?

Anti-terrorist European intelligence raises several points. First, there is no proven connection between al-Qaeda and the Islamic Republic's religious leadership. And Saad is not the new Osama. According to one special investigator, "Our main target now is not Osama's son, but Muhamad Ibrahim Makkawi [aka Saif al-Adil, a former colonel in the Egyptian army, born in 1960 or 1963]. He is an explosives expert and most probably the successor of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed." Khalid Shaikh, widely reputed to be the mastermind of September 11, was captured in Pakistan in March.

That’s now false, according to the 9/11 Commission. Iran did indeed support terrorists directly. Al-Qaeda.

Sigh:

Link

excerpt:

The commission report does not address which Al Qaeda members specifically benefited from the clean passport policy. It also emphasizes that the panel has found no evidence suggesting that Iranian government officials had advance knowledge of bin Laden’s plans to attack the World Trade Towers and Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001.

And:

Bush administration officials emphasized today that the 9/11 report also included contradictory information that undercut the idea of a strong relationship between Iran and Al Qaeda-and even cast some doubt on the conclusion that the Iranians were providing special favors for bin Laden’s organization.

In interviews with U.S. interrogators, two high-level Al Qaeda detainees—September 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-Shibh—confirmed that some of the 9/11 hijackers had transited through Iran on their way to and from the Afghan training camps, the report says, according to knowledgable sources. But the two Al Qaeda captives insisted the hijackers did so mainly to take advantage of a general Iranian practice of not stamping "Saudi passports"—indicating that the Iranian policy may have been cast more broadly than just Al Qaeda members.

Y'see, Axi, it's necessary to read the whole story, not just the bits that suit you.

European intelligence agrees that Saif al-Adil and Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah are indeed the current top deputies to bin Laden and al-Qaeda's number two, Ayman "the Surgeon" al-Zawahiri, who now contact their operatives only through human couriers. But the assumption that Ayman al-Zawahiri used his decade-old relationship with the Jerusalem force to negotiate a safe harbor for some of al-Qaeda's leaders bombed by the Americans in Tora Bora, in southeast Afghanistan, in December 2001, is also ludicrous: these al-Qaeda leaders escaped to Pakistan's tribal areas, where they remained ever since. There's evidence that only but a few crossed the border from Pakistan's to Iran's Balochistan desert.

But that when they did pass, those “few” were officially aided. Eat it, fucker.

Sigh:

Link

excerpt:

The commission report does not address which Al Qaeda members specifically benefited from the clean passport policy. It also emphasizes that the panel has found no evidence suggesting that Iranian government officials had advance knowledge of bin Laden’s plans to attack the World Trade Towers and Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001.

And:

Bush administration officials emphasized today that the 9/11 report also included contradictory information that undercut the idea of a strong relationship between Iran and Al Qaeda-and even cast some doubt on the conclusion that the Iranians were providing special favors for bin Laden’s organization.

In interviews with U.S. interrogators, two high-level Al Qaeda detainees—September 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-Shibh—confirmed that some of the 9/11 hijackers had transited through Iran on their way to and from the Afghan training camps, the report says, according to knowledgable sources. But the two Al Qaeda captives insisted the hijackers did so mainly to take advantage of a general Iranian practice of not stamping "Saudi passports"—indicating that the Iranian policy may have been cast more broadly than just Al Qaeda members.

Y'see, Axi, it's necessary to read the whole story, not just the bits that suit you. I'm not eating anything today. But YOU are.

Sometimes the comedy just writes itself, doesn't it? There it is, Axi: the piece you imagine "refutes" me or brands me a liar but actually shows you to be the fundamentally dishonest little fuck you truly are.

Your “piece” is now full of opinions that contradict the 9./11 Commission’s findings. Thus, it’s not really a “piece” worth reading at all.

Sigh:

Link

excerpt:

The commission report does not address which Al Qaeda members specifically benefited from the clean passport policy. It also emphasizes that the panel has found no evidence suggesting that Iranian government officials had advance knowledge of bin Laden’s plans to attack the World Trade Towers and Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001.

And:

Bush administration officials emphasized today that the 9/11 report also included contradictory information that undercut the idea of a strong relationship between Iran and Al Qaeda-and even cast some doubt on the conclusion that the Iranians were providing special favors for bin Laden’s organization.

In interviews with U.S. interrogators, two high-level Al Qaeda detainees—September 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-Shibh—confirmed that some of the 9/11 hijackers had transited through Iran on their way to and from the Afghan training camps, the report says, according to knowledgable sources. But the two Al Qaeda captives insisted the hijackers did so mainly to take advantage of a general Iranian practice of not stamping "Saudi passports"—indicating that the Iranian policy may have been cast more broadly than just Al Qaeda members.

Y'see, Axi, it's necessary to read the whole story, not just the bits that suit you.

[Durandal]

Degan, I fixed whatever problem was making the page render really weirdly. Long posts mess with phpBB I guess.

[Axis Kast]

YOUR bullshit —at no point was war an imperative, and there was certainly nothing which indicated any imminent Iraqi attack in the works. Bush and co. were already pushing for war even on trying to urge Richard Clarke to manufacture a link between Iraq and 9/11.

Irrelevant. We are not debating the grounds for war in Iraq.

In any case, a disinformation campaign is in no way, shape, or form akin to a military attack and does not meet the definition of an act justifying a military response no matter how desperately you try to argue otherwise.

A baseless argument. The frequency of intelligence activities have absolutely no bearing on their nature. Iran’s misinformation campaign was evidently hostile.

I've been facing your actual argument for the last several days now —a huge steaming mound of your bullshit. Disinformation is not open hostility. It is not a military attack. No amount of verbage can make it one no matter how desperately you try to argue otherwise.

Repetition on your part. Unnecessary – and still unfounded.

Except there was absolutely no guarantee that Washington would opt for a war which was not imperative and the case for which was not supported by anything Chalabi put forth. The decisionmaking was entirely in Bush's hands and no one else's. And in any case, disinformation is not a military attack and cannot be made to look like one no matter how desperately you try to argue otherwise.

Repetition on your part. Unnecessary – and still unfounded.

YOU are the deluded son of a bitch. The world does not operate along the simplistic lines you keep imagining it does; particularly not when decisions for war are being assessed. No single action or even chain of actions makes a case for war in and of themselves, and it usually takes an extreme action to finally tip the balance.

Which is why we’re discussing not only the misinformation campaign, but also Iran’s lengthy history of support for terrorists, its more recent involvement in the transit of al-Qaeda members across its borders unchecked, its current inability to police arms of its own government currently sponsoring terrorism across the globe, and its standing among neighbors since the Shah’s time.

It also emphasizes that the panel has found no evidence suggesting that Iranian government officials had advance knowledge of bin Laden’s plans to attack the World Trade Towers and Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001.

Strawman. Not only did I never state that Iran had prior knowledge of the events of September 11th while arguing their guilt of other crimes, but that knowledge in and of itself was by no means a prerequisite for supporting al-Qaeda in the first place.

Bush administration officials emphasized today that the 9/11 report also included contradictory information that undercut the idea of a strong relationship between Iran and Al Qaeda-and even cast some doubt on the conclusion that the Iranians were providing special favors for bin Laden’s organization.

Which means that, at the very best, Iran can be implicated for ineffective border control procedures that help facilitate the movement of international terrorists. On top of the virtually free hand of the Jerusalem Force.

Nice try. The Taliban knew with no doubt whatsoever of Bin Laden's plans, raised no substantive objection despite conscious knowledge of their planned attack on America, and actively provided safe harbour before and after the attack. The case vis-a-vis Iran is more uncertain, but no there is no indication of intelligence support or military coordination to either HAMAS or Hezbollah or Islamic Jihad or even the Jerusalem Force (beyond those Revolutionary Guard elements already cited). Again you try to construct the False Dilemma that to not seek immediate retaliation is to grant approval of their activities; the argument of an imbecile.

“Immediate retaliation” nothing. Iran’s retaliation to this point has been absolutely piddling. A handful of arrests means very little in comparison to an inability to control significant sectors of one’s own military.

Pity the world doesn't work along such bipolar lines in reality, but that's your problem.

So you believe, then, the opposite of what I have stated – that, in effect, those who provide weapons to and harbor terrorists are somehow worthy friends of ours?

Nor does every action rise to the level of justifying war as the sole response. Even the Bush administration aren't crazy enough to seek out another war on top of the one they're already mired in now.

And I have made no statements in support of an outright invasion myself, but rather of limited airstrikes against specific targets limited to military facilities and nuclear research sites.

No, we bombed Libya because they attempted to claim international waters as their own territory and actually shot at our planes. An actual, overtly hostile action.

Iran has been responsible for the deaths of American citizens at terrorist hands. Your continued persistence in ignoring this is evidence of your dishonesty – or rampant stupidity.

And your attempted Cuba argument fails on two grounds: one being that in the Missile Crisis, we were one step away from invasion when a political solution was found, and the second being our pledge not to invade Cuba; agreed to as part of the aforementioned political solution to the Missile Crisis.

A pledge that emerged from our desire to avoid provoking the inevitable Soviet response to our elimination of Castro’s island stronghold. Moron.

Since nothing provided by VEVAK through Chalabi painted Saddam Hussein as preparing a military strike making him an imminent threat, there is no credible argument that Iranian disinfo was guaranteed to bring about a decision by Washington to go to war. And in any case, a disinformation campaign is not an act of war, no matter how desperately you try to argue otherwise.

Whether or not Iran’s efforts would have brought us to war are irrelevant. That was certainly their aim. It is not only successful attacks against us that motivate defensive action.

I see you're still on your nonsensical effort to equate a disinformation campaign with criminal fraud; nevermind that there is no equivalency in the two situations. No matter what information is gathered from any foreign source, there is still not only an obligation but an expectation of subsequent investigation by your nation's own intelligence services to verify the accuracy of the information given that the stakes are war or peace. A case for war has to be proven in advance, not after the fact. So let's have an end to your utter bullshit comparisons to criminal law and move along.

Irrelevant tripe on your part. We are not talking about culpability among our own intelligence agencies, but rather of the implications of Iran’s actions – frank and honest analysis of which you have avoided provided for the entire duration of this argument thus far.

So has Pakistan, but this administration is not attempting to make a case for war either against them or Iran.

Red herring. For the umpteenth time, the options available for confronting Pakistan and Iran are vastly different.

Despite your insane ravings to the contrary, a disinformation campaign is not an act of war, cannot be characterised as anything akin to an act of war, and never has or will justify a military response.

For reasons you will not divulge, hm? You do realize that without some form of evidence or argument to substantiate your claims, they are nothing but worthless diarrhea-of-the-mouth, correct?

For all your fulminations, there was nothing in Chalabi's material indicating that Iraq was posing an immediate attack threat. Trying to build a case for war solely on the basis of suspected arsenals, suspected WMD programmes, and suspected terror links never had any validity from the get-go, but this White House proceeded to do exactly that. At worst, Chalabi's material would have complicated any effort to loosen the sanctions regime locking Iraq down but there was no guarantee that the material could bring about a Washington decision to pursue war. That was wholly Bush's doing and made with the forewarning that Ahmad Chalabi was an internationally-known liar, bank fraud, and convicted swindler and that his organisation had ties to Tehran and was not to be trusted.

And you are the last person on Earth to speak of anyone else's alleged dishonesty.

And yet again, I see, you retreat back into the “I hate Bush!” cocoon of absolutely irrelevant hyperventilating.

No, the problem is that attacking Pakistan would tip its government and society into revolutionary chaos. And no, there isn't casus belli —no action of theirs has risen to the level requiring war as the response.

There is casus belli aplenty, you fucking fool. Pakistan is borderline incapable of policing its own territory – at a significant risk to the national security of this country.

The Iranian government did not have foreknowledge of the 9-11 attacks when it permitted movement across their borders of those who turned out to be among the hijackers, nor knew which Al-Qaeda members would even be involved in such an action, as even the commission report is arguing and is related in Michael Ishikoff's story at MSNBC/Newsweek.

But it certainly understood that its lax methods of border control would make it difficult to track people from a nation long associated with terrorists. And as for your attempt to pass this musing of yours off as fact, I remind you that the report cites differing opinions over whether Iran was abstaining from tighter border control procedures unintentionally – it does not make it clear, however.

Developments subsequent to 9-11 which includes the arrest and detention of Al-Qaeda lieutennants demonstrates that whatever cooperation there may have been between the two entities at one time is no longer operative.

First, your analysis is only one of many possible. The arrests could be as much concessions to international pressure as evidence of new policies of counter-terrorism.

Second, your analysis is irrelevant, since terrorists still find succor from the Jerusalem Force, which Tehran either will not or cannot stop at present.

The United Nations does enforce that definition, and every member state has a stake in its enforcement for very obvious reasons. That is the realm of reality, whether it suits you or not; a consideration which is frankly immaterial.

It sure as hell enforced it in Iraq.

Wrong again, stupid —even Israel had to justify its airstrikes against the Tammuz nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1983 on the basis of Chapter 7's definitions of imminent threat, and the entire war to liberate Kuwait was promulgated upon Iraq's violation of international law and national sovereignty. Those who take it upon themselves to assume right of conquest make themselves subject to military retaliation as a consequence —as Iraq learned in 1991 and North Korea in 1950. Both actions which had the full authority of international law.

Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. The end.

Tell that to Saddam Hussein, who got his ass kicked in 1991 for his invasion of Kuwait and never tried anything like that again, and never even got the chance due to twelve years of enforced UN sanctions.

The United Nations will not lift a finger to stop us. Too bad for you. The wanking can end now.

Iran had no way of knowing who was going to be involved in the September 11th attacks, as the MSNBC article points out. The 9-11 Commission says you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

How about this little gem, then?

But the region is hardly a no man's land. U.S. intelligence believes that in faraway Tehran, the hard-line Islamist clerics who now exercise near total control over Iran directed their border guards to help jihadists coming from Afghanistan.

Clearly, the Iranian government knew they were supporting terrorists. The specific targets are immaterial.

In your opinion.

Prove that they are effectively curbing the freedom of action of the Jerusalem Force.

Nice theory. Pity that's not how things are actually working out. Israel's operated on that theory for twenty years now and are no closer to their supposed Final Victory over terrorism than when they started.

Perhaps because Israel has been largely unable to force Syria and Egypt to fight terrorism more effectively? But no! That couldn’t be it!

Because YOU say so?! No, you are not getting away with that bullshit —either deal with my arguments as they are actually constructed and not by what you choose to interpret in them or stand revealed for the lying little fuck you are. And I will repeat the quote you've so conveniently left out of this discussion:

If you do not believe that police action – i.e. intelligence activities and pin-point strikes focusing on organizations rather than sponsors – is the best answer to terrorism, then what do you believe? That running away or giving in is more appropriate? No, wait! I know! You want to ignore it, as you would have us do with Iran! After all, sponsors of terrorism are just misunderstood, right?

Wrong, stupid, it is the purview of military and civilian intelligence services.

Whose activities fall closer to the definition of “police activities” than preemption of sponsors.

I'm not interested in whatever voice in your head which you've chosen to name "Realist" has to say on the subject. No government has authority to intervene in any other nation's internal troubles or to employ them as a justification for invasion and conquest:

Actually, it’s the definition as laid out in a Police Science course, moron. Contemporary International Politics, to be exact.

Simply put, you have no argument.

Simply put, an appeal to the powerless United Nations is irrelevant, since it cannot enforce its vision of sovereignty upon all members.

It’s a fact of international relationships: when Country A can no longer control affairs within its own borders to the point that said affairs pose a threat to the national security of external parties, intervention results.

No, we very evidenlty do not exercise the same logic vis-a-vis Pakistan, and the danger is not their nuclear weapons but their shaky political situation and the fact that we presently need their support.

And yet we do not need Iran’s. Either way you put it, you lose.

Y'see, Axi, it's necessary to read the whole story, not just the bits that suit you.

Missed that part about official support for “jihadists,” did you?

The encyclopaedia article cited above demonstrates that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Nor does the evident state of affairs in Iran, which do not show a government about to lose control.

The encyclopedia article you cited deals with a definition under completely different guidelines than Realist theory.

And you can stop beating that ridiculous strawman about Iran not being close enough to collapse to justify intervention. A state needn’t be on the rocks for large, ungovernable forces within its borders and supposed jurisdiction to represent a present danger to others.

So we go on the basis of blind paranoia and what the 9-11 commission says only in your deluded fantasy world? Nice formula for chaos from my perspective. And you can cram your strawmen: never have I once said that Iran is friendly and wishes only the best for us, and I defy you to produce one quote which says otherwise. NOT your bullshit lying interpretation of my words but AN ACTUAL FUCKING QUOTE where I say IN PLAIN TEXT that Iran is friendly and wishes us the best —produce, or stand revealed as the pathetic lying little shit you are.

You claim that they’re fucking seeking a rapprochement to bring relations to a more equitable, cooperative stage. That’s utter tripe in the face of their physical record of hostility against the United States and its interests overseas. As actions speak louder than words – especially in the realm of politics –, Iran is evidently not concerned with achieving an “understanding” with the United States in any way, shape, or form.

No, they don't respond to disinformation with military retaliation because nobody will believe that disinformation requires killing the nationals of another state as "an appropriate response" The one is a spoofing operation, the other a military attack. It is the latter nation that is counted the aggressor. They also don't respond because no government is going to put A FUCKING SPOTLIGHT ON THEIR INTEL SERVICES AND THEIR ACTIVITIES, shitwit. This is why the intelligence war is always an underground affair.

Iran’s disinformation efforts were not an affair designed to deflect foreign intelligence operators from gaining knowledge of domestic affairs in Iran itself, but rather to lead the United States of America into a combat situation. Hence their objective was to achieve a shooting war – a physical condition of miltiary action.

That is not the reason, shitwit. We don't break off relations with other nations because reformers are suppressed, as heartless as that may seem, but because in realpolitik there is room only for calculation of advantages. Attacking Iran because we think they might build a bomb presents far more disadvantage that advantage. The mere fact that Iran's reformers have been nullified is not sufficent reason to not deal with its government when the time comes for it, nor for not conducting whatever backchannel dealings we presently engage them with. That is how things operate in a rational world, but we already know you are unable to understand this.

Alone? No. But given Iran’s SUPPORT FOR TERRORISTS, ATTEMPTS TO BRING US TO WAR, AND INABILITY TO CONTROL SPONSORS OF TERRORISM WITHIN ITS OWN BORDER, THE NUCLEAR RESEARCH PROGRAM IT IS NOW ENGAGED IN IS INDEED A POTENTIAL DANGER. Your attempts to strawman the situation in Iran by ignoring absolutely their support for terrorists is just unreal.

No, it is your attempt to argue that a disinformation campaign in an act of war which is the height of unfounded stupidity. And since we were about to invade Cuba, the presence of Soviet armies within striking distance of Berlin and Paris was not a deterrent in and of itself. Those armies and their nuclear arsenal is not why we didn't contemplate a military response to Soviet disinfo but because disinfo is not an act of war, never has been defined as such and never could be credibly defined as such.

The Missile Crisis was not a crisis over a disinformation campaign alone, moron. That is not the comparison we were making at all.

Y'see, Axi, it's necessary to read the whole story, not just the bits that suit you.

A very good piece of advice that you would do well to remember in the future, Deegan.

In this case, the "victim" was required to know better —any case for war requires positive proof in advance and verifiable proof.

Irrelevant non-sequitor. I see you fall back on this one whenever you have trouble.

Secondly, Iranian disinfo did not characterise Saddam Hussein as preparing a military attack.

Again irrelevant.

Thirdly, an act of war is indeed A PHYSICAL FIRST STRIKE WITH THE ENEMY'S MILITARY FORCES.

Or a strike via terrorist proxies. Or an attempt to draw another nation into a shooting war via false pretenses. Or sabotage. Or attempted assassination using intelligence operatives.

And fourth, Iran's sponsorship of terrorism in and of itself is no more a case for war than it is against Pakistan.

And nobody said that Pakistan wouldn’t be deserving of invasion if only the situation befit it. Your continued attempts to argue a black-and-white fallacy regarding the need to hold everyone to the same standard or do nothing at all are worthless. By your own admission, I now win. Iran has committed a hostile action and must be punished, after the same fashion we would punish Pakistan, if only we could.

Disinfo kills? You are out of your tiny mind. And I ignore nothing, shitwit. But you very clearly have.

You’ve ignored everything, you fucking moron. The way you keep beating the black-and-white fallacy about the necessity of fighting Pakistan if we strike Iran is just sad.

And of course misinformation can kill. It’s called a false lead in a major operation.

I said DIRECT challenge, asswipe. Iran is not attempting to expel us by force from either Iraq or the region in general.

Many would beg to differ. Iran’s use of proxies does not negate their own responsibility. Your, “Only an Iranian tank shooting at us could mean anything bad” approach to their guilt is just retarded.

Yes, we've been treated to your endless sophistries on the matter.

So you think terrorism would just go away, if only we “went home” and devastated our own economies to achieve energy independence that is close to a scientific impossibility at this point in time?

Another idiotic strawman. You just never tire of putting these up, do you?

You’re the one shitting all over about how I’ve somehow ignored the Iranian air force – all while I’m posting that we’ll beat it out of the sky.

It may come to it, or you expect the Iranians to just lie back and take it when we bomb them?

Strawman. It’s quite obvious I don’t expect this. Was your only intention here to produce a false statement?

I tire of your bullshit denials.

And I tire of your inability to read.

So, a territorial dispute is a casus belli, eh?

When you send military forces into the region, it’s hostility, asshole.

Coming from a practitioner of False Dilemmas, a most amusing rant.

Concession accepted. Facing down Iran does not necessitate also facing down Pakistan simultaneously, and you know it. I win. The end.

