Iran agents 'planned US terror attacks'

[Mads2506]

Well... it's a indisputable fact, no matter the source. You can read it anywhere. Ahmadinejad has no real power to order attacks in any way, and his enemies are circling.

Fine, he's not that powerful. Regarding the first article though, a president can't really be the 15th highest ranked, I refuse to believe that one blogger from the UK or US would know that.

 

[Athe~]

becuase they are stupid

Well, we can't assume 2.5 million muslims in the US (Or if you want to broaden the scope ~300 million americans) are all bright and will look at the evidence (Then again, if it's eventually proven, as I still think it smells fishy at best) and realise it's an undisputable fact.

 

[Athe~]

But if you want to base a reason for not doing something on assuming certain people in a large statistical group will make irrational and illogical decisions, then over that large statistical group every action would lead to a possible consequence as there's probability that action would **** off a group of the minority irrationals. Thus, nothing would ever get done.

We're not talking about anything minor here, we're talking about attacking a country. You don't take those decisions lightly, ever.

 

[GodCubed]

Fine, he's not that powerful. Regarding the first article though, a president can't really be the 15th highest ranked, I refuse to believe that one blogger from the UK or US would know that.

Actually, if we were to get technical, Ahmadinejad would be about the 88th most powerful man in Iran, after the Ayatollah Khamenei and the Assembly of Experts.

Still, the important bit is that military power, and the power to declare war, lies in the hands of Ali Khamenei, who is sane, if a bit of a religious extremist.

EDIT: forgot the Guardian Council. So more like the 101st most powerful man in Iran.

 

[Joel`]

We're not talking about anything minor here, we're talking about attacking a country. You don't take those decisions lightly, ever.

Where exactly did I say attacking a country was minor and was a decision taken lightly?

 

[Mike.]

Fine, he's not that powerful. Regarding the first article though, a president can't really be the 15th highest ranked, I refuse to believe that one blogger from the UK or US would know that.

its not that uncommon knowledge he is outranked by the council, its just not "news". America isnt really dependent on foreign oil, but its better "news" to elaborate that point

 

[Mike.]

Actually, if we were to get technical, Ahmadinejad would be about the 88th most powerful man in Iran, after the Ayatollah Khamenei and the Assembly of Experts.

Still, the important bit is that military power, and the power to declare war, lies in the hands of Ali Khamenei, who is sane, if a bit of a religious extremist.

EDIT: forgot the Guardian Council. So more like the 101st most powerful man in Iran.

forgot about the Assembly

 

[Athe~]

Where exactly did I say attacking a country was minor and was a decision taken lightly?

You didn't, I was just pointing out that it's a factor I'd take into accout if I were to make such a decision.

 

[Mike.]

Well, we can't assume 2.5 million muslims in the US (Or if you want to broaden the scope ~300 million americans) are all bright and will look at the evidence (Then again, if it's eventually proven, as I still think it smells fishy at best) and realise it's an undisputable fact.

i was talking about the holocaust. Re: now, well the evidence is in court, so its going to be cross examined and with the world watching.

 

[Athe~]

i was talking about the holocaust. Re: now, well the evidence is in court, so its going to be cross examined and with the world watching.

Yes, I got that don't worry, just drew a parallel with the current situation.

 

[Joel`]

You didn't, I was just pointing out that it's a factor I'd take into accout if I were to make such a decision.

And as I said, if every decision taken took into account what you said, then nothing would ever get done.

America have put their whole international reputation on the line with this, they wouldn't make it up, it would be political suicide. If the government can't trust their citizens to believe them another country launched an attack on them, with evidence viewable in open court, then what the **** can the government do at all? It would just become a defunct organisation.

 

[Mike.]

And as I said, if every decision taken took into account what you said, then nothing would ever get done.

America have put their whole international reputation on the line with this, they wouldn't make it up, it would be political suicide. If the government can't trust their citizens to believe them another country launched an attack on them, with evidence viewable in open court, then what the **** can the government do at all? It would just become a defunct organisation.

If they are trying to pull one over, it'd be with "secret evidence" in a miltary trial, but its in open court

 

[Athe~]

And as I said, if every decision taken took into account what you said, then nothing would ever get done.

America have put their whole international reputation on the line with this, they wouldn't make it up, it would be political suicide. If the government can't trust their citizens to believe them another country launched an attack on them, with evidence viewable in open court, then what the **** can the government do at all? It would just become a defunct organisation.

For America, this would be political suicide. For Iran, this would be suicide, period. There's a difference.

 

[Joel`]

For America, this would be political suicide. For Iran, this would be suicide, period. There's a difference.

And which is most likely to pull a crazy stunt under international eyes? The nation with the greatest economy in the world, and its reputation at stake or the one that has been building international tension for years?

 

[Athe~]

And which is most likely to pull a crazy stunt under international eyes? The nation with the greatest economy in the world, and its reputation at stake or the one that has been building international tension for years?

How many countries has Iran attacked in the last 15 years?


It's a rhetorical question, you don't need to answer that.

//Edit - And they know the US, among others, are just looking for a reason to wipe them out. Why make things easy for them?

 

[Mike.]

How many countries has Iran attacked in the last 15 years?


It's a rhetorical question, you don't need to answer that.

//Edit - And they know the US, among others, are just looking for a reason to wipe them out. Why make things easy for them?

Again, the US arent looking for a reason. Israel already has a reason.

 

[Athe~]

Again, the US arent looking for a reason. Israel already has a reason.

Well, IMO, they are. If the 'cold war' between Israel and Iran heats up they'll surely want popular opinion to be in favor of conflict, and this could grant them that wish.

 

[Joel`]

Well, IMO, they are. If the 'cold war' between Israel and Iran heats up they'll surely want popular opinion to be in favor of conflict, and this could grant them that wish.

You still haven't explained why though, in your opinion, the US have chosen a public way involving another nation who will certainly want hard proof what they're saying is correct. If you think they want a reason for war, then why have they not used a more secretive method that doesn't rely on another nations co-operation?

 

[Mike.]

Well, IMO, they are. If the 'cold war' between Israel and Iran heats up they'll surely want popular opinion to be in favor of conflict, and this could grant them that wish.

sigh, they dont need popular reason. its not a case of being in favour. Seems you've decided that America are wrong whatever they do, not that simple. If/when Iran get close a nuke, Israel will attack, they have explictly said they will not tolerate an Iranian nuclear weapon program. Its only becuase of diplomatic efforts and international pressure, particularly from the US that they havent already. A strike would turn the entire middle east into a warzone, no one wants that

 

[Mike.]

You still haven't explained why though, in your opinion, the US have chosen a public way involving another nation who will certainly want hard proof what they're saying is correct. If you think they want a reason for war, then why have they not used a more secretive method that doesn't rely on another nations co-operation?

exactly, there are much better ways of cajoling war than this. Of course this is because they are not actually cajoling war