Letter to Iran

[meazza]

ill let you google it to see what their relations have been ... but clearly theyve been supporters of palestineans (who are arabs) and vocal critics of the israeli occupation. Seems to me most of all the Middle East countries ... you want to get hung up on the word "staunch" because your claim they dont care about arabs was so utterly and easily refuted. so be it, I dont care

 

If they care, what do they offer aside from rockets smuggled through tunnels?

 

The answer "Google it" is not valid. If you make a statement, prove it mother !@#$er.

[Azalin]

 

uh yeah, you think a deal explicitly provides them with weapons? lol, good grief no wonder youre all worked up

 

If I sound 'worked up', it's only because you're trying to argue something with me that I'm not even talking about.

 

I'll give you credit for coming up with a novel way of not losing a debate, though.

[DC Tom]

Have you noticed that all the staunch supporters don't actually do anything for the Palestinian refugees such as in Lebanon and Jordan?

 

Not entirely true - Hizb'allah actually provides some significant social services in Lebanon.

 

That's about it, though. To everyone else in the region, the Palestinians are just pawns. Ironically, after Hizb'allah, the next-best organization providing support to Palestinians is probably Israel.

 

If I sound 'worked up', it's only because you're trying to argue something with me that I'm not even talking about.

 

I'll give you credit for coming up with a novel way of not losing a debate, though.

 

It's not that novel. ...lybob's already tried it twice today.

 

He's not even having a debate, anyway. He's just blathering. If he were having a debate, he'd explain how he thinks a nuclear deal with Iran would prevent them from having nuclear weapons, rather than just repeating bland platitudes.

[truth on hold]

 

Not entirely true - Hizb'allah actually provides some significant social services in Lebanon.

 

That's about it, though. To everyone else in the region, the Palestinians are just pawns. Ironically, after Hizb'allah, the next-best organization providing support to Palestinians is probably Israel.

 

It's not that novel. ...lybob's already tried it twice today.

 

He's not even having a debate, anyway. He's just blathering. If he were having a debate, he'd explain how he thinks a nuclear deal with Iran would prevent them from having nuclear weapons, rather than just repeating bland platitudes.

you forgot to say "conspiracy", either the left is acting on one, or fantasizing the right has one.

 

but here's another chance for you to cry "conspiracy!!"

 

US intel report scrapped Iran from list of terror threats

The unclassified version of the Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Communities, dated February 26, 2015 (PDF), noted Iran’s efforts to combat Sunni extremists, including those of the ultra-radical Islamic State group, who were perceived to constitute the preeminent terrorist threat to American interests worldwide.

In describing Iran’s regional role, the report noted the Islamic Republic’s “intentions to dampen sectarianism, build responsive partners, and deescalate tensions with Saudi Arabia,”

 

Read more: US intel report scrapped Iran from list of terror threats | The Times of Israel http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-report-scraps-iran-hezbollah-from-list-of-terror-threats/#ixzz3UhqSsjLe

Follow us: @timesofisrael on Twitter | timesofisrael on Facebook

Edited March 18, 2015 by JTSP

[DC Tom]

you forgot to say "conspiracy", either the left is acting on one, or fantasizing the right has one.

 

but here's another chance for you to cry "conspiracy!!"

 

US intel report scrapped Iran from list of terror threats

 

 

The unclassified version of the Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Communities, dated February 26, 2015 (PDF), noted Iran’s efforts to combat Sunni extremists, including those of the ultra-radical Islamic State group, who were perceived to constitute the preeminent terrorist threat to American interests worldwide.

 

In describing Iran’s regional role, the report noted the Islamic Republic’s “intentions to dampen sectarianism, build responsive partners, and deescalate tensions with Saudi Arabia,”

Read more: US intel report scrapped Iran from list of terror threats | The Times of Israel http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-report-scraps-iran-hezbollah-from-list-of-terror-threats/#ixzz3UhqSsjLe

Follow us: @timesofisrael on Twitter | timesofisrael on Facebook

Well, that's a pretty stupid assessment. Iran's no longer a terror threat because "the enemy of my enemy is my friend?" That's worked out so well for us in the past.