Their policies have, whether you wish to acknowledge the fact or not.

Which is why they still support terrorists and are still trying to get us into a war, right? OF COURSE!

And this relates to your blatant lie about what the Asia Times article actually said... how, exactly?

Prove that the Asia Times article effectively argues against the actions of the Jersualem Force in Iran by any other means than a false comparison to Saddam Hussein.

Y'see, Axi, it's necessary to read the whole story, not just the bits that suit you. I'm not eating anything today. But YOU are.

You mean like that part about facilitating jihadists?

[Patrick Degan]

Oh, and before we go any further, Axi:

Linky
[quote="Cheney on Meet The Press]VICE PRES. CHENEY: Same on biological weapons—we believe he’d developed the capacity to go mobile with his BW production capability because, again, in reaction to what we had done to him in ’91. We had intelligence reporting before the war that there were at least seven of these mobile labs that he had gone out and acquired. We’ve, since the war, found two of them. They’re in our possession today, mobile biological facilities that can be used to produce anthrax or smallpox or whatever else you wanted to use during the course of developing the capacity for an attack.[/quote]

There's Cheney, repeating Chalabi's bullshit as FACT, on national TV.

[Patrick Degan]

You're just too stupid to know when to shut up, aren't you?

YOUR bullshit —at no point was war an imperative, and there was certainly nothing which indicated any imminent Iraqi attack in the works. Bush and co. were already pushing for war even on trying to urge Richard Clarke to manufacture a link between Iraq and 9/11.

Irrelevant. We are not debating the grounds for war in Iraq.

VERY relevant, as no such grounds existed yet the White House charged ahead for a case for war anyway.

In any case, a disinformation campaign is in no way, shape, or form akin to a military attack and does not meet the definition of an act justifying a military response no matter how desperately you try to argue otherwise.

A baseless argument.

Yes —yours.

The frequency of intelligence activities have absolutely no bearing on their nature. Iran’s misinformation campaign was evidently hostile.

Um, stupid —ALL intelligence and counterintelligence campaigns against another nation are technically "hostile", and only by the most technical definition of the word in most cases. And despite your bullshit, disinformation is in no way shape or form akin to an act of war.

I've been facing your actual argument for the last several days now —a huge steaming mound of your bullshit. Disinformation is not open hostility. It is not a military attack. No amount of verbage can make it one no matter how desperately you try to argue otherwise.

Repetition on your part. Unnecessary – and still unfounded.

The only unfounded thing here is your idiotic premise.

Except there was absolutely no guarantee that Washington would opt for a war which was not imperative and the case for which was not supported by anything Chalabi put forth. The decisionmaking was entirely in Bush's hands and no one else's. And in any case, disinformation is not a military attack and cannot be made to look like one no matter how desperately you try to argue otherwise.

Repetition on your part. Unnecessary – and still unfounded.

The only unfounded thing here is your idiotic premise. Now you're simply avoiding the issue.

YOU are the deluded son of a bitch. The world does not operate along the simplistic lines you keep imagining it does; particularly not when decisions for war are being assessed. No single action or even chain of actions makes a case for war in and of themselves, and it usually takes an extreme action to finally tip the balance.

Which is why we’re discussing not only the misinformation campaign, but also Iran’s lengthy history of support for terrorists, its more recent involvement in the transit of al-Qaeda members across its borders unchecked, its current inability to police arms of its own government currently sponsoring terrorism across the globe, and its standing among neighbors since the Shah’s time.

Yes, we're having to wade through your endless bullshit on these subjects and watching you trying desperately to manufacture excuses you imagine will justify military action. Like your "loss of sovereignty" sophistries, your paranoid rantings about Iran's alleged bomb effort with NO supporting evidence to back your rants, your specious attempt to liken disinformation to an act of war, and tying it together with allegations of Iranian involvement with 9-11 even though the very commission report you're leaning on DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR ASSERTION.

It also emphasizes that the panel has found no evidence suggesting that Iranian government officials had advance knowledge of bin Laden’s plans to attack the World Trade Towers and Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001.

Strawman. Not only did I never state that Iran had prior knowledge of the events of September 11th while arguing their guilt of other crimes, but that knowledge in and of itself was by no means a prerequisite for supporting al-Qaeda in the first place.

THAT ISN'T A STRAWMAN YOU STUPID FUCK —YOU KEPT YAMMERING ABOUT IRAN'S INVOLVEMENT WITH SEPTEMBER 11TH Furthermore, the report is uncertain about the exact nature of Iranian involvement with Al-Qaeda and how closely they were tied together.

Bush administration officials emphasized today that the 9/11 report also included contradictory information that undercut the idea of a strong relationship between Iran and Al Qaeda-and even cast some doubt on the conclusion that the Iranians were providing special favors for bin Laden’s organization.

Which means that, at the very best, Iran can be implicated for ineffective border control procedures that help facilitate the movement of international terrorists. On top of the virtually free hand of the Jerusalem Force.

That is not what that part of the report says at all. Now you are simply making shit up.

Nice try. The Taliban knew with no doubt whatsoever of Bin Laden's plans, raised no substantive objection despite conscious knowledge of their planned attack on America, and actively provided safe harbour before and after the attack. The case vis-a-vis Iran is more uncertain, but no there is no indication of intelligence support or military coordination to either HAMAS or Hezbollah or Islamic Jihad or even the Jerusalem Force (beyond those Revolutionary Guard elements already cited). Again you try to construct the False Dilemma that to not seek immediate retaliation is to grant approval of their activities; the argument of an imbecile.

“Immediate retaliation” nothing. Iran’s retaliation to this point has been absolutely piddling. A handful of arrests means very little in comparison to an inability to control significant sectors of one’s own military.

An argument you have not supported with anything save the already hashed-over link between some elements of the Revolutionary Guards and the Jerusalem Force.

So you believe, then, the opposite of what I have stated – that, in effect, those who provide weapons to and harbor terrorists are somehow worthy friends of ours?

Strawman n. 51.

Nor does every action rise to the level of justifying war as the sole response. Even the Bush administration aren't crazy enough to seek out another war on top of the one they're already mired in now.

And I have made no statements in support of an outright invasion myself, but rather of limited airstrikes against specific targets limited to military facilities and nuclear research sites.

Right —just an unprovoked attack upon another nation which has not attacked U.S. forces on the grounds of mere suspicion of a bomb programme and disinfo which you think will remain limited, assuming the Iranians simply decide to be good sports about our bombing their country.

No, we bombed Libya because they attempted to claim international waters as their own territory and actually shot at our planes. An actual, overtly hostile action.

Iran has been responsible for the deaths of American citizens at terrorist hands. Your continued persistence in ignoring this is evidence of your dishonesty – or rampant stupidity.

The mere spectacle of you presuming to accuse anybody else of dishonesty or rampant stupidity has to be one of the funniest aspects of this whole sorry show. I hate to tell you this, but we don't go to war simply because a small handful of people get killed in a bombing attack and not one carried out by a third party. National policy is never dictated by simpleminded revenge —especially where war or peace are concerned.

And your attempted Cuba argument fails on two grounds: one being that in the Missile Crisis, we were one step away from invasion when a political solution was found, and the second being our pledge not to invade Cuba; agreed to as part of the aforementioned political solution to the Missile Crisis.

A pledge that emerged from our desire to avoid provoking the inevitable Soviet response to our elimination of Castro’s island stronghold.

The strategic equation that existed then shows conclusively that if the Cuban crisis had gone to all-out war, the Soviets would have lost badly. We could have gone ahead but a political solution was the better option.

Moron.

Yes, you certainly are.

Since nothing provided by VEVAK through Chalabi painted Saddam Hussein as preparing a military strike making him an imminent threat, there is no credible argument that Iranian disinfo was guaranteed to bring about a decision by Washington to go to war. And in any case, a disinformation campaign is not an act of war, no matter how desperately you try to argue otherwise.

Whether or not Iran’s efforts would have brought us to war are irrelevant. That was certainly their aim. It is not only successful attacks against us that motivate defensive action.

Only in that warped little mind of yours. History shows you don't know what the fuck you're babbling about.

I see you're still on your nonsensical effort to equate a disinformation campaign with criminal fraud; nevermind that there is no equivalency in the two situations. No matter what information is gathered from any foreign source, there is still not only an obligation but an expectation of subsequent investigation by your nation's own intelligence services to verify the accuracy of the information given that the stakes are war or peace. A case for war has to be proven in advance, not after the fact. So let's have an end to your utter bullshit comparisons to criminal law and move along.

Irrelevant tripe on your part. We are not talking about culpability among our own intelligence agencies, but rather of the implications of Iran’s actions – frank and honest analysis of which you have avoided provided for the entire duration of this argument thus far.

On the contrary, Insane One, the problem is that you simply refuse to accept answers which contradict your HULK SMASH view of the world.

So has Pakistan, but this administration is not attempting to make a case for war either against them or Iran.

Red herring. For the umpteenth time, the options available for confronting Pakistan and Iran are vastly different.

NOT a Red Herring, but a clear example of my case in action.

Despite your insane ravings to the contrary, a disinformation campaign is not an act of war, cannot be characterised as anything akin to an act of war, and never has or will justify a military response.

For reasons you will not divulge, hm? You do realize that without some form of evidence or argument to substantiate your claims, they are nothing but worthless diarrhea-of-the-mouth, correct?

Um, wrong asshole —it is YOU who is making the extraordinary claim here. I don't have to prove that an apple is not an orange. YOU must offer some scrap of logical proof that a disinformation campaign can somehow be equated as an act of war the same as a military attack, despite the fact that the definitions of both are totally dissimilar and the effects of both are totally dissimilar.

For all your fulminations, there was nothing in Chalabi's material indicating that Iraq was posing an immediate attack threat. Trying to build a case for war solely on the basis of suspected arsenals, suspected WMD programmes, and suspected terror links never had any validity from the get-go, but this White House proceeded to do exactly that. At worst, Chalabi's material would have complicated any effort to loosen the sanctions regime locking Iraq down but there was no guarantee that the material could bring about a Washington decision to pursue war. That was wholly Bush's doing and made with the forewarning that Ahmad Chalabi was an internationally-known liar, bank fraud, and convicted swindler and that his organisation had ties to Tehran and was not to be trusted.

And you are the last person on Earth to speak of anyone else's alleged dishonesty.

And yet again, I see, you retreat back into the “I hate Bush!” cocoon of absolutely irrelevant hyperventilating.

Strawman n. 52.

No, the problem is that attacking Pakistan would tip its government and society into revolutionary chaos. And no, there isn't casus belli —no action of theirs has risen to the level requiring war as the response.

There is casus belli aplenty, you fucking fool. Pakistan is borderline incapable of policing its own territory – at a significant risk to the national security of this country.

That is not a casus belli —no nation's internal troubles constitute a justification for military action against it.

The Iranian government did not have foreknowledge of the 9-11 attacks when it permitted movement across their borders of those who turned out to be among the hijackers, nor knew which Al-Qaeda members would even be involved in such an action, as even the commission report is arguing and is related in Michael Ishikoff's story at MSNBC/Newsweek.

But it certainly understood that its lax methods of border control would make it difficult to track people from a nation long associated with terrorists. And as for your attempt to pass this musing of yours off as fact, I remind you that the report cites differing opinions over whether Iran was abstaining from tighter border control procedures unintentionally – it does not make it clear, however.

The fact that there are "differing opinions" cited in the report makes the case far from clear. And by your "logic", our own lax border control with Mexico makes us complicit in any movement of terrorists across that boundary should such occur.

Developments subsequent to 9-11 which includes the arrest and detention of Al-Qaeda lieutennants demonstrates that whatever cooperation there may have been between the two entities at one time is no longer operative.

First, your analysis is only one of many possible. The arrests could be as much concessions to international pressure as evidence of new policies of counter-terrorism.

Whatever the specific motivation, the arrests and detentions occurred. Period.

Second, your analysis is irrelevant, since terrorists still find succor from the Jerusalem Force, which Tehran either will not or cannot stop at present.

Same as with Pakistan and its present situation with Al-Qaeda sanctuaries.

The United Nations does enforce that definition, and every member state has a stake in its enforcement for very obvious reasons. That is the realm of reality, whether it suits you or not; a consideration which is frankly immaterial.

It sure as hell enforced it in Iraq.

Yes it did —for twelve years until we violated the UN Charter. Now we're begging them to come and help enforce it again because we're looking for some way to start extricating ourselves from the mess we've gotten entangled in.

Wrong again, stupid —even Israel had to justify its airstrikes against the Tammuz nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1983 on the basis of Chapter 7's definitions of imminent threat, and the entire war to liberate Kuwait was promulgated upon Iraq's violation of international law and national sovereignty. Those who take it upon themselves to assume right of conquest make themselves subject to military retaliation as a consequence —as Iraq learned in 1991 and North Korea in 1950. Both actions which had the full authority of international law.

Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. The end.

Only in that simple brain of yours.

Tell that to Saddam Hussein, who got his ass kicked in 1991 for his invasion of Kuwait and never tried anything like that again, and never even got the chance due to twelve years of enforced UN sanctions.

The United Nations will not lift a finger to stop us. Too bad for you. The wanking can end now.

No, they just won't lift a finger to help us now that we're stuck —until we give up the tacit control we've claimed over there. But eventually, we will have to turn it over to them. And I do wish the wanking would end, but you seem unable to stop yourself.

Iran had no way of knowing who was going to be involved in the September 11th attacks, as the MSNBC article points out. The 9-11 Commission says you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

How about this little gem, then?

But the region is hardly a no man's land. U.S. intelligence believes that in faraway Tehran, the hard-line Islamist clerics who now exercise near total control over Iran directed their border guards to help jihadists coming from Afghanistan.

Clearly, the Iranian government knew they were supporting terrorists. The specific targets are immaterial.

A point we're not arguing. The question is the one you opened the door to: possible Iraninan involvement with September 11th; an issue the commission is not at all certain of.

Prove that they are effectively curbing the freedom of action of the Jerusalem Force.

Since I have never attempted to argue any such thing, we'll just list this as Strawman n. 53.

Nice theory. Pity that's not how things are actually working out. Israel's operated on that theory for twenty years now and are no closer to their supposed Final Victory over terrorism than when they started.

Perhaps because Israel has been largely unable to force Syria and Egypt to fight terrorism more effectively? But no! That couldn’t be it!

Because perhaps Israel doesn't consider it worth a full-scale war with either nation?! But no, that couldn't be it...

Because YOU say so?! No, you are not getting away with that bullshit —either deal with my arguments as they are actually constructed and not by what you choose to interpret in them or stand revealed for the lying little fuck you are. And I will repeat the quote you've so conveniently left out of this discussion:

If you do not believe that police action blah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah...

I asked you to provide a quote from me saying I said any such thing as "ignoring the problem" —A DIRECT QUOTE IN TEXT. You have failed to do so, lying little fuck. No surprise.

Wrong, stupid, it is the purview of military and civilian intelligence services.

Whose activities fall closer to the definition of “police activities” than preemption of sponsors.

No, they are "counterintelligence activities". That is the definition which applies.

I'm not interested in whatever voice in your head which you've chosen to name "Realist" has to say on the subject. No government has authority to intervene in any other nation's internal troubles or to employ them as a justification for invasion and conquest:

Actually, it’s the definition as laid out in a Police Science course, moron. Contemporary International Politics, to be exact.

Then it seems whoever wrote that course didn't know what the fuck he was talking about either. The UN Charter's definition trumps.

Simply put, an appeal to the powerless United Nations is irrelevant, since it cannot enforce its vision of sovereignty upon all members.

All members contribute to that enforcement and certainly have their own interest in that enforcement. It is your argument which is irrelevant.

It’s a fact of international relationships: when Country A can no longer control affairs within its own borders to the point that said affairs pose a threat to the national security of external parties, intervention results.

Unless Country B can make a credible case along those lines, it is subject to pressure to force it out. Israel was ultimately forced to quit Lebanon by weight of international pressure, just as Iraq was forced to quit Kuwait by a UN-sanctioned war.

No, we very evidenlty do not exercise the same logic vis-a-vis Pakistan, and the danger is not their nuclear weapons but their shaky political situation and the fact that we presently need their support.

And yet we do not need Iran’s. Either way you put it, you lose.

Yet another insane claim of victory. You're awfully fond of such empty blusterings, aren't you? A neutral Iran at the least has facilitated our actions in both Afganistan and Iraq. We do not need another enemy on the flank; therefore it is not in our interest to launch military action against them.

Y'see, Axi, it's necessary to read the whole story, not just the bits that suit you.

Missed that part about official support for “jihadists,” did you?

I missed nothing, asshole. Iran's general linkage with terrorism is not the subject of the dispute over the commission report. YOU opened the door on the involvement with September 11th question.

The encyclopaedia article cited above demonstrates that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Nor does the evident state of affairs in Iran, which do not show a government about to lose control.

The encyclopedia article you cited deals with a definition under completely different guidelines than Realist theory.

Yes —the guidelines which actually apply in the real world and not those in accordance with the voices in your head.

And you can stop beating that ridiculous strawman about Iran not being close enough to collapse to justify intervention. A state needn’t be on the rocks for large, ungovernable forces within its borders and supposed jurisdiction to represent a present danger to others.

Except they don't even represent that level of danger. Iran has not attacked its neighbour states at any time in the past 20 years nor shows indications of doing so at present, and has not attempted anywhere near its onetime failed effort to export its revolution, which has passed into its Thermidor stage.

So we go on the basis of blind paranoia and what the 9-11 commission says only in your deluded fantasy world? Nice formula for chaos from my perspective. And you can cram your strawmen: never have I once said that Iran is friendly and wishes only the best for us, and I defy you to produce one quote which says otherwise. NOT your bullshit lying interpretation of my words but AN ACTUAL FUCKING QUOTE where I say IN PLAIN TEXT that Iran is friendly and wishes us the best —produce, or stand revealed as the pathetic lying little shit you are.

You claim that they’re fucking seeking a rapprochement to bring relations to a more equitable, cooperative stage. That’s utter tripe in the face of their physical record of hostility against the United States and its interests overseas. As actions speak louder than words – especially in the realm of politics –, Iran is evidently not concerned with achieving an “understanding” with the United States in any way, shape, or form.

Once again, you fail to provide an actual quote that I said anything like "Iran is friendly". Once again, you show yourself to be the lying little fuck. No surprise. I stated that initial approaches to rapproachment were being attempted; that the process was far from complete, and at no time have ever attempted to argue that contention between ourselves and Iran is close to easing at this stage of the process. And despite Iran's involvement with terrorists, understandings in regards to neutrality in the Afgan and Iraq wars were forged, as was an agreement to rescue downed U.S. fliers if they came down within their territory during those conflicts. Iran did not attempt to diplomatically interfere with either war effort nor interfere with U.S. shipping in the Gulf. They have arrested and detained Al-Qaeda lieutennants. That is certainly not wholesale friendship by any definition of the term but trading in mutual interest as necessary —the first step toward any process of rapproachment. And there is certainly still a very long way to go before any substantive warming of relations between the two governments ensues.

No, they don't respond to disinformation with military retaliation because nobody will believe that disinformation requires killing the nationals of another state as "an appropriate response" The one is a spoofing operation, the other a military attack. It is the latter nation that is counted the aggressor. They also don't respond because no government is going to put A FUCKING SPOTLIGHT ON THEIR INTEL SERVICES AND THEIR ACTIVITIES, shitwit. This is why the intelligence war is always an underground affair.

Iran’s disinformation efforts were not an affair designed to deflect foreign intelligence operators from gaining knowledge of domestic affairs in Iran itself, but rather to lead the United States of America into a combat situation. Hence their objective was to achieve a shooting war – a physical condition of miltiary action.

In your opinion —already established as quite valueless. The only immediate objective was to boost Ahmad Chalabi's credibility. The rest we did entirely on our own; most particularly bringing about the war. And the only equation of a disinformation effort with a military attack is one of rank sophistry. You can't point to an act of war without there having been an actual attack by the one nation's military forces against the other.

That is not the reason, shitwit. We don't break off relations with other nations because reformers are suppressed, as heartless as that may seem, but because in realpolitik there is room only for calculation of advantages. Attacking Iran because we think they might build a bomb presents far more disadvantage that advantage. The mere fact that Iran's reformers have been nullified is not sufficent reason to not deal with its government when the time comes for it, nor for not conducting whatever backchannel dealings we presently engage them with. That is how things operate in a rational world, but we already know you are unable to understand this.

Alone? No. But given Iran’s SUPPORT FOR TERRORISTS, ATTEMPTS TO BRING US TO WAR, AND INABILITY TO CONTROL SPONSORS OF TERRORISM WITHIN ITS OWN BORDER, THE NUCLEAR RESEARCH PROGRAM IT IS NOW ENGAGED IN IS INDEED A POTENTIAL DANGER. Your attempts to strawman the situation in Iran by ignoring absolutely their support for terrorists is just unreal.

Strawman n. 54.

No, it is your attempt to argue that a disinformation campaign in an act of war which is the height of unfounded stupidity. And since we were about to invade Cuba, the presence of Soviet armies within striking distance of Berlin and Paris was not a deterrent in and of itself. Those armies and their nuclear arsenal is not why we didn't contemplate a military response to Soviet disinfo but because disinfo is not an act of war, never has been defined as such and never could be credibly defined as such.

The Missile Crisis was not a crisis over a disinformation campaign alone, moron. That is not the comparison we were making at all.

Strawman n. 55.

Y'see, Axi, it's necessary to read the whole story, not just the bits that suit you.

A very good piece of advice that you would do well to remember in the future, Deegan.

Only when I grow as unable to comprehend what I read as you are.

In this case, the "victim" was required to know better —any case for war requires positive proof in advance and verifiable proof.

