Secular Professors Must Be Purged!

[deSelys]

Originally posted by x0847Marine
So some dude named Fareed Zakaria says Irans nuke program "...is not nearly as advanced as is often implied..." I feel much more at ease now knowing that a military 'expert' who writes the occasional Newsweek article has weighed in.
...

The problem is that the current US administration, with all its intel, wasn't too good either at giving an accurate report of Iraq's WMD capabilities....

[Momus--]

That's great Seagoon, but Armadinejad does not have anything close to a monopoly of power on this issue or indeed on any other and in fact is subject to a great deal of opposition, even from within Iran's ruling establishment, Anyone familiar with the internal politics of Iran would recognise this. If you are familiar with these intricacies then why gloss over them? And if you're not, well then....

the Ahmadinejad who just started a highly successfull proxy war with Israel in July and supplied Hezbollah with missiles capable of disabling warships, taking down helicopters, and reaching Haifa and most of Northern Israel with conventional, chemical, or biological warheads?

The one area specifically excluded from the remit of the Iranian president is intelligence/defence, you should know that. That said, you have evidence that Ahmadinejad directly sanctioned July's events? Source please.

You know the guy with the centrifuges capable of separating Uranium Isotopes and the Russian/Chinese/Pakistani reactors capable of making weapons grade Plutonium?

None of which is under question, so how is it relevant?

The fellow whose munitions factories currently manufacture the majority of IEDs and rockets used against coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan..

Interesting. According to Gen. John P. Abizaid of CENTCOM:

improvised explosive device components manufactured in Iran have made their way into Iraq, but there's no provable connection that the Iranian government is directly providing bomb components to terrorists in Iraq.

Source.

The fact is that Iran is actually one of the more stabilising forces in Iraq right now. If you want a slightly more balanced view on what is really happening there currently then you should read last month's Chatham House report which you can find here. The authors don't automatically reduce every issue to a Muslims bad - Christans good level so you may find it a little dry.

Originally posted by x0847Marine
So some dude named Fareed Zakaria says Irans nuke program "...is not nearly as advanced as is often implied..." I feel much more at ease now knowing that a military 'expert' who writes the occasional Newsweek article has weighed in.

Interesting. I would have thought someone as obviously well informed about middle-east policy as yourself would have heard of him.

Zakaria ran a major research project on American foreign policy at Harvard University, where he taught international relations and political philosophy...He serves on the boards of Yale University, the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, the International Institute of Strategic Studies, New America Foundation and Columbia University's International House.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fareed_Zakaria

So Mr. Newsweek scribe is the final arbiter of what a "serious" estimate is?

Not the final arbiter but more than qualified enough to express an opinion to which some consideration should be granted, wouldn't you say?

I kinda agree with the guy, but he sounds like an idiot.

I'm sure he would be just mortified by your assessment.

We, the US, are going to attack Iran during the time near our presidential elections... thats what this is about.

That remains to be seen.

[lukster]

I noticed you didn't address Seagoon's mention of the forced retirement of those Iranian professors Momus. Of course I also believe that Amadmanjihad has no real power and is nothing but a mouthpiece for his Muslim overlords.

How can you with a straight face claim that Iran is a stabilizing force in Iraq. You just lost your last shred of credibility with me.

[Momus--]

Originally posted by lukster
You just lost your last shred of credibility with me.

Coming from someone of your diminutive calibre that's a ringing endorsement, so thanks.

Firstly, the academics in question: Seagoon doesn't provide a link for his assertion and makes no case that Armadinejad was directly responsible, so I'll refrain from commenting until he supplies that information.

I don't think that any well-informed person would argue that Iran couldn't do a lot more to destabilise Iraq if they really wanted to. That said, you only have to look at the direct support that Iran has offered to the mainstream Shia political parties who are maintaining a semblance of order in Iraq to understand that Iran has promoted stability in Iraq.

One reason for this might be a consequence of what happened in 2001/2002 : the US campaign against the Taliban in Afgahistan led to a significant refugee crisis that Iran largely dealt with by itself. that's a good a reason as any for Iran to try to prevent an all-out civil war in Iraq which would without doubt create a crisis far far worse.

Another reason is that Iran forsees Iraq as an integral part of a future sphere of influence. To this end, it is very much in Iran's interest to maintain a stable Iraq, since only a stable, Shia majority dominated Iraq assures Iranian influence.

I'd suggest reading the report I linked to above if you're really interested in a balanced view of what is currently motivating Iran, and take all the "Armadinejad is Hitler" posts with a substantial pinch of salt.

[Seagoon]

Momus,

I want to make it clear that I have no animus towards you, but I seriously doubt there is any point in us entering into a discussion of this, we live in the equivalent of different universes that do not seem to intersect at many points. As a result, any discussion is bound to generate more heat than light, and life is too short for that. So if you have no objection, I'll simply respond to a couple of your points and let it go at that.