 

And I don't think the left or right is involved in conspiracies. I think you just see them everywhere, you fool.

[Deranged Rhino]

Ever stop to think that if Iran unleashed a boat load of nukes capable of "destroying" Israel they would also be "destroying" the 6 million or so arabs that live in Israel and the occupied territories?

 

 

You're a !@#$ing moron. It takes huge balls to call people stupid when you know nothing about the topic which you're arguing. Holy ****, to think I actually defended you for awhile.

 

Since when do Persians care about Arabs? I guess they all look the same to you?

 

:lol:

 

yeah I know, their staunch support of Palestineans (Arabs) is due to them being an irrational, suicidal peoples ... there, i just saved you the trouble of typing an idiotic typical response

 

All of your posts are idiotic, this one is no different. Stop deflecting the shame of being exposed as a complete and !@#$ing !@#$ who doesn't even know Iranians are an entirely different !@#$ing culture and race of people than Arabs. You got caught looking like the blathering idiot that you are, don't run from it. Embrace it. Say it out loud: "I AM !@#$TARD!"

 

You'll feel better just being honest with yourself.

[truth on hold]

 

You're a !@#$ing moron. It takes huge balls to call people stupid when you know nothing about the topic which you're arguing. Holy ****, to think I actually defended you for awhile.

 

:lol:

 

 

All of your posts are idiotic, this one is no different. Stop deflecting the shame of being exposed as a complete and !@#$ing !@#$ who doesn't even know Iranians are an entirely different !@#$ing culture and race of people than Arabs. You got caught looking like the blathering idiot that you are, don't run from it. Embrace it. Say it out loud: "I AM !@#$TARD!"

 

You'll feel better just being honest with yourself.

errr nope, and nothing Ive said here could be construed otherwise. but if you want to believe that, thats fine with me.

 

and certainly there's been speculation that iranian support for palestineans (sunnis) is due to an agenda to drive a wedge between saudis (who mostly sit by idly) and other sunnis, while the shiites (iranians) are more actively involved in the palestinean cause. but whether it's genuine concern or politically motivated, it's a ridiculous notion to think they would wipe out nearly 6 million arab muslims in the process of using nuclear weapons on israel.

Edited March 18, 2015 by JTSP

[Deranged Rhino]

errr nope, and nothing Ive said here could be construed otherwise.

 

So you are even full of bull **** when it comes to what you said in your own posts You'd be such a better and more entertaining troll if you had the courage of your convictions, or at least a backbone.

[B-Man]

GOOD THING THERE’S NO DANGER OF THEM GETTING NUKES:

 

Iran endorses nuclear EMP attack on United States.

 

“American officials have confirmed that Iranian military brass have endorsed a nuclear electromagnetic pulse explosion that would attack the country’s power system. American defense experts made the discovery while translating a secret Iranian military handbook, raising new concerns about Tehran’s recent nuclear talks with the administration.”

 

 

 

Relax. Valerie Jarrett would never let anything like that happen.

 

 

 

.

[4merper4mer]

GOOD THING THERE’S NO DANGER OF THEM GETTING NUKES:

 

Iran endorses nuclear EMP attack on United States.

 

“American officials have confirmed that Iranian military brass have endorsed a nuclear electromagnetic pulse explosion that would attack the country’s power system. American defense experts made the discovery while translating a secret Iranian military handbook, raising new concerns about Tehran’s recent nuclear talks with the administration.”

 

 

 

Relax. Valerie Jarrett would never let anything like that happen.

 

 

 

.

 

Notice they said it was from a translation. It is probably being translated from Farsi which is notoriously easy to misinterpret. According to one poster on here Farsi might seem to say "Israel will be wiped from the face of the map" when it really says, "We may have our differences with the Jews but boy oh boy matzo balls are yummy". Another fan favorite of this guy, Jerry Sandusky, also used Farsi in both thoughts and actions. Although it seems to the entire word that he is a vile creature, the Farsi experts hold him in high regard.

 

Bearing that in mind, a plan to "Explode EMPS above America to cripple the electrical grid" might mean "We should bake everyone in America a birthday cake as a sign of good faith".

 

I am new at this so I could be off...although I am pretty sure about the matzo ball one......Joe the Sandusky Proponent will chime in soon enough I'm sure.