Irrelevant non-sequitor. I see you fall back on this one whenever you have trouble.

What trouble? We're addressing your specious argument that we were "led into war" by the Big Bad Iranians™.

Secondly, Iranian disinfo did not characterise Saddam Hussein as preparing a military attack.

Again irrelevant.

VERY relevant, as it addresses your specious argument that we were "led into war" by the Big Bad Iranians™.

Thirdly, an act of war is indeed A PHYSICAL FIRST STRIKE WITH THE ENEMY'S MILITARY FORCES.

Or a strike via terrorist proxies. Or an attempt to draw another nation into a shooting war via false pretenses. Or sabotage. Or attempted assassination using intelligence operatives.

YOUR non-sequitor, I believe.

And fourth, Iran's sponsorship of terrorism in and of itself is no more a case for war than it is against Pakistan.

And nobody said that Pakistan wouldn’t be deserving of invasion if only the situation befit it.

Actually, nobody is saying any such thing at all —except you.

Your continued attempts to argue a black-and-white fallacy regarding the need to hold everyone to the same standard or do nothing at all are worthless.

That is NOT a black/white fallacy at all, but an argument for consistent standards. YOU are the one spewing False Dilemmas about retaliation or doing nothing at all.

By your own admission, I now win.

No doubt cried out by you while whipping your skippy.

Iran has committed a hostile action and must be punished, after the same fashion we would punish Pakistan, if only we could.

Funny, but I don't recall Iranian missiles being fired at any of our ships or planes. I don't recall Iranian airstrikes against our troops or bases in the Gulf. And I certainly didn't read of positive evidence for Iranian involvement with September 11th. I recall even less Pakistan ever being guilty of such actions against us. I guess those occurred in that little Slider-universe you live in most of the time because they certainly didn't occur in the real world.

Disinfo kills? You are out of your tiny mind. And I ignore nothing, shitwit. But you very clearly have.

You’ve ignored everything, you fucking moron. The way you keep beating the black-and-white fallacy about the necessity of fighting Pakistan if we strike Iran is just sad.

No, what's sad is your pretense that you actually understand what a logical fallacy is, as well as your inability to understand any such concept as consistency or proportionality. But I guess this is how you are capable of screaming about punishment like a deranged 12-year old all the time.

I said DIRECT challenge, asswipe. Iran is not attempting to expel us by force from either Iraq or the region in general.

Many would beg to differ. Iran’s use of proxies does not negate their own responsibility. Your, “Only an Iranian tank shooting at us could mean anything bad” approach to their guilt is just retarded.

No, what's retarded is your equating every act as the same, with no concept of proportionality. The reasoning of a deranged 12-year old.

Yes, we've been treated to your endless sophistries on the matter.

So you think terrorism would just go away, if only we “went home” and devastated our own economies to achieve energy independence that is close to a scientific impossibility at this point in time?

Strawman n. 55 and a non-sequitor. Breathtaking stupidity.

You’re the one shitting all over about how I’ve somehow ignored the Iranian air force – all while I’m posting that we’ll beat it out of the sky.

Except I never said any such thing, so we'll mark this as yet another of your pathetic lies.

It may come to it, or you expect the Iranians to just lie back and take it when we bomb them?

Strawman. It’s quite obvious I don’t expect this. Was your only intention here to produce a false statement?

No, just to beat down yours.

I tire of your bullshit denials.

And I tire of your inability to read.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

So, a territorial dispute is a casus belli, eh?

When you send military forces into the region, it’s hostility, asshole.

Simplistic equations do not an argument make.

Coming from a practitioner of False Dilemmas, a most amusing rant.

Concession accepted. Facing down Iran does not necessitate also facing down Pakistan simultaneously, and you know it. I win. The end.

Insane babble. And Strawman n. 56 to boot.

Their policies have, whether you wish to acknowledge the fact or not.

Which is why they still support terrorists and are still trying to get us into a war, right? OF COURSE!

They are no longer attempting to export their revolution and are forging relations with the EU, China, and Saudi Arabia. And you can keep dragging your "they tried to force us into war" red herring until its scales fall off and it remains no more true now than the other several dozen times you've made this inane argument. Iran's ties to terrorism are the only serious bone of contention to be dealt with here, and there are means far short of war or military strikes which can be employed toward that problem.

And this relates to your blatant lie about what the Asia Times article actually said... how, exactly?

Prove that the Asia Times article effectively argues against the actions of the Jersualem Force in Iran by any other means than a false comparison to Saddam Hussein.

Strawman n. 57 and an evasion of your earlier lie. Not surprising. And I'm not the one who has to prove anything here —YOU are the one making the extraordinary claims.

Y'see, Axi, it's necessary to read the whole story, not just the bits that suit you. I'm not eating anything today. But YOU are.

You mean like that part about facilitating jihadists?

Non-sequitor bullshit, since it has nothing to do with the question YOU opened the door on: Iran's alleged involvement with September 11th. That was the point you were trumpeting in your previous ravings. Bad enough you lie about my positions but lying about your own...

Par for the course, I suppose.

[Axis Kast]

There's Cheney, repeating Chalabi's bullshit as FACT, on national TV.

Hey, asshole, quoting Dick Cheney repeating information also submitted by Ahmed Chalabi is not proof that the INC was the sole source of said data.

VERY relevant, as no such grounds existed yet the White House charged ahead for a case for war anyway.

To what fucking argument? Certainly not the one we are having now.

Um, stupid —ALL intelligence and counterintelligence campaigns against another nation are technically "hostile", and only by the most technical definition of the word in most cases. And despite your bullshit, disinformation is in no way shape or form akin to an act of war.

Are you actually going to back this up anytime soon, or continue to leave this standing out there as a completely unfounded assertion, all by its lonesome?

The only unfounded thing here is your idiotic premise. Now you're simply avoiding the issue.

I’m not the one using the Brooklyn Bridge defense. “But all the other boys do it, too, mommy! It’s not bad if everyone does it! Why do I have to get punished?” You know you sound like a seven-year old, yes? Insisting over and over again that intelligence operations are “routine” or “normal” in no way has any bearing whatsoever on their implications for American national security.

Yes, we're having to wade through your endless bullshit on these subjects and watching you trying desperately to manufacture excuses you imagine will justify military action.

You’re the one who’s provided an entirely unsubstantiated premise for about six whole pages now. “It’s not hostile! It’s not!” That isn’t an argument, Deegan. It’s whining.

Like your "loss of sovereignty" sophistries, your paranoid rantings about Iran's alleged bomb effort with NO supporting evidence to back your rants, your specious attempt to liken disinformation to an act of war, and tying it together with allegations of Iranian involvement with 9-11 even though the very commission report you're leaning on DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR ASSERTION.

First of all, Iran’s inability to influence key events and exert influence on key factions within its borders – that is, its sovereignty over its own territory – is evident for all to see. There is no longer any question that Tehran is unwilling and unable to effectively challenge and eliminate threats to American national security in the form of its own Revolutionary Guard. And that’s on top of Iran’s known role as a sponsor of terrorism – including, most recently, “jihadists” from Afghanistan. And I never said that Iran was involved with September 11th, asshat. I said that they were involved with al-Qaeda, which has already been proven.

And Iran’s campaign of misinformation goes far beyond the strawman of a domestic “cover-up,” so you can drop that retarded spiel right here and now.

THAT ISN'T A STRAWMAN YOU STUPID FUCK —YOU KEPT YAMMERING ABOUT IRAN'S INVOLVEMENT WITH SEPTEMBER 11TH Furthermore, the report is uncertain about the exact nature of Iranian involvement with Al-Qaeda and how closely they were tied together.

No, I kept providing proof that entire wings of the Iranian armed forces are known supporters of al-Qaeda and that Iran knowingly facilitated the passage of Afghan “jihadists” across its borders.

That is not what that part of the report says at all. Now you are simply making shit up.

The report doesn’t say that Iran’s lax border control left the passports and travel papers of the September 11th hijackers unmarked? Really? Because that isn’t the same thing I read. What did yours say, then, Deegan? I’m curious to know.

An argument you have not supported with anything save the already hashed-over link between some elements of the Revolutionary Guards and the Jerusalem Force.

The Jerusalem Force is still there. It hasn’t been eliminated. It isn’t my responsibility to prove a negative. If you disagree with me, you provide the evidence of Iran’s crackdown. If not, shut the fuck up.

Strawman n. 51

Pity the world doesn't work along such bipolar lines in reality, but that's your problem.

Really? Those who kill American citizens by funding terrorists might be friends of ours? Because they’re clearly not neutral.

Right —just an unprovoked attack upon another nation which has not attacked U.S. forces on the grounds of mere suspicion of a bomb programme and disinfo which you think will remain limited, assuming the Iranians simply decide to be good sports about our bombing their country.

Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. They have been responsible for American deaths, you fucking moron. They are responsible. Directly. As well as indirectly, via the Jerusalem Force.

The mere spectacle of you presuming to accuse anybody else of dishonesty or rampant stupidity has to be one of the funniest aspects of this whole sorry show. I hate to tell you this, but we don't go to war simply because a small handful of people get killed in a bombing attack and not one carried out by a third party. National policy is never dictated by simpleminded revenge —especially where war or peace are concerned.

Afghanistan, mother fucker. We hosed the Taliban for turning a blind eye to al-Qaeda. And we should bomb Iran’s nuclear research sites for its crimes, too.

Only in that warped little mind of yours. History shows you don't know what the fuck you're babbling about.

Is this actually your rebuttal? That in all of history, only a successful first-strike ever merits a response? So, if the Japanese had been beaten at Pearl Harbor, we wouldn’t have gone to war, because that wouldn’t have been a hostile action? Deegan, you’re making no sense.

[quoe] On the contrary, Insane One, the problem is that you simply refuse to accept answers which contradict your HULK SMASH view of the world.[/quote]

No. I simply refuse to accept the arguments of fucktards who ignore Iran’s lengthy history of sponsorship of terrorism and try and argue that if something is “routine,” it’s automatically non-hostile.

NOT a Red Herring, but a clear example of my case in action.

A complete Red Herring, since Pakistan is not Iran.

Um, wrong asshole —it is YOU who is making the extraordinary claim here. I don't have to prove that an apple is not an orange. YOU must offer some scrap of logical proof that a disinformation campaign can somehow be equated as an act of war the same as a military attack, despite the fact that the definitions of both are totally dissimilar and the effects of both are totally dissimilar.

And I have, you moron. Iran’s ultimate intent was to embroil us in a shooting war, regardless of whether or not they thought there was a good chance we’d do so anyway. That’s an act that bespeaks a desire to harm the United States and damage its national security as well as cause bodily harm to its citizenry. We call that hostile. It means Iran is a threat.

Now it’s your turn. Explain why Iran’s actions weren’t hostile. And do so by using some other means that by falsely equating “normal” with “not dangerous.”

Strawman n. 52.

Bush has nothing to do with the argument. My characterization of your comments about him as Red Herrings is therefore correct entirely.

The fact that there are "differing opinions" cited in the report makes the case far from clear. And by your "logic", our own lax border control with Mexico makes us complicit in any movement of terrorists across that boundary should such occur.

Our border control with Mexico isn’t purposely lax, moron. The American government tries to track, prosecute, and deport those who enter the country via illegal means. You’ve just illustrated the key difference between Iran and Pakistan as well: the former isn’t capable of rectifying its mistakes for whatever reason; the later tries to do so, at the very least.

Whatever the specific motivation, the arrests and detentions occurred. Period.

Without the attendant effort to bring the Jerusalem Force and Revolutionary Guards to heel. You lose.

Same as with Pakistan and its present situation with Al-Qaeda sanctuaries.

Your point? That doesn’t absolve Iran, mother fucker.

Yes it did —for twelve years until we violated the UN Charter. Now we're begging them to come and help enforce it again because we're looking for some way to start extricating ourselves from the mess we've gotten entangled in.

Thoroughly irrelevant. The United Nations was unable to uphold the notion of Iranian sovereignty. Period. End of discussion.

Only in that simple brain of yours.

You deny that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism?

No, they just won't lift a finger to help us now that we're stuck —until we give up the tacit control we've claimed over there. But eventually, we will have to turn it over to them. And I do wish the wanking would end, but you seem unable to stop yourself.

The United Nations cannot enforce its idea of sovereignty. That makes our perception – the Realist perception – the functional perception in this situation. End of story.

A point we're not arguing. The question is the one you opened the door to: possible Iraninan involvement with September 11th; an issue the commission is not at all certain of.

That’s support for terrorism in and of itself. Knowing support for terrorism. Grounds for war with Iran.

Since I have never attempted to argue any such thing, we'll just list this as Strawman n. 53.

You just did. Observe:

[quoe]

An argument you have not supported with anything save the already hashed-over link between some elements of the Revolutionary Guards and the Jerusalem Force.

Because perhaps Israel doesn't consider it worth a full-scale war with either nation?! But no, that couldn't be it...

Maybe because Israel lacks the power of the United States? But no, you’re too stupid to think of that. Different solutions for different parties, idiot.

I asked you to provide a quote from me saying I said any such thing as "ignoring the problem" —A DIRECT QUOTE IN TEXT. You have failed to do so, lying little fuck. No surprise.

Concession accepted. Clearly, you support reactive policies. Unfortunately, September 11th already proved those faulty.

No, they are "counterintelligence activities". That is the definition which applies.

AND THEY FAILED; THE TWIN TOWERS BLEW UP.

Then it seems whoever wrote that course didn't know what the fuck he was talking about either. The UN Charter's definition trumps.

The U.N. Charter isn’t enforced. Hence Realism triumphs, your philosophical wanking about a utopian fantasy world notwithstanding. So sorry.

All members contribute to that enforcement and certainly have their own interest in that enforcement. It is your argument which is irrelevant.

Tell that to Saddam.

Unless Country B can make a credible case along those lines, it is subject to pressure to force it out. Israel was ultimately forced to quit Lebanon by weight of international pressure, just as Iraq was forced to quit Kuwait by a UN-sanctioned war.

So now the U.N. is going to stop us from bombing Iran by invading the United States? I can hear the fapping from here.

Yet another insane claim of victory. You're awfully fond of such empty blusterings, aren't you? A neutral Iran at the least has facilitated our actions in both Afganistan and Iraq. We do not need another enemy on the flank; therefore it is not in our interest to launch military action against them.

IRAN IS OUR ENEMY, YOU BLIND MOTHER FUCKING ASSHOLE! THEY HAVE PAID PEOPLE WHO KILL AMERICAN CITIZENS! THEY HAVE LET PEOPLE INTO THEIR COUNTRY THAT KILL AMERICAN CITIZENS! THEY HAVE FAILED TO PUT A MUZZLE ON ELEMENTS OF THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT THAT PAY AND HIDE PEOPLE WHO KILL AMERICAN CITIZENS! THIS COUNTRY ISN’T NEUTRAL. IT’S UNDENIABLY HOSTILE!

I missed nothing, asshole. Iran's general linkage with terrorism is not the subject of the dispute over the commission report. YOU opened the door on the involvement with September 11th question.

Iran’s support for terrorism is casus belli, dickwad.

Yes —the guidelines which actually apply in the real world and not those in accordance with the voices in your head.

No, you fucking moron. The guidelines that apply in the real world are those applied by the United States. The United Nations cannot actualize its definition in Iraq or Iran. Hence we trump.

Except they don't even represent that level of danger. Iran has not attacked its neighbour states at any time in the past 20 years nor shows indications of doing so at present, and has not attempted anywhere near its onetime failed effort to export its revolution, which has passed into its Thermidor stage.

Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. The end.

Once again, you fail to provide an actual quote that I said anything like "Iran is friendly". Once again, you show yourself to be the lying little fuck. No surprise. I stated that initial approaches to rapproachment were being attempted; that the process was far from complete, and at no time have ever attempted to argue that contention between ourselves and Iran is close to easing at this stage of the process. And despite Iran's involvement with terrorists, understandings in regards to neutrality in the Afgan and Iraq wars were forged, as was an agreement to rescue downed U.S. fliers if they came down within their territory during those conflicts. Iran did not attempt to diplomatically interfere with either war effort nor interfere with U.S. shipping in the Gulf. They have arrested and detained Al-Qaeda lieutennants. That is certainly not wholesale friendship by any definition of the term but trading in mutual interest as necessary —the first step toward any process of rapproachment. And there is certainly still a very long way to go before any substantive warming of relations between the two governments ensues.

You’re sitting here telling us they aren’t an enemy. What the fuck else could you think but that they’re our friends? Certainly you’re not moron enough to think them neutral.

As for rapprochement, don’t make me laugh. People who fund terrorism are not looking for a way to reduce tension. Iran’s recent activities make it very clear: their neutrality during our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq was as much impotence as anything else. Their arrest of al-Qaeda men is a drop in the pot compared to their inability and unwillingness to effectively challenge the Jerusalem Force.

In your opinion —already established as quite valueless. The only immediate objective was to boost Ahmad Chalabi's credibility. The rest we did entirely on our own; most particularly bringing about the war. And the only equation of a disinformation effort with a military attack is one of rank sophistry.

Red Herring. Iran’s actions were hostile, regardless. That makes them an enemy. It certainly doesn’t make them neutral. Or at all our friend. And enemies must be dealt with.

You can't point to an act of war without there having been an actual attack by the one nation's military forces against the other.

Sure I can. Grenada. Panama. Afghanistan. We attacked those who supported terrorists, not those who attacked us themselves. Iran is equally as much at fault as were the Taliban after 9/11.

Strawman n. 54.

Not a Strawman at all. You made no mention of Iranian support for terrorism there or elsewhere. You continue skipping over that point as if it doesn’t matter at all.

Strawman n. 55.

So you weren’t talking about disinformation efforts? That’s odd – because your words sure made it seem like you were. Pulling out all the stops, are we?

What trouble? We're addressing your specious argument that we were "led into war" by the Big Bad Iranians™.

They did try to lead us to war. And they are big and bad. Very good. Unfortunately, their failure doesn’t make them any less guilty.

VERY relevant, as it addresses your specious argument that we were "led into war" by the Big Bad Iranians™.

Not at all relevant, since we’re not debating whether we SHOULD have listened to Iran, but what it means that they tried to put us in a certain position. Focus now, Deegan.

YOUR non-sequitor, I believe.

Concession accepted. Victory is mine.

Actually, nobody is saying any such thing at all —except you.

Pakistanis sponsored al-Qaeda. If their government didn’t try to stop them, they’d be culpable. One who claims responsibility over a given territory and people must exercise it in order to be considered legitimate.

That is NOT a black/white fallacy at all, but an argument for consistent standards. YOU are the one spewing False Dilemmas about retaliation or doing nothing at all.

You’re the one insisting that not challenging Pakistan means we cannot challenge Iran, not I.

Funny, but I don't recall Iranian missiles being fired at any of our ships or planes. I don't recall Iranian airstrikes against our troops or bases in the Gulf. And I certainly didn't read of positive evidence for Iranian involvement with September 11th. I recall even less Pakistan ever being guilty of such actions against us. I guess those occurred in that little Slider-universe you live in most of the time because they certainly didn't occur in the real world.

Sponsorship of terrorism, idiot. If we pay somebody to blow something up, that makes us guilty of the action, too. If you pay someone to kill someone, you’re also GUILTY.

No, what's retarded is your equating every act as the same, with no concept of proportionality. The reasoning of a deranged 12-year old.

Proportionality would be paying people to blow up various buildings and people throughout Iran, dipshit. And then harboring people who violently hate the current government with out Marine Corps and refusing to do anything about it.

Strawman n. 55 and a non-sequitor. Breathtaking stupidity.

If you have an answer to stopping Iran, let’s hear it. If not, then go fuck yourself.

No, just to beat down yours.

Except that you’ve done nothing except make yourself look like a moron.

Simplistic equations do not an argument make.

Iran sent military forces to intimidate its neighbors, moron.

Insane babble. And Strawman n. 56 to boot.

If it wasn’t an attempt to equate the situation in Pakistan with that in Iran, why bring it up, idiot? Oh, that’s right! BECAUSE IT WAS!

They are no longer attempting to export their revolution and are forging relations with the EU, China, and Saudi Arabia. And you can keep dragging your "they tried to force us into war" red herring until its scales fall off and it remains no more true now than the other several dozen times you've made this inane argument. Iran's ties to terrorism are the only serious bone of contention to be dealt with here, and there are means far short of war or military strikes which can be employed toward that problem.

Such as … ? You’ve yet to provide ANY credible alternative. Perhaps you’d like to negotiate with the terrorists? Perhaps you think we should have asked the Taliban nicely to stop funding al-Qaeda?

Strawman n. 57 and an evasion of your earlier lie. Not surprising. And I'm not the one who has to prove anything here —YOU are the one making the extraordinary claims.

I’m not the one who tried to pass off Saddam Hussein’s own failed attempts to build a terrorist unit as faulty evidence of Iran’s failure to do so. That’s your pursuit.

Non-sequitor bullshit, since it has nothing to do with the question YOU opened the door on: Iran's alleged involvement with September 11th. That was the point you were trumpeting in your previous ravings. Bad enough you lie about my positions but lying about your own...

Par for the course, I suppose.

Iran facilitated September 11th by adhering to a policy it knew would let terrorists across its borders. That’s a fact. Whether or not it knew what would happen is irrelevant. It knew they were terrorists all along. That’s why the article says “Jihadists” were purposely let through, retard.

[Patrick Degan]

I haven't the time to reply to your bullshit point-for-point at the moment, so I'll make do with a summary:

No matter how much you try to redefine an apple as an orange, there is no way to characterise a disinformation campaign as an act of war or anything remotely approaching an act of war.