Regarding Iranian IED components: I first became aware of this when guys coming back from deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan began mentioning that over the past year that they had seen a marked improvement in IED technology. Specifically, they were seeing fewer and fewer of the cobbled together munitions based IEDs activated by cell phone signals (which the US can now defeat) and more purpose built munitions of all sizes that utilized highly sophisticated shaped charges and infrared and closed-circuit detonators that cannot be spoofed or suppressed by current methods. These devices were much too sophisticated to be manufactured "in theatre" and all of their intel indicated that these were being manufactured in Iran.  

The Abizaid quote you mention comes from March, when the US was attempting to suppress the reports in the US media that Iraq was already in a Sunni/Shi' ite civil war or that Iran was essentially running Southern Iraq via the Mullahs. Since that time however, the official US line is reporting what the troops in the field already know:

"(AP) August 14 - The U.S. military has evidence that Shi ite extremists in Iraq are receiving arms and training from Iran, but it is not clear if the Iranian government is involved, a U.S. spokesman said Monday.

"We know that some Shi ite elements have been in Iran receiving training," U.S. military spokesman Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell told reporters. "But the degree to which it is known and endorsed by the government of Iran is uncertain."

The Iranian government did not immediately respond to the comments.

"We do know that weapons have been provided and IED technology been made available to these extremist elements," Caldwell said, referring to improvised explosive devices, or homemade bombs, that are in widespread use in Iraq's insurgency and sectarian conflict.

Caldwell's assertion came on the heels of allegations by U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, who told The New York Times that Iran was encouraging *****e militias to step up attacks on U.S. forces in retaliation for the Israeli assault on Hezbollah in Lebanon. The *****e Hezbollah is backed by Iran."

(VOA) US General Says Iranian Forces Do Training in Iraq
By Al Pessin
Pentagon
23 August 2006
   
Pessin report - Download 363k audio clip
Listen to Pessin report audio clip

A senior U.S. military spokesman says Iranian forces have infiltrated Iraq to provide training, money and equipment to Shi 'ite extremists and fuel their insurgency. The officer went farther than others have in detailing Iran's alleged role in Iraq's violence.

U.S. officials frequently criticize Iran for supporting Iraqi Shi'ite extremists. But in the past they have declined to say whether that support includes infiltration by Iranian forces. At a news conference Wednesday, Brigadier General Michael Barbero made that direct connection.

"I have seen reports of their involvement and presence there as trainers to train these terrorists and extremist groups," he said.

General Barbero, an operations officer on the staff of the top U.S. generals, also says Iran is providing technology to help Iraqi insurgents build more effective bombs, what the military calls Improvised Explosive Devices, or IEDs.

"I think it's irrefutable that Iran is responsible for training, funding and equipping some of the [Shi 'ite] extremist groups, and also providing advanced IED technology to them," he said. "And there's clear evidence of that."

Finally, regarding your comment that I reduce everything to a "Muslims bad - Christans good" level, you completely misunderstand me on this point. I am not under the delusion that everyone who calls himself "Christian" is good.

As a vocation and a personal belief, I am committed to the idea that Christ and His Gospel are Good and I do try to proclaim that message as reasonably as I can. My worldview is admittedly the Christian worldview, but I am not a advocate or defender of an idea of Christendom or that Christianity can be established militarily or politically in the same way that for instance Islam is. I will admit that I believe that Muhammad and his vision (which contradicts the message of Christ and the Gospel) are not good or capable of coexisting peacefully with any other worldview.

- SEAGOON

[Momus--]

Thanks Seagoon. You could have just answered with a reliable source for your original assertion that the Iranian government is actively supplying IED components to Iraqi insurgents. You still haven't,  in fact your first quote specifically says that there is no evidence of Iranian government involvement.

Also, at the risk of repeating myself, where's your source for your claim that Armadinejad sanctioned or initiated the Hezbollah/Israel conflict in July?

If you're going to quote media articles please provide a link. It makes it much easier for me to find the parts you omit that undermine your position:

Caldwell did not refer to Khalilzad's allegations but said the weapons used by *****e extremists here had markings that made it clear they were manufactured in Iran within the last three years.

"This is not to say that the government of Iran is associated with that"

Source

General Barbero says coalition troops have not directly encountered any of the Iranian forces he says have been inside Iraq, and he would not provide any details on the number or specific duties of the Iranians.

Source.

So how does he know exactly? It's just coincidence that these allegations start to be thrown about as the US is trying to turn up the diplomatic pressure over the Hezbollah/nuclear issue? Sure it is.

Originally posted by Seagoon
Finally, regarding your comment that I reduce everything to a "Muslims bad - Christans good" level, you completely misunderstand me on this point. I am not under the delusion that everyone who calls himself "Christian" is good.

Maybe not, but you certainly start from the position that all muslims are inherrently evil; do I need to quote your demon worship line once more to illustrate this?

[lukster]

Originally posted by Momus--
Coming from someone of your diminutive calibre that's a ringing endorsement, so thanks.

Firstly, the academics in question: Seagoon doesn't provide a link for his assertion and makes no case that Armadinejad was directly responsible, so I'll refrain from commenting until he supplies that information.
 