[truth on hold]

GOOD THING THERES NO DANGER OF THEM GETTING NUKES:

 

Iran endorses nuclear EMP attack on United States.

 

American officials have confirmed that Iranian military brass have endorsed a nuclear electromagnetic pulse explosion that would attack the countrys power system. American defense experts made the discovery while translating a secret Iranian military handbook, raising new concerns about Tehrans recent nuclear talks with the administration.

 

 

 

Relax. Valerie Jarrett would never let anything like that happen.

 

 

 

.

Oh gee, if frank gaffney says so it must be true! Rolling out list of usual kooks and propagandists. All we need is Judith miller to pen another "smoking gun" article to ratify it...lol Edited March 19, 2015 by JTSP

[Keukasmallies]

Ironic that POTUS can issue a statement directly to the people of Iran and that's a positive step, but when the Republican members of Congress write a letter to Iran....well, you know what blowback occurred there.

 

Sail On, Oh Ship of State.

[DC Tom]

Ironic that POTUS can issue a statement directly to the people of Iran and that's a positive step, but when the Republican members of Congress write a letter to Iran....well, you know what blowback occurred there.

 

Sail On, Oh Ship of State.

 

Because Republicans are still in the back seat. The parties are almost at the point where they don't even recognize each others' right to exist.

 

The other irony is that Obama goes on apology tours for the US, as he doesn't believe in "my country right or wrong." But he sure as **** ascribes to the idea of "my party right or wrong."

[B-Man]

Iran demands immediate end to sanctions, P5+1 balk as talks stall

 

Stop me if you’ve heard this before.

 

The talks between Iran and the P5+1 group over Tehran’s attempts to create nuclear weapons have stalled again as the Iranian negotiators escalated their demands for sanctions relief. Instead of phasing out sanctions — after several large concessions on economic pressure just to get Iran to the table — the Iranians now demand an end to sanctions at the front end of the deal.

 

The West has balked at the demand. For now, at least:

 

 

.

 

[DC Tom]

Iran demands immediate end to sanctions, P5+1 balk as talks stall

 

Stop me if you’ve heard this before.

 

The talks between Iran and the P5+1 group over Tehran’s attempts to create nuclear weapons have stalled again as the Iranian negotiators escalated their demands for sanctions relief. Instead of phasing out sanctions — after several large concessions on economic pressure just to get Iran to the table — the Iranians now demand an end to sanctions at the front end of the deal.

 

The West has balked at the demand. For now, at least:

 

Iran doesn't want normalization of relations. Their entire national identity is built around being the victimized pariah.

 

Which is kind-of a shame, because there's really no reason for it. If they dropped that bull ****, they'd be more reasonable than most of the nations in the region.

[Tiberius]

Iran demands immediate end to sanctions, P5+1 balk as talks stall

 

Stop me if you’ve heard this before.

 

The talks between Iran and the P5+1 group over Tehran’s attempts to create nuclear weapons have stalled again as the Iranian negotiators escalated their demands for sanctions relief. Instead of phasing out sanctions — after several large concessions on economic pressure just to get Iran to the table — the Iranians now demand an end to sanctions at the front end of the deal.

 

The West has balked at the demand. For now, at least:

 

 

.

 

Another Hot Air link?

[B-Man]

Why Can’t President Obama Put Iran in a Box?

Democrats are suddenly acting as if we must either strike a bad deal or rush to war. What ever happened to the “box”?

Remember what the Democrats said about Saddam Hussein? Wait . . . that’s a confusing question.

• One must clarify whether we’re talking about when a Democratic administration was bombing a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan because it was really a joint chemical-weapons venture between Iraq and al-Qaeda;
• or when that Democratic administration joined Congress in making regime change in Baghdad the national policy of the United States;
• or when congressional Democrats insisted on voting to show their support for the war to remove Saddam Hussein from power;
• or when Democrats decided Iraq had nothing to do with al-Qaeda after all;
• or, finally, when Democrats turned with a vengeance against the Iraq war they had enthusiastically supported.

I’m talking about that phase at the end.