You can scream "the Big Bad Iranians tired to lead us into war" from now until fucking Doomsday, but no matter what disinformation VEVAK passed along to Ahmad Chalabi to pass along to us, the U.S. government had the opportunity, the means, and the time to verify through independent sources its accuracy. It did not do so. Dick Cheney and the neocons in this administration short-circuited that process. George Bush wasn't interested in hearing anything which contradicted his viewpoint that Iraq had to be attacked. He was told that Ahmad Chalabi and the INC were liars and unreliable, but he overrode the CIA and listened to them instead. Chalabi's ties to Tehran were also known but ignored.

No disinformation from a foreign source can "lead" another nation into war. Any government taking its people into war is obligated to know what the fuck its talking about in making a case for war, and that includes verifying the accuracy of the information on which it is basing it's case. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The only time this consideration can be ignored is if a condition of imminent threat actually exists which allows for no delay. No such condition existed and nothing in the disinfo even indicated signs of an Iraqi move to launch an attack of any sort. War with Iraq was not imperative and was not the sole option available. So the whole "the Big Bad Iranians tried to lead us into war" argument fails on its merits, or lack thereof.

I tire of your endless Moving the Goalposts fallacies, your Strawmen, and your outright lies. I have provided proof that Dick Cheney repeated Ahmad Chalabi's bullshit as FACT in public venues. He is on FUCKING VIDEOTAPE repeating lies as truth, and every news investigation into this story has demonstrated that Chalabi and the INC, and the Office of Special Plans which was relying on Chalabi and the INC as its source, was HIS source. For you to deny the evidence indicates that you are either fundamentally stupid or fundamentally dishonest.

No article cited here has supported your assertion that "entire wings of Iran's armed forces supported Al-Qaeda" We have elements of the Revolutionary Guard and elements of the Border Guard, who were simply given orders not to check passports of Saudi nationals passing through the country. You were indeed trumpeting the alleged involvement of Iran with 9-11, you dishonest little fuck:

and Iran’s government directly aided the 9/11 hijackers – officially.

Those are YOUR WORDS, making an outright assertion of fact which is not supported by the 9-11 panel report. The Iranian government has not been demonstrated as having any foreknowledge of the WTC attacks or who would be involved. Not even those who ultimately were part of the hijack knew of the plan during the time they were moving through Iran, as the plan had not been formulated at that point, or was known only to Osama binLaden and his top lieutennants. Now you're trying to backpedal into the argument of Iran's general support for terrorist groups as somehow translating into Iran's involvement with 9-11. You're not getting away with that one, and I'll quote your own words back to you for as long as it takes to make you either back your original assertion or drop it.

At no point have I characterised the Iranian government as "friendly" —and your continued putting up of that strawman is trancending the boundary separating strawman from outright lie. EITHER PRODUCE A TEXT QUOTE FROM ME WHERE I MAKE THAT ARGUMENT or drop it. At no point have I argued that Iran is friendly toward Washington and I have not argued against the fact of Iran's ties to terrorist groups. I have cited factual incidents of Iran's neutrality toward our campaigns in Afganistan and Iraq and the fact that they have arrested and detained Al-Qaeda operatives and have engaged in backchannel discussions with Washington on areas of immediate mutual advantage. That is not friendship by any characterisation and you know it.

You continue to spin your rank sophistries about sovereignty in an attempt to argue that the principle no longer applies to Iran and that somehow this makes them subject to attack with impunity. This argument has no validity in international law or common usage and never will no matter how desperately you keep flogging it. And the conditions you allege to Iran are far more applicable in Pakistan, where the government actually is facing a danger of mutiny from large segments of its armed forces and where said government cannot even be certain how deeply its own military is involved with Al-Qaeda sympathisers. Despite the involvement of some segments of the Revolutionary Guards with Al-Qaeda or the Jerusalem Force, there is no sign that the Iranian government is facing the danger of mutiny from its armed forces or that it cannot exercise positive command and control over the army. Even if its government were unstable, there is no viable argument which validates a miitary attack upon a sovereign nation whose sovereignty exists by definition. Any American attack upon Iran where an imminent threat or retaliatiation against Iran's armed forces for an attack upon U.S. forces cannot be demonstrated would be illegal. Even the Bush White House knows this.

And as for this:

I’m not the one who tried to pass off Saddam Hussein’s own failed attempts to build a terrorist unit as faulty evidence of Iran’s failure to do so. That’s your pursuit.

That is another OUTRIGHT LIE on your part and an obvious one. Let's review the tape, shall we:

Before I respond to anything else, THIS had to be answered:

FUCKING LIAR.

Yes, you certainly are.

YOUR OWN FUCKING WORDS.

Although for some European intelligence sources the Jerusalem force is "a state within a state, able to offer protection to al-Qaeda", there's great skepticism towards its supposed, effective internationalist role. "Saddam Hussein also had a Jerusalem Liberation Army. It proved to be invisible, just a propaganda coup," adds another European counter-terrorist operative.

Excuse me, but BWAHAHAHAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! ONE mention of Saddam Hussein, in a purely historical context, out of a body of text which is not talking about Saddam Hussein at all! And you actually are mad enough to imagine that THIS "proves" me a liar! Oh, this is rich —too fucking rich for words.

Let's have a look at the Asia Times piece you so dishonestly quoted out of context, shall we:

Linky

Iran and al-Qaeda: Odd bedfellows
By Pepe Escobar

Investigators from a special anti-terrorist cell in the European Union have expressed doubts over a Washington Post report this week in which sources claimed that Saad bin Laden, 24, Osama's eldest son, is now a top al-Qaeda member and that he runs operations out of Iran.

The paper reported its sources as saying that Saad and a close circle of about two dozen of bin Laden's trusted lieutenants are "protected by an elite, radical Iranian security force loyal to the nation's clerics and beyond the control of the central government".

Asia Times Online (see Iran lines up its al-Qaeda aces of July 2) has already reported that Iran has admitted to holding a number of al-Qaeda members in its custody.

But, Asia Times Online's European intelligence sources caution, "The leaks [to the Post], when put together, convey the impression that Iran, a Shi'ite Islamic Republic, is now supporting al-Qaeda, an Islamist, Wahhabi, terrorist, transnational organization. That is simply not true."

The attempt to throw all big cats - "axis of evil" Iran, "foreign terrorists" in Iraq and al-Qaeda - into one big bag is seen by European intelligence agencies as a crude attempt on the part of the Bush administration to "refocus" the "war on terror" from former "axis of evil" member Iraq to current member Iran, and from Saddam Hussein to the ayatollahs in Tehran. This, they say, bears a strong resemblance to the non-stop campaign in early 2003 to link Saddam to al-Qaeda, even though the evidence did not support this.

Anti-terrorist European intelligence raises several points. First, there is no proven connection between al-Qaeda and the Islamic Republic's religious leadership. And Saad is not the new Osama. According to one special investigator, "Our main target now is not Osama's son, but Muhamad Ibrahim Makkawi [aka Saif al-Adil, a former colonel in the Egyptian army, born in 1960 or 1963]. He is an explosives expert and most probably the successor of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed." Khalid Shaikh, widely reputed to be the mastermind of September 11, was captured in Pakistan in March.

Saif al-Adil has extensive combat and covert operation experience: after fighting alongside the mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Soviets in the 1980s, he founded the military branch of bin Laden's deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri's Islamic Jihad, and is considered to be the top al-Qaeda military operative still at large. Saif al-Adil has for several years been in charge of terrestrial operations, security, military education, intelligence and liaison with al-Qaeda's special forces, the infamous Brigade 055. The only known photograph of Saif al-Adil is a passport photo dating from when bin Laden was still in Sudan, in the mid-1990s.

The Americans, though, are convinced that Saif al-Adil is in Iran, along with top al-Qaeda financial expert Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah and a few dozen others, all of them under the regime's custody, but still operative.

The Europeans are not so sure: they insist that al-Qaeda's imprint is mostly in the Red Sea and the Arabian Gulf regions, not in Iran. "Most al-Qaeda leaders took refuge in the Hadramut, between Yemen and Saudi Arabia, where the bin Laden family comes from. The most influential ulemas from the Hadramut tribes are Wahhabis, as well as key officials of the Saudi security forces and the religious police." says a European intelligence operative. As for the Islamic Republic's authorities, they have always vehemently denied supporting al-Qaeda - although they have not disclosed the identities of their al-Qaeda detainees.

According to the leaks to the Post, Saad bin Laden is being protected by the elite unit among the five branches of Iran's Revolutionary Guards - the Jerusalem force (al-Quds) - which completely eludes "control from the central government".

Analysts question this possibility. Such a unit could well elude President Mohammad Khatami, but certainly not the Supreme Leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to whom all security services are subordinated. And for all practical purposes, "central government" means Khamenei, not Khatami.

US intelligence is persuaded that the Jerusalem force has trained more than three dozen "foreign Islamic militant groups in paramilitary, guerrilla and terrorism" tactics, Sunni and Shi'ite alike, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Palestine. That sounds like an Israeli Mossad mish-mash - once again throwing all cats into the same bag, as the agendas of Hezbollah and Palestinian liberation groups are totally different.

Although for some European intelligence sources the Jerusalem force is "a state within a state, able to offer protection to al-Qaeda", there's great skepticism towards its supposed, effective internationalist role. "Saddam Hussein also had a Jerusalem Liberation Army. It proved to be invisible, just a propaganda coup," adds another European counter-terrorist operative.

European intelligence agrees that Saif al-Adil and Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah are indeed the current top deputies to bin Laden and al-Qaeda's number two, Ayman "the Surgeon" al-Zawahiri, who now contact their operatives only through human couriers. But the assumption that Ayman al-Zawahiri used his decade-old relationship with the Jerusalem force to negotiate a safe harbor for some of al-Qaeda's leaders bombed by the Americans in Tora Bora, in southeast Afghanistan, in December 2001, is also ludicrous: these al-Qaeda leaders escaped to Pakistan's tribal areas, where they remained ever since. There's evidence that only but a few crossed the border from Pakistan's to Iran's Balochistan desert.

According to the Post, Saudi Arabia has tried to convince Iran to extradite Saad bin Laden and his al-Qaeda brothers-in-arms because they are suspected of masterminding the May 12 Riyadh suicide bombing (35 dead). According to the Saudis and the Americans, they were in contact with an al-Qaeda cell in Riyadh. The Saudis have told the Americans that there may be up to 400 al-Qaeda members holed up in Iran. European intelligence also takes this information with a pinch of salt, considering the fact that the Saudis are trying to do everything at the moment to appease America's discomfort with their role vis-a-vis what is essentially a Saudi Arabian, hardcore Islamist, terrorist organization (al-Qaeda).

The authorities in Tehran have "challenged foreign intelligence services to come up with evidence" that they are supporting al-Qaeda, according to government spokesman Abdullah Ramezanzadeh: "We have announced time and again that we will not allow these activities to take place in Iran. This is a decision taken by the highest officials in the country. The report is an absolute lie."

The regime blames the leaks that led to the report on the powerful Israeli lobby in Washington: indeed, for neo-conservatives from Pentagon number two Paul Wolfowitz down, closely intertwined with the hardline Ariel Sharon government in Israel, Iran's ayatollahs are the next big target. According to a European counter-terrorist expert, for the neo-cons "an al-Qaeda free to operate in Iran is a dream ticket in their agenda. They have already started to prepare American opinion for an attack on Iran."

Ramezanzadeh, the Iranian government spokesman, acknowledges that Iran's porous borders with Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan are difficult to control, so "sometimes some elements suspected of cooperating with al-Qaeda may enter the country". Al-Qaeda is supposed to have its bases along the Afghan border: American satellite photos could easily provide some evidence. The official Iranian position was spelled out by Ramezanzadeh: "We are asking all the world's security services and anyone else who has any information about these suspects to come forward with the information. After substantiating the information, we will arrest them."

Saad bin Laden is one of at least 11 sons from Osama's first wife and also first cousin, Najwa Ghanem from Syria. Out of five marriages, Osama has fathered about 20 children. Saad arrived in Iran in 2002, from Afghanistan. He is fluent in English and information technology. European intelligence operatives somewhat agree that he may now be a key player in al-Qaeda's logistics. He may have been close to, and may have learned a lot from Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. But he is not the new Osama - at least not yet. And there's still no proof that he is the Tehran ayatollahs' new lethal weapon.

Sometimes the comedy just writes itself, doesn't it? There it is, Axi: the piece you imagine "refutes" me or brands me a liar but actually shows you to be the fundamentally dishonest little fuck you truly are.

Eat it.

YOU tried saying that I was lying about the Asia Times article not talking about Saddam Hussein as its subject. Now you are outright lying about my supposedly "passing off Saddam Hussein’s own failed attempts to build a terrorist unit as faulty evidence of Iran’s failure to do so"; an argument I've never made and which is certainly not the argument of the very AT article I'VE CITED, you dishonest little fuck.

And as for this bit of ludicrousness:

Is this actually your rebuttal? That in all of history, only a successful first-strike ever merits a response? So, if the Japanese had been beaten at Pearl Harbor, we wouldn’t have gone to war, because that wouldn’t have been a hostile action? Deegan, you’re making no sense.

You are as incompetent in history as in every other area of discussion. In point of fact, the Japanese were perfectly prepared to abort the Pearl Harbour mission if the attack force had spotted a prepared defence waiting for them. However, as Japan had already issued an imperial rescript proclaiming war, the attack in and of itself would not have been the decisive issue of the matter, so your laughable attampt at a parallel doesn't apply. Having dealt with this minor point, there is no other definition for the term "act of war" which involves anything other than a military attack. But you just keep trying to cadge up this bit of sophistry to prop up your other sophistries. Likewise, your Grenada parallel is also equally laughable: we attacked there because Americans on the ground there were facing imminent threat from the revolutionary chaos that was sweeping the island. The rescue and safeguarding of one's own nationals has always been considered legitimate grounds for military intervention. That argument does not obtain with Iran anymore than the Pearl Harbour argument does.

And as for this:

I asked you to provide a quote from me saying I said any such thing as "ignoring the problem" —A DIRECT QUOTE IN TEXT. You have failed to do so, lying little fuck. No surprise.

Concession accepted. Clearly, you support reactive policies. Unfortunately, September 11th already proved those faulty.

I'd say the positive proof that you are a liar stands.

Oh, and one more thing, Axi: generally, only a small and immature mind thinks it can claim victory in a BBS debate when any such claim is utter shit. As it is, a small and immature mind such as yourself which also engages in outright dishonesty isn't in a position to stake a clam to anything. So take all your "Victory is Mine" and "Concession Accepted" blatherings and cram those up your lying little ass.

[Patrick Degan]

P.S.:

No, they are "counterintelligence activities". That is the definition which applies.

AND THEY FAILED; THE TWIN TOWERS BLEW UP.

Um, no stupid; that wasn't a failure of counterintelligence, that was a failure of LEADERSHIP —a White House which ignored eight months of warnings from the CIA and European intel services of an Al-Qaeda plot, and a George Bush who when receiving a PDB titled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike In U.S." reacted to it by hanging out the "Gone Fishin" sign.

[Axis Kast]

No matter how much you try to redefine an apple as an orange, there is no way to characterise a disinformation campaign as an act of war or anything remotely approaching an act of war.

Unsubstantiated assertion. In order to carry a point, you must provide evidence or an argument to substantiate your otherwise completely unfounded assertion.

And don’t presume to claim that only a conventional attack represents casus belli, either, because there have been numerous incidents in the recent past when the United States committed itself to military action without having first been struck by the regular armed forces[/I] of the targets in question – namely in Panama, Grenada, and, most recently, Afghanistan.

You can scream "the Big Bad Iranians tired to lead us into war" from now until fucking Doomsday, but no matter what disinformation VEVAK passed along to Ahmad Chalabi to pass along to us, the U.S. government had the opportunity, the means, and the time to verify through independent sources its accuracy. It did not do so. Dick Cheney and the neocons in this administration short-circuited that process. George Bush wasn't interested in hearing anything which contradicted his viewpoint that Iraq had to be attacked. He was told that Ahmad Chalabi and the INC were liars and unreliable, but he overrode the CIA and listened to them instead. Chalabi's ties to Tehran were also known but ignored.

No disinformation from a foreign source can "lead" another nation into war. Any government taking its people into war is obligated to know what the fuck its talking about in making a case for war, and that includes verifying the accuracy of the information on which it is basing it's case. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The only time this consideration can be ignored is if a condition of imminent threat actually exists which allows for no delay. No such condition existed and nothing in the disinfo even indicated signs of an Iraqi move to launch an attack of any sort. War with Iraq was not imperative and was not the sole option available. So the whole "the Big Bad Iranians tried to lead us into war" argument fails on its merits, or lack thereof.

Red Herrings all. George W. Bush has absolutely nothing to do with determining either Iran’s guilt in attempting to mislead the United States, or in determining its stance vis-à-vis the United States. The same is true of Iran’s relative success or failure in the attempt itself. Iran’s actions were evidently hostile and belligerent totally irrespective of intelligence failures here, or in terms of whether an invasion of Iraq would have been carried out even had Ahmed Chalabi never crawled out of his hole in the ground, so by all means do yourself a favor and stop beating a dead horse.

And another thing – cut out this dishonest bullshit about “imminent threats.” Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, and elements of its armed forces are confirmed material supporters of al-Qaeda. They are providing aid and succor to the confirmed and avowed enemies of the United States of America. We legitimately bombed the Sudan for less.

I tire of your endless Moving the Goalposts fallacies, your Strawmen, and your outright lies. I have provided proof that Dick Cheney repeated Ahmad Chalabi's bullshit as FACT in public venues. He is on FUCKING VIDEOTAPE repeating lies as truth, and every news investigation into this story has demonstrated that Chalabi and the INC, and the Office of Special Plans which was relying on Chalabi and the INC as its source, was HIS source. For you to deny the evidence indicates that you are either fundamentally stupid or fundamentally dishonest.

And I tire of your pitiful attempts to pass off completely random media sound bytes as credible evidence that Vice President Cheney passed on information provided by Ahmed Chalabi without prior corroboration. If you have proof that Chalabi was the sole source of any of Cheney’s claims to the American public – as in proof that he took Ahmed Chalabi’s information and relayed it verbatim, and without any shred of similar information having come his way from any other source –, let’s see it. If not, for the umpteenth time, kindly shut the fuck up and concede the point as unproven.

No article cited here has supported your assertion that "entire wings of Iran's armed forces supported Al-Qaeda" We have elements of the Revolutionary Guard and elements of the Border Guard, who were simply given orders not to check passports of Saudi nationals passing through the country.

First of all, the Jerusalem Force is indeed a wing of the Iranian armed forces, considering that the definition of the word itself is simply, “A group affiliated with or subordinate to an older or larger organization.” In this case, that “group” is the Jerusalem Force and that “larger organization” the Iranian Army.

Secondly, the MSNBC article states in no uncertain terms that Iran’s activities were calculated to assists “jihadists” – that is, terrorists – cross the border from Afghanistan unhindered. Tehran was fully aware that its decision to loosen border control efforts were in the direct interests of terrorist organizations.

Those are YOUR WORDS, making an outright assertion of fact which is not supported by the 9-11 panel report. The Iranian government has not been demonstrated as having any foreknowledge of the WTC attacks or who would be involved. Not even those who ultimately were part of the hijack knew of the plan during the time they were moving through Iran, as the plan had not been formulated at that point, or was known only to Osama binLaden and his top lieutennants. Now you're trying to backpedal into the argument of Iran's general support for terrorist groups as somehow translating into Iran's involvement with 9-11. You're not getting away with that one, and I'll quote your own words back to you for as long as it takes to make you either back your original assertion or drop it.

It is a known and verifiable fact that the Iranian government facilitated the movement of “jihadists” through its borders. This constitutes official support for the September 11th hijackers (among others), regardless of Iran’s connection – or non-connection, as is the case – to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

At no point have I characterised the Iranian government as "friendly" —and your continued putting up of that strawman is trancending the boundary separating strawman from outright lie. EITHER PRODUCE A TEXT QUOTE FROM ME WHERE I MAKE THAT ARGUMENT or drop it. At no point have I argued that Iran is friendly toward Washington and I have not argued against the fact of Iran's ties to terrorist groups. I have cited factual incidents of Iran's neutrality toward our campaigns in Afganistan and Iraq and the fact that they have arrested and detained Al-Qaeda operatives and have engaged in backchannel discussions with Washington on areas of immediate mutual advantage. That is not friendship by any characterisation and you know it.

You have cited factual incidents of Iran’s inability to challenge American policy in Afghanistan and Iraq, not evidence of true political neutrality by any means. Certainly the new information about their border control policies indicates that they were not, in fact, true neutrals by any stretch of the imagination.

As for the “back-channel discussions,” all we have are the high hopes of a group of unnamed “European diplomats” that Iran may negotiate an exchange or transfer of various al-Qaeda prisoners with a third party – all as yet unvindicated by any actual movement in any direction whatsoever by any arm of Iran’s government.

You continue to spin your rank sophistries about sovereignty in an attempt to argue that the principle no longer applies to Iran and that somehow this makes them subject to attack with impunity. This argument has no validity in international law or common usage and never will no matter how desperately you keep flogging it.

Unfortunately for you, the Realist definition of sovereignty – wherein a nation is sovereign based, in part, on its ability to influence and control affairs within its own borders – is the only one that matters. If the United Nations cannot enforce its much looser construction, then that definition is automatically immaterial.

And the conditions you allege to Iran are far more applicable in Pakistan, where the government actually is facing a danger of mutiny from large segments of its armed forces and where said government cannot even be certain how deeply its own military is involved with Al-Qaeda sympathisers.

Red Herring. The situation in Pakistan has absolutely no bearing on the situation in Iran. None. Our action or inaction in one location does not dictate our action or inaction in another by any stretch of the imagination.