He provide you a source. You obviously have an opinion on the subject and so I think you'd do well to be better informed. I've taken the 30 seconds to look it up and provide you with a link: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&sid=aVaNIdJJvcNU&refer=germany

[Momus--]

Ok.  It says 40 "academics" were "forced to retire". It gives no more info than that, and I've spent some time looking elsewhere believe me. I don't know who they were, what reason was given for their dismissal, who took the decision other than the Iranian Ministry of Education, in short, not enough to make an informed comment.

If you have some more info let's have it.

[Yeager]

Geeze, we could use this guy over here

[lukster]

Originally posted by Momus--
Ok.  It says 40 "academics" were "forced to retire". It gives no more info than that, and I've spent some time looking elsewhere believe me. I don't know who they were, what reason was given for their dismissal, who took the decision other than the Iranian Ministry of Education, in short, not enough to make an informed comment.

If you have some more info let's have it.

Did you ignore the comments made by Amadmanjihad?

How about this from Iran: http://www.irannewsdaily.com/view_news.asp?id=138306

The phrasing is a bit different. Something in the translation i suppose.

[Seagoon]

Hello Momus,

Originally posted by Momus--
Thanks Seagoon. You could have just answered with a reliable source for your original assertion that the Iranian government is actively supplying IED components to Iraqi insurgents.

Look, you do not consider the guys on the ground getting blown up by the actual IEDs to be reliable sources, or the men commanding the guys getting blown up by the IEDs, in fact you immediately discount any information not coming from a source that would be wholly disinclined to support the notion of any Iranian involvement. In other words, unless I can present information that fits your inherent presuppositions, you deem it unreliable and won't believe it. Anything originating from official sources in the US or Israel for instance, is discounted.

Then again, even when the Iranian president SAYS he wants the secular academics purged you are disinclined to believe that Iran wants to purge secular academics. You operate from a hermeneutic of suspicion and your presuppositions are unassailable.

What would be the point of my providing you with source after source that you wouldn't believe or accept anyway? It's rather like trying to persuade Boroda, whom I personally like, that the Soviet Communists perpetrated horrendous atrocities. Even if Ahmadinejad presented the world with a signed translation in English saying "We are providing our Shi 'ite brothers in Iraq with materials to make IEDs" you would discount it as more empty commentary on his part, being blown out of all proportion by the evil US for its own political purposes.

Maybe not, but you certainly start from the position that all muslims are inherrently evil; do I need to quote your demon worship line once more to illustrate this?

Actually, I start from the biblical position that all men in their natural state are unregenerate and inclined towards evil, and that it is only because of God's restraining grace that we don't all sink as far as we can.

Why bother bringing up my comments in regard to Islam in particular. You regard all mention of God and Satan, Heaven and Hell, Demons and Angels, or the notion of God-inspired revelation as equally baseless and ridiculous do you not? So any comment that I make that starts with the assumption that the Bible is the entirely reliable Word of God and that Jesus is the Son of God is equally unreliable is it not? You wouldn't be prepared to seriously examine Islam or Christianity on the basis that the claims of one might be true and the other false, would you?

- SEAGOON

[Momus--]

Seagoon. If the US had any reliable proof that the Iranian government was stoking the insurgency to the degree you're claiming then they would be shouting it from the rooftops. As it is, even the quotes you've produced to date are qualified by "we have no proof the Iranian government is behind this.

..even when the Iranian president SAYS he wants the secular academics purged you are disinclined to believe that Iran wants to purge secular academics. You operate from a hermeneutic of suspicion and your presuppositions are unassailable.

That's because I am not credulous enough to believe that every utterance from Armadinejad represents official iranian policy. Anyone who understands the dynamics of the Iranian system would appreciate that fact. But there's a wider point. The Saudis stack academia with their yes-men. So does the Egyptian regime. Others certainly do as well. Neither seems to elicit much comment from you or anyone else, yet when Iran moves in a similar direction, you run amok invoking the ghost of Hitler, Chamberlain and Munich with scant regard for any realistic perspective.

Get a grip.



This constant Armadinejad is Hitler rhetoric betrays a total lack of understanding as to just how bad the nazis actually were and how weak Iran really is. Is Iran guilty of some of the charges levelled against it? Certainly some of them, but by no means all. The fact that these charges are being hyped by the same people who brought you the last misconceived piece of foreign policy adventurism for which the US, UK and Iraqis themselves are still paying the price ought to be ringing some alarm bells, should it not?

A word on the Shia. Since the invasion of Iraq, over 40,000 Iraqi civilians have died violent deaths to the resulting violence. Iraqi Shia have borne the overwhelming brunt of this wave of killing. In this context,  is it really any surprise that the Shia have turned to pro-Iranian groups for a measure of protection? If you don't like that fact then blame the leaders of the occupation and their failure to provide basic security, because that's where the blame lies, and not with their coreligionists on the other side of the border.

[Elfie]

It makes it much easier for me to find the parts you omit that undermine your position:

You are posting just to undermine someone's credibility? Just a question.