Come now. Stop grasping at straws. It’s unbecoming.

Despite the involvement of some segments of the Revolutionary Guards with Al-Qaeda or the Jerusalem Force, there is no sign that the Iranian government is facing the danger of mutiny from its armed forces or that it cannot exercise positive command and control over the army. Even if its government were unstable, there is no viable argument which validates a miitary attack upon a sovereign nation whose sovereignty exists by definition.

Another Red Herring. Iran is demonstrable unable to control the Jerusalem Force, as proven by the later’s continued existence. You have not even been able to provide proof that the Iranian government is so much as attempting to bring rogue elements back into line, in accordance with the dictates of its own sovereignty. Who controls Tehran has no bearing on the Jerusalem Force’s being a danger to the United States and its national security interests in the first place.

Any American attack upon Iran where an imminent threat or retaliatiation against Iran's armed forces for an attack upon U.S. forces cannot be demonstrated would be illegal. Even the Bush White House knows this.

Iran’s state sponsorship of terrorism already constitutes casus belli. They already are an imminent threat.

That is another OUTRIGHT LIE on your part and an obvious one. Let's review the tape, shall we

None of what this article says excepting the failed attempt to make a comparison between Saddam Hussein’s and Iran’s ]b\separate and distinct attempts to build similar terrorist forces has any bearing on the issue.

And by the way, that part about Iran’s non-complicity in the movement of Afghan terrorists across its borders is now false. Iran did know that it was allowing “jihadists” through its territory undocumented. It simply did not care.

YOU tried saying that I was lying about the Asia Times article not talking about Saddam Hussein as its subject. Now you are outright lying about my supposedly "passing off Saddam Hussein’s own failed attempts to build a terrorist unit as faulty evidence of Iran’s failure to do so"; an argument I've never made and which is certainly not the argument of the very AT article I'VE CITED, you dishonest little fuck.

It certainly is an argument, or else the article would not read as follows, moron:

Although for some European intelligence sources the Jerusalem force is "a state within a state, able to offer protection to al-Qaeda", there's great skepticism towards its supposed, effective internationalist role. "Saddam Hussein also had a Jerusalem Liberation Army. It proved to be invisible, just a propaganda coup," adds another European counter-terrorist operative.

Asia Times attempts to make the completely failed assertion that Saddam Hussein’s inability to consolidate a terrorist task force is somehow evidence that Iran’s own force is impotent. Not to mention that the MSNBC article makes several of the Asia Times piece’s points defunct – especially about ignorance as to what passes along the border. Regardless of the failures that occur by default, Iran was indeed aware of the passage of “jihadists” through its territory.

You are as incompetent in history as in every other area of discussion. In point of fact, the Japanese were perfectly prepared to abort the Pearl Harbour mission if the attack force had spotted a prepared defence waiting for them. However, as Japan had already issued an imperial rescript proclaiming war, the attack in and of itself would not have been the decisive issue of the matter, so your laughable attampt at a parallel doesn't apply.

The point, you idiot, is that even had we shot down all of Japan’s planes and suffered nothing ourselves, we’d have considered ourselves at war. The relative success or failure of Iran’s intrigues against us have no bearing on their stance against us, and in fact leave little in question.

Having dealt with this minor point, there is no other definition for the term "act of war" which involves anything other than a military attack.

Based on what evidence? Your unfounded opinion? Bzzt. Sorry, you lose. We considered Afghanistan a legitimate target even when their military was not the actual source of an attack against us, but in fact a third party whose actions they condoned. Not unlike Iran, mind you.

But you just keep trying to cadge up this bit of sophistry to prop up your other sophistries. Likewise, your Grenada parallel is also equally laughable: we attacked there because Americans on the ground there were facing imminent threat from the revolutionary chaos that was sweeping the island. The rescue and safeguarding of one's own nationals has always been considered legitimate grounds for military intervention. That argument does not obtain with Iran anymore than the Pearl Harbour argument does.

Brilliant! So Grenada lost sovereignty because conditions its government could no longer effectively challenge or control had placed Americans in danger. Much like Iran and the Jerusalem Force’s support for terrorist activities. Thanks, Deegan!

Um, no stupid; that wasn't a failure of counterintelligence, that was a failure of LEADERSHIP —a White House which ignored eight months of warnings from the CIA and European intel services of an Al-Qaeda plot, and a George Bush who when receiving a PDB titled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike In U.S." reacted to it by hanging out the "Gone Fishin" sign.

Hey, moron! A failure of leadership by those responsible for a reactionary policy is automatically a failure for the reactionary policy itself. One of the principle problems of a reactionary campaign is that it offers the initiative entirely to the enemy, which can result in one’s being caught flat-footed while attempting to sift through mountains of information, which is precisely what happened to the government before September 11th. The very reason that PDB was ignored was that it was one of many. Hence, a much more effective policy will take the fight directly to the terrorists and their sponsors, throwing them on the defensive instead.

[Illuminatus Primus]

And don’t presume to claim that only a conventional attack represents casus belli, either, because there have been numerous incidents in the recent past when the United States committed itself to military action without having first been struck by the regular armed forces[/I] of the targets in question – namely in Panama, Grenada, and, most recently, Afghanistan..

Man, I haven't the slightest idea how he puts up with you this long. He states that counterintelligence is not an act of war.

And your reply? "Regular conventional military attack" is not the only act of war.

Are you brainless? How does simply stating that, in fact, it is possible to commit an act of war against another nation by unconventional means prove, in any way, shape, or form, that those unconventional means include counterintelligence? You entirely dodged or simply were incapable of understanding the thrust of his point. You totally failed to substanciate your claim by demonstrating that those unconventional means must include counterintelligence. I won't if you even realized that logically you had to do that to continue to mount your claim. And closest attempt it to, in a very feeble manner, Appeal to Tradition and Authority, saying, in effect, well, if Bush and Reagan invaded x counties for y reasons in z political climate and strategic situation, than it follows that Iran's counterintelligence is an a priori act of war.

You must be mentally disturbed.

[Axis Kast]

He states that counterintelligence is not an act of war.

Which he leaves completely unsubstantiated, not to mention vague. According to Deegan, “counter-intelligence” runs the gamut from constructing ruses for foreign agents in one’s own country – that is, classical counter-intelligence – to organized misinformation campaigns in foreign countries – that is, what Iran attempted to do in the United States. The two are, however, mutually exclusive. The former operation occurs entirely on one’s own soil, with the intention of preventing the enemy from gaining a particular piece of knowledge. The former, in Iran’s case, required agents on the ground, working with American personnel, toward the goal of ensuring that the United States went to war with a third party (Iraq). That’s an intelligence operation, not a counterintelligence operation. Of course, according to Deegan, they’re all one-and-the-same, but that’s a different story.

Are you brainless? How does simply stating that, in fact, it is possible to commit an act of war against another nation by unconventional means prove, in any way, shape, or form, that those unconventional means include counterintelligence? You entirely dodged or simply were incapable of understanding the thrust of his point. You totally failed to substanciate your claim by demonstrating that those unconventional means must include counterintelligence. I won't if you even realized that logically you had to do that to continue to mount your claim. And closest attempt it to, in a very feeble manner, Appeal to Tradition and Authority, saying, in effect, well, if Bush and Reagan invaded x counties for y reasons in z political climate and strategic situation, than it follows that Iran's counterintelligence is an a priori act of war.

I substantiated my claim by pointing out that Iran’s goal in carrying out what Deegan refers to as “counter-intelligence” was to provide the United States President with a false pretext on which to justify a war against a third party, and to bolster his claims respective to that undertaking. Without question, Iran’s activities prove it hostile. It is clearly an active enemy of the United States, and has tried to do us harm.

Discussion of our intervention in Grenada was in reference to another of Deegan’s ridiculous claims – namely that war can only result after one side commits a physical strike on another using military forces, which is demonstrably untrue, as in the case of Afghanistan. Unless, of course, you or he would like to enunciate your opposition to our action there, on the grounds that there was no justification to challenge the Taliban, because they were merely sponsors of the violence.

[Axis Kast]

In the fifth sentence, change "former" to "later".

[Patrick Degan]

No matter how much you try to redefine an apple as an orange, there is no way to characterise a disinformation campaign as an act of war or anything remotely approaching an act of war.

Unsubstantiated assertion. In order to carry a point, you must provide evidence or an argument to substantiate your otherwise completely unfounded assertion.

Wrong, fuckface —you don't get to arbitrarily redefine the terms used in an argument, then demand proof from an opponnent that your bullshit redefinitions aren't valid. YOU are the one making the unfounded assertions here and nobody else.

And don’t presume to claim that only a conventional attack represents casus belli, either, because there have been numerous incidents in the recent past when the United States committed itself to military action without having first been struck by the regular armed forces of the targets in question – namely in Panama, Grenada, and, most recently, Afghanistan.

Grenada and Panama represented situations of immediate threat to Americans who were actually on the ground in those countries. Afganistan was a special case for the very reason that they had full knowledge that Al-Qaeda had carried out the WTC attack, gave them refuge before and afterward, and refused to hand the perpetrators over for judgement. You have no argument.

You can scream "the Big Bad Iranians tired to lead us into war" from now until fucking Doomsday, but no matter what disinformation VEVAK passed along to Ahmad Chalabi to pass along to us, the U.S. government had the opportunity, the means, and the time to verify through independent sources its accuracy. It did not do so. Dick Cheney and the neocons in this administration short-circuited that process. George Bush wasn't interested in hearing anything which contradicted his viewpoint that Iraq had to be attacked. He was told that Ahmad Chalabi and the INC were liars and unreliable, but he overrode the CIA and listened to them instead. Chalabi's ties to Tehran were also known but ignored.

No disinformation from a foreign source can "lead" another nation into war. Any government taking its people into war is obligated to know what the fuck its talking about in making a case for war, and that includes verifying the accuracy of the information on which it is basing it's case. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The only time this consideration can be ignored is if a condition of imminent threat actually exists which allows for no delay. No such condition existed and nothing in the disinfo even indicated signs of an Iraqi move to launch an attack of any sort. War with Iraq was not imperative and was not the sole option available. So the whole "the Big Bad Iranians tried to lead us into war" argument fails on its merits, or lack thereof.

Red Herrings all. George W. Bush has absolutely nothing to do with determining either Iran’s guilt in attempting to mislead the United States, or in determining its stance vis-à-vis the United States. The same is true of Iran’s relative success or failure in the attempt itself. Iran’s actions were evidently hostile and belligerent totally irrespective of intelligence failures here, or in terms of whether an invasion of Iraq would have been carried out even had Ahmed Chalabi never crawled out of his hole in the ground, so by all means do yourself a favor and stop beating a dead horse.

This is entirely your Red Herring, Axi. Iran's disinformation campaign and intent is utterly immaterial to the issue of whether or not the Bush White House decided to pursue war as it's sole option. Disinformation and counterintelligence operations have not, are not, and never will be classified in the same category as an act of war. Such operations in and of themselves cannot result in a single death or loss of assets. And as there is no historical precedent for your attempted bullshit redefinition or for any nation going to war in retailation for disinformation fed to it by another nation, again, you have no argument.

And another thing – cut out this dishonest bullshit about “imminent threats.” Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, and elements of its armed forces are confirmed material supporters of al-Qaeda. They are providing aid and succor to the confirmed and avowed enemies of the United States of America. We legitimately bombed the Sudan for less.

Oh yes —the asprin factory and the Chinese embassy we caulked. Not exactly a stellar example to back your laughable "argument". And as we're already not bombing every state sponsor of terrorism simply because of that fact, once again, you have no argument.

I tire of your endless Moving the Goalposts fallacies, your Strawmen, and your outright lies. I have provided proof that Dick Cheney repeated Ahmad Chalabi's bullshit as FACT in public venues. He is on FUCKING VIDEOTAPE repeating lies as truth, and every news investigation into this story has demonstrated that Chalabi and the INC, and the Office of Special Plans which was relying on Chalabi and the INC as its source, was HIS source. For you to deny the evidence indicates that you are either fundamentally stupid or fundamentally dishonest.

And I tire of your pitiful attempts to pass off completely random media sound bytes as credible evidence that Vice President Cheney passed on information provided by Ahmed Chalabi without prior corroboration. If you have proof that Chalabi was the sole source of any of Cheney’s claims to the American public – as in proof that he took Ahmed Chalabi’s information and relayed it verbatim, and without any shred of similar information having come his way from any other source –, let’s see it. If not, for the umpteenth time, kindly shut the fuck up and concede the point as unproven.

Asked and answered —repeatedly.

No article cited here has supported your assertion that "entire wings of Iran's armed forces supported Al-Qaeda" We have elements of the Revolutionary Guard and elements of the Border Guard, who were simply given orders not to check passports of Saudi nationals passing through the country.

First of all, the Jerusalem Force is indeed a wing of the Iranian armed forces, considering that the definition of the word itself is simply, “A group affiliated with or subordinate to an older or larger organization.” In this case, that “group” is the Jerusalem Force and that “larger organization” the Iranian Army.

No, dishonest little fuck —the articles clearly refer to "elements of the Revolutionary Guards", not the Iranian army.

Secondly, the MSNBC article states in no uncertain terms that Iran’s activities were calculated to assists “jihadists” – that is, terrorists – cross the border from Afghanistan unhindered. Tehran was fully aware that its decision to loosen border control efforts were in the direct interests of terrorist organizations.

The CIA says you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Those are YOUR WORDS, making an outright assertion of fact which is not supported by the 9-11 panel report. The Iranian government has not been demonstrated as having any foreknowledge of the WTC attacks or who would be involved. Not even those who ultimately were part of the hijack knew of the plan during the time they were moving through Iran, as the plan had not been formulated at that point, or was known only to Osama binLaden and his top lieutennants. Now you're trying to backpedal into the argument of Iran's general support for terrorist groups as somehow translating into Iran's involvement with 9-11. You're not getting away with that one, and I'll quote your own words back to you for as long as it takes to make you either back your original assertion or drop it.

It is a known and verifiable fact that the Iranian government facilitated the movement of “jihadists” through its borders. This constitutes official support for the September 11th hijackers (among others), regardless of Iran’s connection – or non-connection, as is the case – to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

The CIA says you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

At no point have I characterised the Iranian government as "friendly" —and your continued putting up of that strawman is trancending the boundary separating strawman from outright lie. EITHER PRODUCE A TEXT QUOTE FROM ME WHERE I MAKE THAT ARGUMENT or drop it. At no point have I argued that Iran is friendly toward Washington and I have not argued against the fact of Iran's ties to terrorist groups. I have cited factual incidents of Iran's neutrality toward our campaigns in Afganistan and Iraq and the fact that they have arrested and detained Al-Qaeda operatives and have engaged in backchannel discussions with Washington on areas of immediate mutual advantage. That is not friendship by any characterisation and you know it.

You have cited factual incidents of Iran’s inability to challenge American policy in Afghanistan and Iraq, not evidence of true political neutrality by any means. Certainly the new information about their border control policies indicates that they were not, in fact, true neutrals by any stretch of the imagination.

The CIA says you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

As for the “back-channel discussions,” all we have are the high hopes of a group of unnamed “European diplomats” that Iran may negotiate an exchange or transfer of various al-Qaeda prisoners with a third party – all as yet unvindicated by any actual movement in any direction whatsoever by any arm of Iran’s government.

And this disproves the point... how, exactly?

You continue to spin your rank sophistries about sovereignty in an attempt to argue that the principle no longer applies to Iran and that somehow this makes them subject to attack with impunity. This argument has no validity in international law or common usage and never will no matter how desperately you keep flogging it.

Unfortunately for you, the Realist definition of sovereignty – wherein a nation is sovereign based, in part, on its ability to influence and control affairs within its own borders – is the only one that matters. If the United Nations cannot enforce its much looser construction, then that definition is automatically immaterial.

You actually imagine that by hanging the word "Realist" with a capital "R" at the beginning of it that somehow your laughable assertions have the force of authority behind them. The United Nations has enforced the terms of its charter repeatedly in the past, most notably in the cases of South Korea and Kuwait. Definitions are not rendered immatarial by arbitrary fiat, nor are bullshit redefinitions redered valid by assertion. So take your "Realist" definition and cram it.

And the conditions you allege to Iran are far more applicable in Pakistan, where the government actually is facing a danger of mutiny from large segments of its armed forces and where said government cannot even be certain how deeply its own military is involved with Al-Qaeda sympathisers.

Red Herring. The situation in Pakistan has absolutely no bearing on the situation in Iran. None. Our action or inaction in one location does not dictate our action or inaction in another by any stretch of the imagination.

NOT a Red Herring. You are the one insisting that Iran is unstable, when it clearly is not as unstable as Pakistan. You are the one insisting the support of terrorist groups by elements of the Iranian military constitutes valid grounds for attack, but try to gloss over the similar condition with Pakistan. And it is you trying to cadge up an idiotic "loss of sovereignty" sophistry which somehow applies to Iran but does not apply to Pakistan.

Come now. Stop grasping at straws. It’s unbecoming.

You should try taking your own advice.

Despite the involvement of some segments of the Revolutionary Guards with Al-Qaeda or the Jerusalem Force, there is no sign that the Iranian government is facing the danger of mutiny from its armed forces or that it cannot exercise positive command and control over the army. Even if its government were unstable, there is no viable argument which validates a miitary attack upon a sovereign nation whose sovereignty exists by definition.

Another Red Herring. Iran is demonstrable unable to control the Jerusalem Force, as proven by the later’s continued existence. You have not even been able to provide proof that the Iranian government is so much as attempting to bring rogue elements back into line, in accordance with the dictates of its own sovereignty. Who controls Tehran has no bearing on the Jerusalem Force’s being a danger to the United States and its national security interests in the first place.

Iran is demonstrably able to control the balance of its military forces and is not facing overthrow of its government. The existence of the Jerusalem Force does not alter this fact no matter how much you imagine it does. And as there is no effort by either the Pakistani or Saudi governments to bring their own rogue elements under control, the support for the proposition that this condition in and of itself justifies military action is chimerical on its face.

Any American attack upon Iran where an imminent threat or retaliatiation against Iran's armed forces for an attack upon U.S. forces cannot be demonstrated would be illegal. Even the Bush White House knows this.

Iran’s state sponsorship of terrorism already constitutes casus belli. They already are an imminent threat.

Only in your paranoid little brain and not in any real world.

That is another OUTRIGHT LIE on your part and an obvious one. Let's review the tape, shall we

None of what this article says excepting the failed attempt to make a comparison between Saddam Hussein’s and Iran’s separate and distinct attempts to build similar terrorist forces has any bearing on the issue.

Especially as that was never an argument I even attempted to make in the first place. The proof that you are a liar stands.

And by the way, that part about Iran’s non-complicity in the movement of Afghan terrorists across its borders is now false. Iran did know that it was allowing “jihadists” through its territory undocumented. It simply did not care.

Not even the CIA is asserting this as absolute fact, or did you simply decide to ignore John McLaughlin's own statements on the matter:

Linky

excerpt:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - About eight of the September 11, 2001, hijackers passed through Iran before attacking the United States, but there is no sign of official Iranian complicity, the CIA's acting director says.

"We have no evidence that there is some sort of official sanction by the government of Iran for this activity. We have no evidence that there is some sort of official connection between Iran and 9/11," John McLaughlin, acting director of the Central Intelligence Agency, said on "Fox News Sunday".

There's the acting director of the CIA saying you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

YOU tried saying that I was lying about the Asia Times article not talking about Saddam Hussein as its subject. Now you are outright lying about my supposedly "passing off Saddam Hussein’s own failed attempts to build a terrorist unit as faulty evidence of Iran’s failure to do so"; an argument I've never made and which is certainly not the argument of the very AT article I'VE CITED, you dishonest little fuck.

It certainly is an argument, or else the article would not read as follows, moron:

Although for some European intelligence sources the Jerusalem force is "a state within a state, able to offer protection to al-Qaeda", there's great skepticism towards its supposed, effective internationalist role. "Saddam Hussein also had a Jerusalem Liberation Army. It proved to be invisible, just a propaganda coup," adds another European counter-terrorist operative.

Asia Times attempts to make the completely failed assertion that Saddam Hussein’s inability to consolidate a terrorist task force is somehow evidence that Iran’s own force is impotent. Not to mention that the MSNBC article makes several of the Asia Times piece’s points defunct – especially about ignorance as to what passes along the border. Regardless of the failures that occur by default, Iran was indeed aware of the passage of “jihadists” through its territory.

THE ASIA TIMES ARTICLE SAYS NO SUCH FUCKING THING —you are Making Shit Up. Furthermore, the MSNBC article you keep citing does not support your assertions as absolute fact, and John McLaughlin himself, on Fox News Sunday, didn't make that assertion either. In fact, to reiterate:

Linky

excerpt:

Bush administration officials emphasized today that the 9/11 report also included contradictory information that undercut the idea of a strong relationship between Iran and Al Qaeda-and even cast some doubt on the conclusion that the Iranians were providing special favors for bin Laden’s organization.

In interviews with U.S. interrogators, two high-level Al Qaeda detainees—September 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-Shibh—confirmed that some of the 9/11 hijackers had transited through Iran on their way to and from the Afghan training camps, the report says, according to knowledgable sources. But the two Al Qaeda captives insisted the hijackers did so mainly to take advantage of a general Iranian practice of not stamping "Saudi passports"—indicating that the Iranian policy may have been cast more broadly than just Al Qaeda members.

You are as incompetent in history as in every other area of discussion. In point of fact, the Japanese were perfectly prepared to abort the Pearl Harbour mission if the attack force had spotted a prepared defence waiting for them. However, as Japan had already issued an imperial rescript proclaiming war, the attack in and of itself would not have been the decisive issue of the matter, so your laughable attampt at a parallel doesn't apply.

The point, you idiot, is that even had we shot down all of Japan’s planes and suffered nothing ourselves, we’d have considered ourselves at war. The relative success or failure of Iran’s intrigues against us have no bearing on their stance against us, and in fact leave little in question.

No, fuckface —the point is that you have no point. Japan had already issued a war declaration which was supposed to have been delivered before the Pearl Harbour attack but was delayed in translation. We would have considered ourselves at war for the same reason we had to consider ourselves at war with Nazi Germany; because they had formally declared war on us. There is no parallel whatsoever to any situation relating to Iran no matter how much you try to construct one. War is not declared over intrigues but overt military acts of sufficent scale to leave no diplomatic recourse.

Having dealt with this minor point, there is no other definition for the term "act of war" which involves anything other than a military attack.

Based on what evidence? Your unfounded opinion? Bzzt. Sorry, you lose.

Wrong, asshole —actual precedent in history. You have no argument.

We considered Afghanistan a legitimate target even when their military was not the actual source of an attack against us, but in fact a third party whose actions they condoned. Not unlike Iran, mind you.

Very unlike Iran, as even the CIA's own conclusions have stated. And Afganistan was a special case because they were openly complicit in 9-11 before and after the fact and subsequenly refused to hand over Osama binLaden to face justice.

But you just keep trying to cadge up this bit of sophistry to prop up your other sophistries. Likewise, your Grenada parallel is also equally laughable: we attacked there because Americans on the ground there were facing imminent threat from the revolutionary chaos that was sweeping the island. The rescue and safeguarding of one's own nationals has always been considered legitimate grounds for military intervention. That argument does not obtain with Iran anymore than the Pearl Harbour argument does.

Brilliant! So Grenada lost sovereignty because conditions its government could no longer effectively challenge or control had placed Americans in danger. Much like Iran and the Jerusalem Force’s support for terrorist activities. Thanks, Deegan!

For what —offering you yet another opportunity to make an utter fool of yourself over an illegitimate argument? The operational qualifier was the actual live presence of Americans on the fucking ground in Grenada which has nothing to do with your patently idiotic "loss of sovereignty" sophistries. Without that, the United States would have had neither cause nor interest in intervening in Grenada's internal troubles. There are no Americans on the ground in Iran facing imminent danger, and the Jerusalem Force's activities do not warrant identification with any such qualifier.

Um, no stupid; that wasn't a failure of counterintelligence, that was a failure of LEADERSHIP —a White House which ignored eight months of warnings from the CIA and European intel services of an Al-Qaeda plot, and a George Bush who when receiving a PDB titled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike In U.S." reacted to it by hanging out the "Gone Fishin" sign.

Hey, moron! A failure of leadership by those responsible for a reactionary policy is automatically a failure for the reactionary policy itself. One of the principle problems of a reactionary campaign is that it offers the initiative entirely to the enemy, which can result in one’s being caught flat-footed while attempting to sift through mountains of information, which is precisely what happened to the government before September 11th. The very reason that PDB was ignored was that it was one of many. Hence, a much more effective policy will take the fight directly to the terrorists and their sponsors, throwing them on the defensive instead.

Wrong, asshole —the 9-11 panel is already outlining how the WTC attacks might have been at least partially averted, and the evidence shows how the Bush White House was not confused by a plethora of warnings but ignored them altogether. For you to excuse any man occupying the office of president ignoring any sort of report with the title "BinLaden Determined To Strike In U.S." for ANY reason demonstrates the depths of your intellectual dishonesty and shows you to be nothing but a shameless apologist for this White House. And the terrorists aren't impressed by our "taking the fight to them", nor has there been any evidence that this has made any appreciable effect upon halting the terrorist threat to any substantive degree.

I await your customary bullshit reply.

[Axis Kast]

Wrong, fuckface —you don't get to arbitrarily redefine the terms used in an argument, then demand proof from an opponnent that your bullshit redefinitions aren't valid. YOU are the one making the unfounded assertions here and nobody else.

You are the only one here who seems to have problems with arbitrary redefinition. Now, for the third time, either explain why intelligence activities cannot, in your fantasy world, be construed as acts of war, or cede the point.

Grenada and Panama represented situations of immediate threat to Americans who were actually on the ground in those countries.

And Iran’s official sponsorship of terrorism represents an immediate threat to the national security interests of the United States of America worldwide.

Afganistan was a special case for the very reason that they had full knowledge that Al-Qaeda had carried out the WTC attack, gave them refuge before and afterward, and refused to hand the perpetrators over for judgement. You have no argument.

Which is little different than in Iran, where the government knowingly facilitated the movement of “jihadists” across its borders, and purposely reduced border control strictures in a region of high terrorist activity in order to do so.

This is entirely your Red Herring, Axi. Iran's disinformation campaign and intent is utterly immaterial to the issue of whether or not the Bush White House decided to pursue war as it's sole option. Disinformation and counterintelligence operations have not, are not, and never will be classified in the same category as an act of war. Such operations in and of themselves cannot result in a single death or loss of assets. And as there is no historical precedent for your attempted bullshit redefinition or for any nation going to war in retailation for disinformation fed to it by another nation, again, you have no argument.

A bald-faced lie. Iran’s plan was to use misinformation to draw the United States into a shooting war. Hence, by definition, its goal was to meet physical destruction upon American assets.

Oh yes —the asprin factory and the Chinese embassy we caulked.

You mean in two completely separate combat situations, one of which has no application whatsoever to this argument, and the other being a Red Herring?

Not exactly a stellar example to back your laughable "argument". And as we're already not bombing every state sponsor of terrorism simply because of that fact, once again, you have no argument.

And by what fucking law is the United States required to respond to all provocations at once, or none at all? Perhaps you’d like to tell me, since it seems to be your favorite fallback position. But, of course, you won’t be able to.

Asked and answered —repeatedly.

To whose standards? Ronald McDonald’s? Unfortunately, you forget a little something called evidence. But that’s your problem.

No, dishonest little fuck —the articles clearly refer to "elements of the Revolutionary Guards", not the Iranian army.

And the Revolutionary Guards are an arm of Iran’s military, you fucking moron. Jesus Christ. Do you win awards for your stupidity?

The CIA says you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

It does? Is that why you didn’t provide any proof to back up this refutation? As far as I know, all the CIA says is that Iran didn’t purposely facilitate the September 11th hijackers, and had no direct foreknowledge of the events of September 11th themselves, nothing more.

And this disproves the point... how, exactly?

Because the hope of negotiation is not negotiation itself, fucktard. You should really know this. How old are you now?

You actually imagine that by hanging the word "Realist" with a capital "R" at the beginning of it that somehow your laughable assertions have the force of authority behind them.

If the United States chooses to apply them by force, they certainly do have the force of authority behind them, genius.

The United Nations has enforced the terms of its charter repeatedly in the past, most notably in the cases of South Korea and Kuwait. Definitions are not rendered immatarial by arbitrary fiat, nor are bullshit redefinitions redered valid by assertion. So take your "Realist" definition and cram it.

Once again, if the United Nations cannot impose its definition of “sovereignty” on concerned parties in any given conflict, then its definition clearly doesn’t apply. One cannot dictate terms without the power of compellence.

NOT a Red Herring. You are the one insisting that Iran is unstable, when it clearly is not as unstable as Pakistan.

Which means jack shit about our options in Iran, you dishonest retard.

You are the one insisting the support of terrorist groups by elements of the Iranian military constitutes valid grounds for attack, but try to gloss over the similar condition with Pakistan. And it is you trying to cadge up an idiotic "loss of sovereignty" sophistry which somehow applies to Iran but does not apply to Pakistan.

Not at all. I have indeed recognized that Pakistan has lost a measure of its sovereignty, just as has Iran. On the other hand, Pakistan under Musharrif has been actively arresting and apprehending al-Qaeda members on a far more active scale than Iran. Not to mention that the United States has virtually no options when it comes to punishing Pakistan for its crimes, a situation which is thankfully not the case in Iran. Different countries beg different game planes, Deegan. It’s a very simple concept.

Iran is demonstrably able to control the balance of its military forces and is not facing overthrow of its government.

If that is true, then it must also be true that they are purposely tolerating the activities of the Jerusalem Force – which would make them intentional allies of al-Qaeda, moron.

The existence of the Jerusalem Force does not alter this fact no matter how much you imagine it does. And as there is no effort by either the Pakistani or Saudi governments to bring their own rogue elements under control, the support for the proposition that this condition in and of itself justifies military action is chimerical on its face.

Which is why we read that Saudi Arabia is hounding terrorists on a daily basis as a result of our prodding, correct? Not that what occurs in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan can possible be construed as guidelines for Iran. As you always say, I can hear the fapping from here.

Only in your paranoid little brain and not in any real world.

So you deny that states known to sponsor terrorism, and elements of whose militaries are known to support al-Qaeda, represent a danger to the United States? Is that what you mean by this statement?

Especially as that was never an argument I even attempted to make in the first place. The proof that you are a liar stands.

FACT: The Asia Times article proposes that Iran’s Jerusalem Force is ineffective.

FACT: The Asia Times article’s evidence is a quotation regarding Iraq’s Jerusalem Force.

It is a classical – not to mention failed – attempt to take a similar effort in a completely different context and warp it into something relevant.

Not even the CIA is asserting this as absolute fact, or did you simply decide to ignore John McLaughlin's own statements on the matter:

The CIA is referring in that case to the hijacker’s movements, not the lax border control efforts and the intention to facilitate the movement of Afghan terrorists in general, moron. You’re a liar.

THE ASIA TIMES ARTICLE SAYS NO SUCH FUCKING THING —you are Making Shit Up. Furthermore, the MSNBC article you keep citing does not support your assertions as absolute fact, and John McLaughlin himself, on Fox News Sunday, didn't make that assertion either. In fact, to reiterate:

And nobody said that Iran was directly providing al-Qaeda with anything except in the form of aid via military channels it no longer directly controlled, and indirectly in the form of lax border control – which is not in dispute.

No, fuckface —the point is that you have no point. Japan had already issued a war declaration which was supposed to have been delivered before the Pearl Harbour attack but was delayed in translation. We would have considered ourselves at war for the same reason we had to consider ourselves at war with Nazi Germany; because they had formally declared war on us. There is no parallel whatsoever to any situation relating to Iran no matter how much you try to construct one. War is not declared over intrigues but overt military acts of sufficent scale to leave no diplomatic recourse.

Afghanistan’s responsibility for the September 11th attacks did not constitute an “overt military act,” you fucking idiot. And Iran, as a state sponsor of terrorism, is in the same boat. If the former was a legitimate target of our wrath after helping a third party strike this country, the later is no less guilty for doing the same.

Wrong, asshole —actual precedent in history. You have no argument.

Actual precedent in history supports my argument, moron – which is that casus belli need not inherently be an overt military act in any way, shape, or form.

Very unlike Iran, as even the CIA's own conclusions have stated. And Afganistan was a special case because they were openly complicit in 9-11 before and after the fact and subsequenly refused to hand over Osama binLaden to face justice.

Iran to this day supports global terrorism, and has refused to bring the Jerusalem Force to heel. If you disagree, provide evidence of a crackdown. You won’t find it.

For what —offering you yet another opportunity to make an utter fool of yourself over an illegitimate argument? The operational qualifier was the actual live presence of Americans on the fucking ground in Grenada which has nothing to do with your patently idiotic "loss of sovereignty" sophistries. Without that, the United States would have had neither cause nor interest in intervening in Grenada's internal troubles. There are no Americans on the ground in Iran facing imminent danger, and the Jerusalem Force's activities do not warrant identification with any such qualifier.

The Americans students represented only one problem for Washington. The Cubans were the much larger threat. Not that this changes anything, since Americans are in danger from Iranian-funded terrorism no matter where in the world they happen to be.

The Jerusalem Force’s funding of al-Qaeda does not warrant a reaction from the United States, who is a known target of that organization? That’s a new one to me. Why don’t you justify it, dipshit?

Wrong, asshole —the 9-11 panel is already outlining how the WTC attacks might have been at least partially averted, and the evidence shows how the Bush White House was not confused by a plethora of warnings but ignored them altogether.

And the Clinton White House too, moron. Which means that the warning signs were obviously not easy to spot. The Chief Executive receives numerous warnings during the course of a four-year term, many of which turn out to be worthless.

For you to excuse any man occupying the office of president ignoring any sort of report with the title "BinLaden Determined To Strike In U.S." for ANY reason demonstrates the depths of your intellectual dishonesty and shows you to be nothing but a shameless apologist for this White House. And the terrorists aren't impressed by our "taking the fight to them", nor has there been any evidence that this has made any appreciable effect upon halting the terrorist threat to any substantive degree.

Actually, for me to excuse the United States government for overlooking a needle in the haystack is only to engage in logical thinking, Mr. Armchair Quarterback.

Except for the fact that there hasn’t been a major terrorist attack in this country since we began our campaign against state sponsors of terrorism, idiot. Oops. Looks like you lose.

[Patrick Degan]

Wrong, fuckface —you don't get to arbitrarily redefine the terms used in an argument, then demand proof from an opponnent that your bullshit redefinitions aren't valid. YOU are the one making the unfounded assertions here and nobody else.

You are the only one here who seems to have problems with arbitrary redefinition.

Yes —yours.

Now, for the third time, either explain why intelligence activities cannot, in your fantasy world, be construed as acts of war, or cede the point.

Because, asshole —THEY DO NOT ENTAIL ACTUAL ACTS OF VIOLENCE COMMITTED AGAINST EITHER LIFE OR PROPERTY BY THE MILITARY FORCES OF ONE NATION AGAINST ANOTHER! That is not "fantasy world", fuckface, that is reality. An act of war is precisely that. I have explained this repeatedly and you just keep demanding an explanation, meaning that you are either stupid or dishonest. Either demonstrate that this defintion is not valid or drop it.

Grenada and Panama represented situations of immediate threat to Americans who were actually on the ground in those countries.

And Iran’s official sponsorship of terrorism represents an immediate threat to the national security interests of the United States of America worldwide.

That is not the issue here, but what constitutes an imminent threat as defined in the usages of war and international law, not general amorphous threats over unspecified time periods. So let's have an end to your bullshit over this, which is nothing more than an attempt to cadge together a catch-all excuse for war.

Afganistan was a special case for the very reason that they had full knowledge that Al-Qaeda had carried out the WTC attack, gave them refuge before and afterward, and refused to hand the perpetrators over for judgement. You have no argument.

Which is little different than in Iran, where the government knowingly facilitated the movement of “jihadists” across its borders, and purposely reduced border control strictures in a region of high terrorist activity in order to do so.

It is VERY different, as even the CIA's own conclusions have determined. No Iranian complicity with 9-11 can even be inferred by allowing the movement of persons who were subsequently part of the hijack team but were not then involved in a plot which was not known outside of a tight circle of conspirators if then and for which nobody in the Iranian government could possibly have had advance knowledge. No evidence of Iranian complicity exists except in your little warped fantasy world.

This is entirely your Red Herring, Axi. Iran's disinformation campaign and intent is utterly immaterial to the issue of whether or not the Bush White House decided to pursue war as it's sole option. Disinformation and counterintelligence operations have not, are not, and never will be classified in the same category as an act of war. Such operations in and of themselves cannot result in a single death or loss of assets. And as there is no historical precedent for your attempted bullshit redefinition or for any nation going to war in retailation for disinformation fed to it by another nation, again, you have no argument.

A bald-faced lie.

Yours.

Iran’s plan was to use misinformation to draw the United States into a shooting war. Hence, by definition, its goal was to meet physical destruction upon American assets.

You can keep repeating this ad-infinitum, but it remains no more true through the millionth repetition as in its first utterance. Neither does it allow the redefinition of disinformation as an act of war no matter how dearly you wish it did. The U.S. government had means, opportunity, and the responsibility to verify the information upon which to base its case for war against Iraq. It did not do so. Disinformation cannot, in and of itself, result in one death or a single asset lost. And you have utterly failed to produce so much as one example of any other war in history which was justified by one nation's counterintelligence against another to back your increasingly insane argument.

Oh yes —the asprin factory and the Chinese embassy we caulked.

You mean in two completely separate combat situations, one of which has no application whatsoever to this argument, and the other being a Red Herring?

Out-of-context quote.

Not exactly a stellar example to back your laughable "argument". And as we're already not bombing every state sponsor of terrorism simply because of that fact, once again, you have no argument.

And by what fucking law is the United States required to respond to all provocations at once, or none at all? Perhaps you’d like to tell me, since it seems to be your favorite fallback position. But, of course, you won’t be able to.

The issue is not whether some law "requires" the same national response to all provocations (yet another argument I've never made) but how the concept of proportional response applies and how military action is justified in the codicils of international law which this country is signatory to. Practise defines precedent, and the precedents which applied were not general sponsorship of terrorism but specific responses to specific incidents.

Asked and answered —repeatedly.

To whose standards? Ronald McDonald’s? Unfortunately, you forget a little something called evidence. But that’s your problem.

Lie. I have repeatedly brought forth DICK CHENEY'S OWN FUCKING STATEMENTS AND SIX NEWS ARTICLES IDENTIFYING THAT AMHAD CHALABI AND THE INC WERE HIS SOURCES ON WHICH HE RELIED TO MAKE HIS ASSERTIONS OF FACT. Your refusal to acknowledge that evidence is not my problem at all.

No, dishonest little fuck —the articles clearly refer to "elements of the Revolutionary Guards", not the Iranian army.

And the Revolutionary Guards are an arm of Iran’s military, you fucking moron. Jesus Christ. Do you win awards for your stupidity?

No, those I gladly cede to you, as you do everything in your power to earn them. And YOU said the word "army" and not the more general term "military", so we'll mark this bit of hairsplitting as yet another attempt by you to lie about your own arguments.

The CIA says you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

It does? Is that why you didn’t provide any proof to back up this refutation? As far as I know, all the CIA says is that Iran didn’t purposely facilitate the September 11th hijackers, and had no direct foreknowledge of the events of September 11th themselves, nothing more.

The proof is in THE VERY ARTICLE YOU CITED, fuckface:

Linky

Bush administration officials emphasized today that the 9/11 report also included contradictory information that undercut the idea of a strong relationship between Iran and Al Qaeda-and even cast some doubt on the conclusion that the Iranians were providing special favors for bin Laden’s organization.

Do you not read the "evidence" you presume backs your idiotic arguments?!

And this disproves the point... how, exactly?

Because the hope of negotiation is not negotiation itself, fucktard. You should really know this. How old are you now?

Old enough to know I'm dealing with an evident retard. And negotiations at any level are still negotiations. But I don't expect you to know anything that basic. Are you sure you're not actually a deranged 12-year old?

You actually imagine that by hanging the word "Realist" with a capital "R" at the beginning of it that somehow your laughable assertions have the force of authority behind them.

If the United States chooses to apply them by force, they certainly do have the force of authority behind them, genius.

Nice theory. I do believe Hitler thought the same thing. So did Saddam Hussein.

The United Nations has enforced the terms of its charter repeatedly in the past, most notably in the cases of South Korea and Kuwait. Definitions are not rendered immatarial by arbitrary fiat, nor are bullshit redefinitions redered valid by assertion. So take your "Realist" definition and cram it.

Once again, if the United Nations cannot impose its definition of “sovereignty” on concerned parties in any given conflict, then its definition clearly doesn’t apply. One cannot dictate terms without the power of compellence.

You mean like in South Korea, 1950 —oh wait, that was a UN operation. Or Kuwait, 1991 —oh wait, that was a UN operation too. Or Lebanon, 1982 —UNIFIL. We won't even have to mention fifty years of peacekeeping operations supervised by UN troops in accordance with the terms of the UN charter —which among other things defines the present context of sovereignty in international law.

NOT a Red Herring. You are the one insisting that Iran is unstable, when it clearly is not as unstable as Pakistan.

Which means jack shit about our options in Iran, you dishonest retard.

Wrong, liar —YOU cited Iran's alleged instability as the basis for its supposed "loss of sovereignty"; an argument which not only has no validity on its face but is inapplicable even by its own terms in comparison with a nation whose government is far shakier in its position in power. And as there are no Americans on the ground in Iran facing immediate danger from revolutionary chaos, intervention on the grounds of rescuing one's own nationals from said danger doesn't obtain as a justification for military action in the present context. That remains fact no matter how much you keep moving the goalposts about.

You are the one insisting the support of terrorist groups by elements of the Iranian military constitutes valid grounds for attack, but try to gloss over the similar condition with Pakistan. And it is you trying to cadge up an idiotic "loss of sovereignty" sophistry which somehow applies to Iran but does not apply to Pakistan.

Not at all. I have indeed recognized that Pakistan has lost a measure of its sovereignty, just as has Iran. On the other hand, Pakistan under Musharrif has been actively arresting and apprehending al-Qaeda members on a far more active scale than Iran. Not to mention that the United States has virtually no options when it comes to punishing Pakistan for its crimes, a situation which is thankfully not the case in Iran. Different countries beg different game planes, Deegan. It’s a very simple concept.

Simple-minded concept, actually. Pakistan has lost no measure of sovereignty no matter the present state of its government any more than Iran has. And despite the record of the Musharraf government, Al-Qaeda refuges continue to exist within Pakistani territory as do the virulently anti-American madrahassahs which he dares not shut down without risking revolutionary currents generating in the wake of such a move.

Iran is demonstrably able to control the balance of its military forces and is not facing overthrow of its government.

If that is true, then it must also be true that they are purposely tolerating the activities of the Jerusalem Force – which would make them intentional allies of al-Qaeda, moron.

A pathetic attempt at cleverness. The existence of the one condition does not automatically imply the other; i.e. the independent operation of the Jersuaslem Force in sponsoring terrorism = full complicity of the Tehran government. The issue is whether or not said government is facing the danger of mutiny from its military forces, for which no evidence exists.

The existence of the Jerusalem Force does not alter this fact no matter how much you imagine it does. And as there is no effort by either the Pakistani or Saudi governments to bring their own rogue elements under control, the support for the proposition that this condition in and of itself justifies military action is chimerical on its face.

Which is why we read that Saudi Arabia is hounding terrorists on a daily basis as a result of our prodding, correct? Not that what occurs in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan can possible be construed as guidelines for Iran. As you always say, I can hear the fapping from here.

Not surprising with you wanking yourself off all the time. And we're not talking about what the general governments of Saudi Arabia or Pakistan may be doing against terrorists but how those governments are similarly plagued by rogue state elements supporting terrorist cels, and how the condition of state sponsorship of terrorism is not considered sufficent in and of itself to justify a military retaliation and in fact has not provided the basis for any U.S. military strike conducted in the Middle East to date.

So you deny that states known to sponsor terrorism, and elements of whose militaries are known to support al-Qaeda, represent a danger to the United States? Is that what you mean by this statement?

Can they destroy the United States? Destroy American armies in the field? Drive us from the Middle East? Can they impose their will on us? They endanger Americans, certainly, and represent an ongoing security threat on that level. They do not imperil either the existence of the United States, nor its ability to project its power in the region, nor the continued supply of Middle East oil. As I've stated —threats are only as good as the ability to actually carry them out, and no terrorist threat is ever going to represent a source of national peril; either from the organisations or from sponsoring governments. The Soviet Union was a danger to the United States; a danger no terrorist threat is ever going to match in scale.

Especially as that was never an argument I even attempted to make in the first place. The proof that you are a liar stands.

FACT: The Asia Times article proposes that Iran’s Jerusalem Force is ineffective.

LIE: The Asia Times article dismissed the alleged existence of Saddam's Jerusalem Force and speaks to the doubts of European intelligence services as to the effectiveness of the Iranian JF's activities. That issue is not even the focus of the piece.

It is a classical – not to mention failed – attempt to take a similar effort in a completely different context and warp it into something relevant.

A perfect description of your own debate techniques.

Not even the CIA is asserting this as absolute fact, or did you simply decide to ignore John McLaughlin's own statements on the matter:

The CIA is referring in that case to the hijacker’s movements, not the lax border control efforts and the intention to facilitate the movement of Afghan terrorists in general, moron. You’re a liar.

YOU are the liar here, Axi. To reiterate:

Linky

Bush administration officials emphasized today that the 9/11 report also included contradictory information that undercut the idea of a strong relationship between Iran and Al Qaeda-and even cast some doubt on the conclusion that the Iranians were providing special favors for bin Laden’s organization.

From THE VERY ARTICLE YOU CITED. You have no argument.

THE ASIA TIMES ARTICLE SAYS NO SUCH FUCKING THING —you are Making Shit Up. Furthermore, the MSNBC article you keep citing does not support your assertions as absolute fact, and John McLaughlin himself, on Fox News Sunday, didn't make that assertion either. In fact, to reiterate:

And nobody said that Iran was directly providing al-Qaeda with anything except in the form of aid via military channels it no longer directly controlled, and indirectly in the form of lax border control – which is not in dispute.

And to reiterate yet again:

Linky

Bush administration officials emphasized today that the 9/11 report also included contradictory information that undercut the idea of a strong relationship between Iran and Al Qaeda-and even cast some doubt on the conclusion that the Iranians were providing special favors for bin Laden’s organization.

From THE VERY ARTICLE YOU CITED. You have no argument.

No, fuckface —the point is that you have no point. Japan had already issued a war declaration which was supposed to have been delivered before the Pearl Harbour attack but was delayed in translation. We would have considered ourselves at war for the same reason we had to consider ourselves at war with Nazi Germany; because they had formally declared war on us. There is no parallel whatsoever to any situation relating to Iran no matter how much you try to construct one. War is not declared over intrigues but overt military acts of sufficent scale to leave no diplomatic recourse.

Afghanistan’s responsibility for the September 11th attacks did not constitute an “overt military act,” you fucking idiot. And Iran, as a state sponsor of terrorism, is in the same boat. If the former was a legitimate target of our wrath after helping a third party strike this country, the later is no less guilty for doing the same.

Afganistan's responsibility for September 11th included open cooperation with Al Qaeda as it planned and executed the attack, and its subsequent refusal to turn over the Al Qaeda leadership for justice. They were openly complicit in an act of such scale that no diplomatic recourse was left open. Iran by contrast has had no involvement in either the WTC attacks nor in any action of even a fraction of the scale of the WTC strike. Deny that as much as you like, but those are the facts of the matter.

Actual precedent in history supports my argument, moron – which is that casus belli need not inherently be an overt military act in any way, shape, or form.

You'll pardon me for laughing, I trust. If you're trying to reach for Afganistan as your "precedent", you're definitely grasping at straws. Afganistan was a special case by any definition and does not defeat the argument defining what an act of war actually is. And if you actually imagine that a parallel can be drawn between the Taliban's complicity for 9-11 and a disinformation campaign as something other than an "overt military act" rising to the level of an act of war as your "precedent", you are even more deranged than I figured.

Very unlike Iran, as even the CIA's own conclusions have stated. And Afganistan was a special case because they were openly complicit in 9-11 before and after the fact and subsequenly refused to hand over Osama binLaden to face justice.

Iran to this day supports global terrorism, and has refused to bring the Jerusalem Force to heel. If you disagree, provide evidence of a crackdown. You won’t find it.

Which has exactly jack and shit to do with whether or not they were complicit in 9-11 or have committed acts requiring military retaiation as a response. Precedent shows that the sponsorship of terrorism in and of itself is not considered sufficent cause for retaliation by military means.

The operational qualifier was the actual live presence of Americans on the fucking ground in Grenada which has nothing to do with your patently idiotic "loss of sovereignty" sophistries. Without that, the United States would have had neither cause nor interest in intervening in Grenada's internal troubles. There are no Americans on the ground in Iran facing imminent danger, and the Jerusalem Force's activities do not warrant identification with any such qualifier.

The Americans students represented only one problem for Washington. The Cubans were the much larger threat. Not that this changes anything, since Americans are in danger from Iranian-funded terrorism no matter where in the world they happen to be.

The Reagan Administration protested but did nothing over the fact of the Cubans building an airstrip on Grenada. That was not the promptor of our intervention but the military coup against the Hudson Austin government and the subsequent condition of immediate threat to American medical students on the island. No such condition obtains with Iran, and no attempt to build a nebulous threat into an imminent threat will make it so —especially as no terrorist organisation supported by Iran has a reach outside of the Middle East.

The Jerusalem Force’s funding of al-Qaeda does not warrant a reaction from the United States, who is a known target of that organization? That’s a new one to me. Why don’t you justify it, dipshit?

By that argument, we must immediately attack Saudi Arabia, since the kingdom has had a larger hand in funding Al Qaeda than Iran ever has. The issue is whether or not Iran was complicit in 9-11 or any action of comparable scale to justify a military attack. They demonstrably are not so complicit, and as there is not even a clear-cut case on the extent of official sanction for Al Qaeda from the Iranians, there is certainly no clear-cut case for military retaliation.

Wrong, asshole —the 9-11 panel is already outlining how the WTC attacks might have been at least partially averted, and the evidence shows how the Bush White House was not confused by a plethora of warnings but ignored them altogether.

And the Clinton White House too, moron. Which means that the warning signs were obviously not easy to spot. The Chief Executive receives numerous warnings during the course of a four-year term, many of which turn out to be worthless.

And the Clinton White House received a PDB titled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike In U.S." when, exactly? Furthermore, as the Clinton White House successfully averted Al Qaeda's Millenium bomb-plot in 2000, their record on paying attention to terrorist threats outdoes that of the Bush White House in no uncertain terms. Ask Richard Clarke.

For you to excuse any man occupying the office of president ignoring any sort of report with the title "BinLaden Determined To Strike In U.S." for ANY reason demonstrates the depths of your intellectual dishonesty and shows you to be nothing but a shameless apologist for this White House. And the terrorists aren't impressed by our "taking the fight to them", nor has there been any evidence that this has made any appreciable effect upon halting the terrorist threat to any substantive degree.

Actually, for me to excuse the United States government for overlooking a needle in the haystack is only to engage in logical thinking, Mr. Armchair Quarterback.

No, that's engaging in shameless apologia. The Bush White House didn't overlook a needle in a haystack, dipshit —they overlooked a stack of needles.

Except for the fact that there hasn’t been a major terrorist attack in this country since we began our campaign against state sponsors of terrorism, idiot.

Begging the Question Fallacy yet again. And the terrorists these days have all the American targets they could want —in Iraq, where it seems that we removed from power one of the few Arab leaders who actually actively suppressed Islamic extremists.

Oops. Looks like you lose.

Yes, we all know how much you like masturbating on the computer.

[Axis Kast]

Because, asshole —THEY DO NOT ENTAIL ACTUAL ACTS OF VIOLENCE COMMITTED AGAINST EITHER LIFE OR PROPERTY BY THE MILITARY FORCES OF ONE NATION AGAINST ANOTHER! That is not "fantasy world", fuckface, that is reality. An act of war is precisely that. I have explained this repeatedly and you just keep demanding an explanation, meaning that you are either stupid or dishonest. Either demonstrate that this defintion is not valid or drop it.

Really? That’s interesting, considering that only two days ago, you were admitting that the potential for violence to befall American citizens on the ground in a given country, as well as sponsorship of terrorism – that is, of violence by operators other than the military forces of one nation against another – also constitute casus belli.

You see, Deegan, it is really you who are straying from the beaten path, and proposing your own very limited, very specific conditions for war, despite the fact that your vaunted “precedent” simply isn’t there. Later on, we’ll take a look at how you attempt spin sponsorship of terrorism from an overtly hostile act into an acceptable act, as well.

That is not the issue here, but what constitutes an imminent threat as defined in the usages of war and international law, not general amorphous threats over unspecified time periods. So let's have an end to your bullshit over this, which is nothing more than an attempt to cadge together a catch-all excuse for war.

That is absolutely the issue here. We are arguing two points – one, the broader, is that Iran has already committed actions which give the United States the justification to carry out preemptive stikes up to and including war. The other is whether their attempted intelligence ruse is grounds for war in and of itself.

It is VERY different, as even the CIA's own conclusions have determined. No Iranian complicity with 9-11 can even be inferred by allowing the movement of persons who were subsequently part of the hijack team but were not then involved in a plot which was not known outside of a tight circle of conspirators if then and for which nobody in the Iranian government could possibly have had advance knowledge. No evidence of Iranian complicity exists except in your little warped fantasy world.

Direct Iranian complicity with 9-11 cannot be conferred, moron. Indirect complicity is another matter, however. Let me remind you yet again that Iran’s lax border control procedures were a conscious effort to facilitate the movement of known terrorists in general, between one nation and another, and hence constituted support for terrorism in and of themselves.

You can keep repeating this ad-infinitum, but it remains no more true through the millionth repetition as in its first utterance. Neither does it allow the redefinition of disinformation as an act of war no matter how dearly you wish it did.

Iran’s action was demonstrably hostile, and represented an effort to bring the United States into physical confrontation with a third party. In no uncertain terms, Iran’s activities were intended to cause harm to the national security integrity of this country. Hence, a belligerent act with physical consequences was attempted. War may thus result. Quite simple.

The U.S. government had means, opportunity, and the responsibility to verify the information upon which to base its case for war against Iraq. It did not do so.

Irrelevant. For the umpteenth time, the United States government’s failures of oversight are completely unrelated to a discussion of Iranian guilt. Iran is just as guilty, regardless of success or failure.

Disinformation cannot, in and of itself, result in one death or a single asset lost.

Completely incorrect. Providing false information to the police is a serious crime because, if acted upon, it can result in the death of multiple parties. Iran’s crimes are no different.

And you have utterly failed to produce so much as one example of any other war in history which was justified by one nation's counterintelligence against another to back your increasingly insane argument.

Iran’s actions do not, by any means, fall under the definition of “counterintelligence,” dolt. Theirs was an external attempt to mislead the United States into war with a third party. By definition, that is not self-defense.

Out-of-context quote.

Yours.

The issue is not whether some law "requires" the same national response to all provocations (yet another argument I've never made) but how the concept of proportional response applies and how military action is justified in the codicils of international law which this country is signatory to. Practise defines precedent, and the precedents which applied were not general sponsorship of terrorism but specific responses to specific incidents.

Are you seriously attempting to argue that general sponsorship of terrorism is not sufficient grounds by which to act militarily against another nation, because we must first wait for people to die?! General sponsorship of terrorism is a direct violation of your precious covenant between nations. It is automatically a material threat to the physical wellbeing of other states. Most especially in Iran’s case, because the terrorists in question include those with ties to the Afghani government as well as al-Qaeda members.

Lie. I have repeatedly brought forth DICK CHENEY'S OWN FUCKING STATEMENTS AND SIX NEWS ARTICLES IDENTIFYING THAT AMHAD CHALABI AND THE INC WERE HIS SOURCES ON WHICH HE RELIED TO MAKE HIS ASSERTIONS OF FACT. Your refusal to acknowledge that evidence is not my problem at all.

But the question was not whether Ahmed Chalabi was the original source of his assertions, you brain dead fucktard. The question was whether Ahmed Chalabi’s information was ever repeated as fact without the prior screening or addition of other corroborating information. I might add that you’ve as yet been unable to provide any evidence that Ahmed Chalabi – and Ahmed Chalabi alone – was the sole – not the original, since there’s a difference – source of Cheney’s statements.

And YOU said the word "army" and not the more general term "military", so we'll mark this bit of hairsplitting as yet another attempt by you to lie about your own arguments.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=army

b. often Army The entire military land forces of a country.

You lose.

Do you not read the "evidence" you presume backs your idiotic arguments?!

The Iranians do not need to provide specific “special favors” to bin-Laden’s organization in order to have been involved in supporting Afghan terrorists in general, idiot. This proves nothing whatsoever.

Old enough to know I'm dealing with an evident retard. And negotiations at any level are still negotiations. But I don't expect you to know anything that basic. Are you sure you're not actually a deranged 12-year old?

WHAT NEGOTIATIONS, you fucking retard? There have been no negotiations. For all intents and purposes, negotiations are committing suicide at the gates of reality!

Nice theory. I do believe Hitler thought the same thing. So did Saddam Hussein.

Red Herrings, all. Your “laws” mean nothing unless they are physically enforced.

Not to mention that there is considerable precedent behind the argument that a nation looses sovereignty if it fails to enforce security and stability. Grenada certainly did. American students were endangered. But Iran’s support for terrorists is equally a danger. Hence, because it is not addressing the problem effectively – or even at all –, we may act as the aggrieved party. All this according to your terms, dickhead.

You mean like in South Korea, 1950 —oh wait, that was a UN operation. Or Kuwait, 1991 —oh wait, that was a UN operation too. Or Lebanon, 1982 —UNIFIL. We won't even have to mention fifty years of peacekeeping operations supervised by UN troops in accordance with the terms of the UN charter —which among other things defines the present context of sovereignty in international law.[/quote[

Unless the United Nations intervenes to stop us in Iraq – or, in the future, in Iran –, it is not their definition that shall apply. Period.

Wrong, liar —YOU cited Iran's alleged instability as the basis for its supposed "loss of sovereignty"; an argument which not only has no validity on its face but is inapplicable even by its own terms in comparison with a nation whose government is far shakier in its position in power. And as there are no Americans on the ground in Iran facing immediate danger from revolutionary chaos, intervention on the grounds of rescuing one's own nationals from said danger doesn't obtain as a justification for military action in the present context. That remains fact no matter how much you keep moving the goalposts about.

What does this defense have to do with your idiotic assertion that Iran must necessarily be treated along the same lines as Pakistan?

Secondly, “revolutionary chaos” is not at all the only threat to American national security or American citizens that might possibly arise in other nations. Iran’s support for terrorism is clearly a danger to American citizens – especially because it encompasses support for al-Qaeda, which is currently active against American targets. Once again, your attempts to absolve Iran from supporting terrorists have failed.

Simple-minded concept, actually. Pakistan has lost no measure of sovereignty no matter the present state of its government any more than Iran has. And despite the record of the Musharraf government, Al-Qaeda refuges continue to exist within Pakistani territory as do the virulently anti-American madrahassahs which he dares not shut down without risking revolutionary currents generating in the wake of such a move.

We don’t punish Pakistan because we can’t risk the potential that a reactionary group will obtain nuclear weapons, moron. The same conditions don’t obtain in Iran. If the strategic situation is different, so too is the solution. Your repeated insistence that we must shoot ourselves in the foot when it comes to Pakistan in order to be in the “right” when we challenge Iran for its own crimes border on the insane.

A pathetic attempt at cleverness. The existence of the one condition does not automatically imply the other; i.e. the independent operation of the Jersuaslem Force in sponsoring terrorism = full complicity of the Tehran government. The issue is whether or not said government is facing the danger of mutiny from its military forces, for which no evidence exists.

No, that’s not the issue at all, asshat. The issue is whether Iran cannot control the Jerusalem Force – which it evidently can’t and isn’t trying to do, as your complete inability to prove otherwise shows.

As a sovereign nation, Iran is responsible to control its territories. If, as you claim, it can do so, but is not, then it is demonstrably supporting terrorists. But, of course, you attempt to strawman the situation in your classic, dishonest way. The correct equation is thus:

IF Iran can control affairs within its territories, THEN nothing significant would occur without Iran’s (A) reaction or (B) retaliation.

HENCE, IF significant support for terrorism exists within one of the arms of the Iranian government, THEN it must be either tolerated or supported.

This from the basis of your argument, which is that Iran is in complete control.

Not surprising with you wanking yourself off all the time. And we’re not talking about what the general governments of Saudi Arabia or Pakistan may be doing against terrorists but how those governments are similarly plagued by rogue state elements supporting terrorist cels, and how the condition of state sponsorship of terrorism is not considered sufficent in and of itself to justify a military retaliation and in fact has not provided the basis for any U.S. military strike conducted in the Middle East to date.

Iran’s support for terrorists includes facilitation of groups we know are actively hostile to the United States. At best, they can’t control al-Qaeda within their country. At worst, they refuse. No matter what, they are a clear threat to our national security and well-being.

And, as an aside, precedent is not a prerequisite for the legitimacy of any action, since new situations are arising all the time as the world develops politically and militarily. What was once the norm will change.

Can they destroy the United States? Destroy American armies in the field? Drive us from the Middle East? Can they impose their will on us? They endanger Americans, certainly, and represent an ongoing security threat on that level. They do not imperil either the existence of the United States, nor its ability to project its power in the region, nor the continued supply of Middle East oil. As I’ve stated —threats are only as good as the ability to actually carry them out, and no terrorist threat is ever going to represent a source of national peril; either from the organisations or from sponsoring governments. The Soviet Union was a danger to the United States; a danger no terrorist threat is ever going to match in scale.

By this definition, we should respond to no attacks whatsoever, since even were anybody to launch a military strike (unless nuclear), the United States would neither be destroyed or dictated to. This is the stupidest basis for preparing national security behavior I have ever been witness to, and is certainly criminally incompetent.

LIE: The Asia Times article dismissed the alleged existence of Saddam's Jerusalem Force and speaks to the doubts of European intelligence services as to the effectiveness of the Iranian JF's activities. That issue is not even the focus of the piece.

On the basis of those Europeans’ experience with Saddam’s Jerusalem Force, idiot. Unless, of course, the European dismissals were without evidence whatsoever, and the commentary on Saddam’s Force was mere filler, in which case the article would be unfounded entirely and thus useless.

From THE VERY ARTICLE YOU CITED. You have no argument.

The Iranians don’t need to provide specific special favors to Bin Laden in order to aid and abet his movements in the broader scope of their active disinterest, idiot. Your argument is stupid.

Afganistan's responsibility for September 11th included open cooperation with Al Qaeda as it planned and executed the attack, and its subsequent refusal to turn over the Al Qaeda leadership for justice. They were openly complicit in an act of such scale that no diplomatic recourse was left open. Iran by contrast has had no involvement in either the WTC attacks nor in any action of even a fraction of the scale of the WTC strike. Deny that as much as you like, but those are the facts of the matter.

Iran also knowingly facilitated the movement of terrorists over its borders, sponsors terrorism worldwide, and has failed to so much as attempt to bring rogue elements of its own military to heel. These are clear threats to American security, and, as such, may be legitimately preempted. Deny that as much as you like, but those are the facts of the matter.

You'll pardon me for laughing, I trust. If you're trying to reach for Afganistan as your "precedent", you're definitely grasping at straws. Afganistan was a special case by any definition and does not defeat the argument defining what an act of war actually is. And if you actually imagine that a parallel can be drawn between the Taliban's complicity for 9-11 and a disinformation campaign as something other than an "overt military act" rising to the level of an act of war as your "precedent", you are even more deranged than I figured.

Then Afghanistan is also proof that a new precedent can be set in what is evidently an ongoing process of historical development. Hence, your argument that we must have prior, similar situations in mind in order to act in the present or future falls flat on its face. Too bad.

Which has exactly jack and shit to do with whether or not they were complicit in 9-11 or have committed acts requiring military retaiation as a response. Precedent shows that the sponsorship of terrorism in and of itself is not considered sufficent cause for retaliation by military means.

And precedent can change, dolt.

Not to mention that if the Jerusalem Force is going unchallenged, a clear danger to Americans has arisen in the form of Iran’s complicity in an arm of its military’s support for al-Qaeda. Direct threat.

The Reagan Administration protested but did nothing over the fact of the Cubans building an airstrip on Grenada. That was not the promptor of our intervention but the military coup against the Hudson Austin government and the subsequent condition of immediate threat to American medical students on the island. No such condition obtains with Iran, and no attempt to build a nebulous threat into an imminent threat will make it so —especially as no terrorist organisation supported by Iran has a reach outside of the Middle East.

We have national security interests in the Middle East, idiot. And you will, of course, realize that if Iran has done nothing to curb the Jerusalem Force – which you have been unable, apparently, to deny -, then it is guilty of complicity with al-Qaeda (which does have a global reach, incidentally) in the first place.

And everybody is well aware that it was the possibility of the creation of a Cuban puppet state that spurned an action in Grenada that went well beyond rescuing those at St. George’s, was it?

By that argument, we must immediately attack Saudi Arabia, since the kingdom has had a larger hand in funding Al Qaeda than Iran ever has. The issue is whether or not Iran was complicit in 9-11 or any action of comparable scale to justify a military attack. They demonstrably are not so complicit, and as there is not even a clear-cut case on the extent of official sanction for Al Qaeda from the Iranians, there is certainly no clear-cut case for military retaliation.

There is certainly grounds for action against the Jerusalem Force, and, because Iran has evidently not so much as tried to stop them, against Tehran as well.

And we have already been over the fact that our responses to Saudi Arabia do not apply as ruling guidelines to dealings with Iran, and vice-versa, for obvious reasons.

And the Clinton White House received a PDB titled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike In U.S." when, exactly? Furthermore, as the Clinton White House successfully averted Al Qaeda's Millenium bomb-plot in 2000, their record on paying attention to terrorist threats outdoes that of the Bush White House in no uncertain terms. Ask Richard Clarke.

Bin Laden struck in Africa, moron. He was hitting American targets. From this, his intelligence officials should have extrapolated that it was only a matter of time before the U.S. was struck.

And, if I remember correctly, the Millennium bomb plot was barely stopped. The success of our efforts was contingent on circumstance, not a general recognition of the threat in the first place.

No, that's engaging in shameless apologia. The Bush White House didn't overlook a needle in a haystack, dipshit —they overlooked a stack of needles.

A stack of needles where, you idiot? The 9/11 Commission states unequivocally that there was nobody out there predicting the kind of strike that actually occurred. No matter what administration they belonged to.

Begging the Question Fallacy yet again. And the terrorists these days have all the American targets they could want —in Iraq, where it seems that we removed from power one of the few Arab leaders who actually actively suppressed Islamic extremists.

It was obvious that they’d be targets in Iraq, moron. That comes in the course of a campaign of occupation and consolidation.

We’re talking about HOMELAND Security now. And this is certainly not “Begging the Question,” since one determines the effectiveness of Homeland Security by assessing the danger to the Homeland. Not to mention that the 9/11 Commission reported that we are, in fact, safer now than we were on 9/11.

And about that masturbation thing? Dude, I wouldn't talk if I were you. You're the one who had to shift the goal posts so far that you're forgiving state sponsors of terrorism left and right.

[Elfdart]

I don't want to throw a monkeywrench in this back-and-forth but I have a few questions for the Kastmeister:

It is your belief that (a) Iran's spies suckered the Cheney/ Bush junta into attacking Iraq and helped fuck things up after Saddam Hussein was knocked over. You also believe that (b) this is an act of war and that the Junta could and should attack Iran because of it.

Let's turn the clock back ninety years. During the Great War, Britain did its damndest to bring the US into the war on their side. Through spying, subterfuge, propaganda and other methods, they succeeded and Wilson and Congress finally joined the war against Germany in 1917 and the 20th Century was all downhill from there.

Was Britain perpetrating an act of war when she suckered Uncle Sam into WW1?

Would Wilson and Congress have been justified in attacking the UK because of it?

Are you completely insane or are you just out to tighten Degan's jaws?

[Patrick Degan]

The bullshit and outright insane lies spewed by Comical Axi required this to be split into two parts.

Because, asshole —THEY DO NOT ENTAIL ACTUAL ACTS OF VIOLENCE COMMITTED AGAINST EITHER LIFE OR PROPERTY BY THE MILITARY FORCES OF ONE NATION AGAINST ANOTHER! That is not "fantasy world", fuckface, that is reality. An act of war is precisely that. I have explained this repeatedly and you just keep demanding an explanation, meaning that you are either stupid or dishonest. Either demonstrate that this defintion is not valid or drop it.

Really? That’s interesting, considering that only two days ago, you were admitting that the potential for violence to befall American citizens on the ground in a given country, as well as sponsorship of terrorism – that is, of violence by operators other than the military forces of one nation against another – also constitute casus belli.

You see, Deegan, it is really you who are straying from the beaten path, and proposing your own very limited, very specific conditions for war, despite the fact that your vaunted “precedent” simply isn’t there.

Wrong again, asshole. The general threat of terrorism is in no way, shape, or form even remotely the same as a situation where nationals of one nation are facing immediate danger from a rapidly escalating situation of violence and chaos just broken out in the country where those nationals are located.

Later on, we’ll take a look at how you attempt spin sponsorship of terrorism from an overtly hostile act into an acceptable act, as well.

No, I suspect we'll actually be looking at yet another attempt to distort and twist an argument to try to make it fit your skewed version of reality.

That is not the issue here, but what constitutes an imminent threat as defined in the usages of war and international law, not general amorphous threats over unspecified time periods. So let's have an end to your bullshit over this, which is nothing more than an attempt to cadge together a catch-all excuse for war.

That is absolutely the issue here. We are arguing two points – one, the broader, is that Iran has already committed actions which give the United States the justification to carry out preemptive stikes up to and including war.

No Iranian military attacks upon U.S. forces or personnel. No Iranian attack upon U.S. soil. No Iranian attempts to block off the Straits of Hormuz. No such actions even remotely definiable as an act of war.

The other is whether their attempted intelligence ruse is grounds for war in and of itself.

As intelligence ruses have never constituted grounds for war, you have no argument to begin with.

It is VERY different, as even the CIA's own conclusions have determined. No Iranian complicity with 9-11 can even be inferred by allowing the movement of persons who were subsequently part of the hijack team but were not then involved in a plot which was not known outside of a tight circle of conspirators if then and for which nobody in the Iranian government could possibly have had advance knowledge. No evidence of Iranian complicity exists except in your little warped fantasy world.

Direct Iranian complicity with 9-11 cannot be conferred, moron. Indirect complicity is another matter, however. Let me remind you yet again that Iran’s lax border control procedures were a conscious effort to facilitate the movement of known terrorists in general, between one nation and another, and hence constituted support for terrorism in and of themselves.

To reiterate:

Link

excerpt:

The commission report does not address which Al Qaeda members specifically benefited from the clean passport policy. It also emphasizes that the panel has found no evidence suggesting that Iranian government officials had advance knowledge of bin Laden’s plans to attack the World Trade Towers and Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001.

And:

Bush administration officials emphasized today that the 9/11 report also included contradictory information that undercut the idea of a strong relationship between Iran and Al Qaeda-and even cast some doubt on the conclusion that the Iranians were providing special favors for bin Laden’s organization.

In interviews with U.S. interrogators, two high-level Al Qaeda detainees—September 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-Shibh—confirmed that some of the 9/11 hijackers had transited through Iran on their way to and from the Afghan training camps, the report says, according to knowledgable sources. But the two Al Qaeda captives insisted the hijackers did so mainly to take advantage of a general Iranian practice of not stamping "Saudi passports"—indicating that the Iranian policy may have been cast more broadly than just Al Qaeda members.

Not even the CIA are attempting to make the case you're overheating your little brain over.

You can keep repeating this ad-infinitum, but it remains no more true through the millionth repetition as in its first utterance. Neither does it allow the redefinition of disinformation as an act of war no matter how dearly you wish it did.

Iran’s action was demonstrably hostile, and represented an effort to bring the United States into physical confrontation with a third party. In no uncertain terms, Iran’s activities were intended to cause harm to the national security integrity of this country. Hence, a belligerent act with physical consequences was attempted. War may thus result. Quite simple.

Again, quite simple-minded. No matter Iran's intent or action, nothing negated the U.S. government's responsibiity to actually verify the accuracy of the information coming from Chalabi's INC. It is those who failed to follow through who "harmed the national security integrity of this country", numbskull. Physical consequences followed from that failure and not from any Iranian disinformation —none of which in any case even attempted to characterise Iraq as posing an immediate threat requiring immediate military action, which doesn't support your "Iran tried to lead us to war" drivel.

The U.S. government had means, opportunity, and the responsibility to verify the information upon which to base its case for war against Iraq. It did not do so.

Irrelevant. For the umpteenth time, the United States government’s failures of oversight are completely unrelated to a discussion of Iranian guilt. Iran is just as guilty, regardless of success or failure.

VERY relevant, as disinformation cannot in and of itself result in either death or destruction.

Disinformation cannot, in and of itself, result in one death or a single asset lost.

Completely incorrect. Providing false information to the police is a serious crime because, if acted upon, it can result in the death of multiple parties. Iran’s crimes are no different.

TOTALLY correct. And you latest attempted parallel with domestic criminal law is as laughable as the others. Totally different scale of action in a wholly different paradigm to start with. Foreign-sourced intelligence is never supposed to be accepted on face-value, and as a rule is always withheld for verification before being passed along to policymakers. Just no end to your sophistries, is there?

And you have utterly failed to produce so much as one example of any other war in history which was justified by one nation's counterintelligence against another to back your increasingly insane argument.

Iran’s actions do not, by any means, fall under the definition of “counterintelligence,” dolt. Theirs was an external attempt to mislead the United States into war with a third party. By definition, that is not self-defense.

All counterintelligence, by definition, is aimed against another government. You have still failed to negate the responsibility of the U.S. government to actually verify its sources of information before attempting to make a case for war through the argument of Iran's alleged villany. Neither have you demonstrated a valid example of any war ever resulting from one nation's disinformation against another.

The issue is not whether some law "requires" the same national response to all provocations (yet another argument I've never made) but how the concept of proportional response applies and how military action is justified in the codicils of international law which this country is signatory to. Practise defines precedent, and the precedents which applied were not general sponsorship of terrorism but specific responses to specific incidents.

Are you seriously attempting to argue that general sponsorship of terrorism is not sufficient grounds by which to act militarily against another nation, because we must first wait for people to die?! General sponsorship of terrorism is a direct violation of your precious covenant between nations. It is automatically a material threat to the physical wellbeing of other states. Most especially in Iran’s case, because the terrorists in question include those with ties to the Afghani government as well as al-Qaeda members.

General sponsorship of terrorism has not and is not considered grounds in and of itself for a military attack not only by the precepts of international law, but by the operational practise of U.S., Israeli, and most other nations' foreign policies. The practical considerations are that military power is not a limitless resource, and political and diplomatic power is undermined by disproportionate employment of military force in situations where it would not only be inappropriate but counterproductive. Terrorism does not and cannot threaten the existence of any state, nor its general material wellbeing. This is why sponsorship of terrorism brings diplomatic and economic sanctions against a state but not military action, which is restricted to retaliation to specific actions, or in rare extreme cases limited preemption of a specific threat, such as Israel's attack on the Tammuz nuclear reactor complex in 1981, where Israeli intelligence had information that it was going to be a key componnent of Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons development programme.

Lie. I have repeatedly brought forth DICK CHENEY'S OWN FUCKING STATEMENTS AND SIX NEWS ARTICLES IDENTIFYING THAT AMHAD CHALABI AND THE INC WERE HIS SOURCES ON WHICH HE RELIED TO MAKE HIS ASSERTIONS OF FACT. Your refusal to acknowledge that evidence is not my problem at all.

But the question was not whether Ahmed Chalabi was the original source of his assertions, you brain dead fucktard. The question was whether Ahmed Chalabi’s information was ever repeated as fact without the prior screening or addition of other corroborating information. I might add that you’ve as yet been unable to provide any evidence that Ahmed Chalabi – and Ahmed Chalabi alone – was the sole – not the original, since there’s a difference – source of Cheney’s statements.

As Dick Cheney rejected any argument doubting the certainty of either the Atta-in-Prague story or the mobile bioweapon lab trucks story or the UAV chemical-delivery drones, all of which were products of the Office of Special Plans which employed Chalabi's INC as its source, the evidence stands and not all your moving of the goalposts will erase it.

And YOU said the word "army" and not the more general term "military", so we'll mark this bit of hairsplitting as yet another attempt by you to lie about your own arguments.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=army

b. often Army The entire military land forces of a country.

You lose.

How utterly PATHETIC —you actually imagine that a vague and general one-line definition supports you?! First, you did first employ the specific term "army" and not the more generalised term "military", which refers to the combined armed forces. Now you try to reverse the sense and say that "military" and "army" are equally interchangeable in terms of your first statement. Nevermind that it ignores the fact that a political force such as the SS or the Iranian Revolutionary Guards are not part of the national army and certainly does not answer to the military chain-of-command but its own political authority.

Try again.

The Iranians do not need to provide specific “special favors” to bin-Laden’s organization in order to have been involved in supporting Afghan terrorists in general, idiot. This proves nothing whatsoever.

On the contrary, dolt, it demonstrates that the case is uncertain as to the extent of official sanction for Al-Qaeda support, on whether the passport overlook policy was intended to aid Al-Qaeda or was aimed at accomodating Saudi nationals in general. Exactly what part of this:

Link

excerpt:

Bush administration officials emphasized today that the 9/11 report also included contradictory information that undercut the idea of a strong relationship between Iran and Al Qaeda-and even cast some doubt on the conclusion that the Iranians were providing special favors for bin Laden’s organization.

Old enough to know I'm dealing with an evident retard. And negotiations at any level are still negotiations. But I don't expect you to know anything that basic. Are you sure you're not actually a deranged 12-year old?

WHAT NEGOTIATIONS, you fucking retard? There have been no negotiations. For all intents and purposes, negotiations are committing suicide at the gates of reality!

Explain this, then:

Linky

excerpt:

Even though US President George W. Bush included Iran in the “axis of evil,” Iranian and US diplomats have held periodic exchanges since the September 11 terrorism tragedy. The meetings reflect the reality that the United States needs Iran's assistance as the Bush administration wages its war on terrorism. At the same time, the exchanges are unlikely to result in the normalization of US-Iranian relations.

Shortly before the United States opened its campaign to oust Iraq dictator Saddam Hussein, senior US officials found themselves in a déjà vu moment: meeting in secret once again with Iranian leaders as the US military prepared to strike one of Tehran’s neighbors. In 2002 , the meeting concerned Afghanistan, this year the subject was Iraq.

According to published reports, White House special envoy to the Iraqi opposition Zalmay Khalilzad asked Iranian officials in Geneva to pledge Tehran’s assistance for any American pilots downed in Iranian territory. Khalilzad also sought assurances that Iran’s armed forces would not join the fighting at any time. According to Iranian sources familiar with the meeting, Tehran agreed to both, but asked for a promise of its own: that the United States would not set its sights on Iran after the US army toppled Saddam Hussein’s regime. American officials reportedly equivocated, though Britain has quietly reassured Iran that the Bush administration has no intention of exerting military pressure against Tehran.

Tehran and Washington share a few common enemies in the war on terrorism. They include: the Taliban (Shi'a Iran regularly quarreled with the Sunni extremists on their border); Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (Iran fought a brutal eight year war with Iraq after Saddam invaded Iran in1980 ); and even al Qaeda (Iran has called them "a menace" and Osama bin Laden's Sunni extremism turned off virtually all political factions in Iran, even if his politics attracted Iran's hard-liners).

Iran has staked out a position of "active neutrality" in the Iraq conflict, quietly cooperating with the United States where possible, seeking to secure its own legitimate interests in a post-Saddam Iraq, and loudly protesting what some Iranian officials have described as a US desire to control Iraqi oil resources. This double game – quiet assistance coupled with public denunciations – is partly a reflection of Tehran’s fear that it will become Washington’s next target. Another factor is Iran’s perceived need to actively safeguard its own interests against US ambitions to remake the Middle East’s geopolitical landscape. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

And:

Linky

excerpt:

US-Iran talks: Iran and the US are holding back channel talks on Afghanistan, Iraq and the Al Qaeda terror network, a leading Iranian parliamentary official said Wednesday. The parliament’s National Security and Foreign Affairs Committee member Elaheh Koulaie said Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi informed the panel on Tuesday of the agenda, the state news agency IRNA reported.

A UN spokeswoman in Geneva on May 13 said Iran and the US, which cut diplomatic relations 23 years ago, were holding behind-the-scenes talks in the “Geneva Group”. US officials have also confirmed that the two sides have held several meetings on the Iraq crisis and Afghanistan in Geneva, the most recent one reportedly in early May. However, they have stressed that the issue of restoring diplomatic relations is not on the table.

And:

Linky

excerpt:

For now, the Bush administration appears to be staking out a dramatically more patient approach than its allies advocate, opting to explore with European countries the possibility of bringing the issue of Iran's nuclear program to the United Nations in the coming months. The idea would be to address the issue through a more general discussion of the fight against nuclear proliferation, sources said.

The administration's goal would be to have the Security Council call for a tighter enforcement of the rules governing the Non-Proliferation Treaty, without specifically referring to Tehran's ambitions. A U.S. official said the administration was considering this option, adding that discussions were still at an early stage.

And:

Linky

excerpt:

Tensions between Iran and the European Union continue to escalate over the issue of whether Tehran's nuclear program is designed to make weapons. The U.S. is demanding that a deadline be set for U.N. weapons inspections in the country, and fears are increasing of another conflict in the Middle East.

Yet all is not aggressive confrontation between Iran and the West. Behind the scenes, cultural and scholarly exchanges are taking place. These, rather than direct diplomatic interventions, often produce political effects that cannot be achieved by any other means.

In a signal instance of cultural diplomacy, the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago has returned a set of 300 ancient clay tablets to Iran in what amounts to the first U.S.-led repatriation of archaeological objects to the country since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

And:

Linky

excerpt:

But Bush administration officials insist that the Iranian link to Al Qaeda was never clear. They also point to a change of attitude by Tehran since 9/11. Iranian officials claim they have "expelled or repatriated" large numbers of bin Laden followers, and last Saturday the country's intelligence chief, Ali Yunesi, announced new arrests. Yet other Qaeda suspects—like bin Laden's son Saad and Saif Al-Adel, once Al Qaeda's security chief, along with eight others—are believed to still be in Iran, possibly under some kind of protective custody to be used as leverage in future U.S.-Iran talks.

It is your argument which is committing suicide at the gates of reality.

Nice theory. I do believe Hitler thought the same thing. So did Saddam Hussein.

Red Herrings, all. Your “laws” mean nothing unless they are physically enforced.

South Korea 1950, Lebanon 1982, Kuwait 1991. Physical enforcement of international law. You have no argument.

Not to mention that there is considerable precedent behind the argument that a nation looses sovereignty if it fails to enforce security and stability. Grenada certainly did. American students were endangered.

Grenanda's invasion came at the request of the island's British Governor-General and the U.S. stayed only as long as required to evacuate the students and secure peace on the island. There was no loss of sovereignty no matter how much you try to twist reality to fit your sophistries.

But Iran’s support for terrorists is equally a danger.

Utter bullshit.

Hence, because it is not addressing the problem effectively – or even at all –, we may act as the aggrieved party. All this according to your terms, dickhead.

Only in that delusional mind of yours, fuckface. No Americans on the ground in Iran, no revolutionary chaos endangering Americans on the ground in Iran, and the clear operational history that sponsorship of terrorism is not grounds for military attack. No parallel to Grenada exists. You have no argument.

You mean like in South Korea, 1950 —oh wait, that was a UN operation. Or Kuwait, 1991 —oh wait, that was a UN operation too. Or Lebanon, 1982 —UNIFIL. We won't even have to mention fifty years of peacekeeping operations supervised by UN troops in accordance with the terms of the UN charter —which among other things defines the present context of sovereignty in international law.

Unless the United Nations intervenes to stop us in Iraq – or, in the future, in Iran –, it is not their definition that shall apply. Period.

In your little fantasy world, that is...

Wrong, liar —YOU cited Iran's alleged instability as the basis for its supposed "loss of sovereignty"; an argument which not only has no validity on its face but is inapplicable even by its own terms in comparison with a nation whose government is far shakier in its position in power. And as there are no Americans on the ground in Iran facing immediate danger from revolutionary chaos, intervention on the grounds of rescuing one's own nationals from said danger doesn't obtain as a justification for military action in the present context. That remains fact no matter how much you keep moving the goalposts about.

What does this defense have to do with your idiotic assertion that Iran must necessarily be treated along the same lines as Pakistan?

It has nothing whatsoever to do with your patently obvious Strawman.

Secondly, “revolutionary chaos” is not at all the only threat to American national security or American citizens that might possibly arise in other nations. Iran’s support for terrorism is clearly a danger to American citizens – especially because it encompasses support for al-Qaeda, which is currently active against American targets. Once again, your attempts to absolve Iran from supporting terrorists have failed.

Not only have I not been "to absolve Iran from supporting terrorists" (an OUTRIGHT FUCKING LIE), this:

Linky

excerpt:

But Bush administration officials insist that the Iranian link to Al Qaeda was never clear. They also point to a change of attitude by Tehran since 9/11. Iranian officials claim they have "expelled or repatriated" large numbers of bin Laden followers, and last Saturday the country's intelligence chief, Ali Yunesi, announced new arrests. Yet other Qaeda suspects—like bin Laden's son Saad and Saif Al-Adel, once Al Qaeda's security chief, along with eight others—are believed to still be in Iran, possibly under some kind of protective custody to be used as leverage in future U.S.-Iran talks.

suggests you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Part two forthcoming.