In obeisance to the hard-left, anti-war faction (now known as Obama’s base) that had come to dominate their party, leading Democrats scalded President Bush for his purportedly heedless rush to an unnecessary and ultimately disastrous war. In the new telling — the one that elides mention of the war drums beaten by Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Biden, et al. — there was no need to invade Iraq because President Bill Clinton, as he himself recalls it, had brilliantly maneuvered Saddam Hussein into a “box.”

President Clinton, we’re to understand, had methodically isolated Saddam, arranging American policy with an eye toward steadily strangling the regime through a mix of punishing economic sanctions, a no-fly zone, the threat of fierce military retaliation in the event of Iraqi aggression, and pressure on other countries to treat Saddam as a pariah. Sure, the Iraqi government was still a menace. Not only was Saddam concealing his weapons programs and stocks, and oppressing his own people; there remained the concern that he would provide safe haven for al-Qaeda if Afghanistan became too hot for the terror network — that Osama bin Laden would “boogie to Baghdad,” as Clinton counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke had memorably put it. Still, we are now assured, Clinton had Saddam contained: He was no longer an imminent threat to American interests, yet still a barrier to Iran’s regional ambitions.

There was no need to go to war, this revisionist history teaches. The regime in Baghdad was in a box, unable to ratchet up its weapons development and beset by internal strife that would eventually be its undoing.

Now, there are many problems with this history as history. The point here, though, is not to argue over whether this is a faithful rendition of events. It is to highlight the Democrats’ policy prescription. History, after all, gets revised so that those who write it can appear to have been on the right side of it.

In the case of Iraq, Democrats settled on what they argued was the most effective formula for handling a rogue regime with nuclear ambitions. Only then did they selectively mine the record to suggest that this formula had been their policy all along. For present purposes, the mining is irrelevant. As we turn our attention to Iran, what matters is the formula — the “box.”

Why can’t President Obama put Iran in a box? Obama is the leading voice of the “Iraq was a huge mistake” crowd. Nearly as notorious are his admonitions against “false choices” that suggest having A (e.g., security) necessitates forfeiting B (e.g., due process). Yet, what is the president’s rationale for appeasing Iran with a disastrous deal that will enable it to become a nuclear-weapons power? It is that the only alternative to his bad deal is war.

That is not only the most false of choices, it is the antithesis of the lesson we’ve been instructed to learn from the Iraq misadventure.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/415753/why-cant-president-obama-put-iran-box-andrew-c-mccarthy

 

 

 

 

 

.

[meazza]

Hey JTSP, could you confirm the translation?

 

kthx

 

http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-iranian-supreme-leader-backs-his-governments-nuclear-deal-efforts-20150321-story.html

 

 

As the supreme leader spoke, a crowd chanted, “Death to America.” Khamenei said the rhetoric was justified because America is behind all threats to Iran.

[truth on hold]

Hey JTSP, could you confirm the translation?

 

kthx

 

http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-iranian-supreme-leader-backs-his-governments-nuclear-deal-efforts-20150321-story.html

 

No translation needed here for comments from top republican donor Sheldon adelson ...

 

Asked by moderator Rabbi Shmuley Boteach whether the US should negotiate with Iran if it were to cease its uranium enrichment program, Adelson retorted, What are we going to negotiate about?

 

Adelson then imagined what might happen if an American official were to call up an Iranian official, say watch this, and subsequently drop a nuclear bomb in the middle of the Iranian desert.

 

"Then you say, See! The next one is in the middle of Tehran. So, we mean business. You want to be wiped out? Go ahead and take a tough position and continue with your nuclear development.

 

http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Adelson-US-should-drop-atomic-bomb-on-Iran-329641

 

Yeah, why are those Iranians complaining about comments coming from america? Nerve of them

Edited March 22, 2015 by JTSP

[/dev/null]

No translation needed here for comments from top republican donor Sheldon adelson ...

 

Asked by moderator Rabbi Shmuley Boteach whether the US should negotiate with Iran if it were to cease its uranium enrichment program, Adelson retorted, What are we going to negotiate about?

 

Adelson then imagined what might happen if an American official were to call up an Iranian official, say watch this, and subsequently drop a nuclear bomb in the middle of the Iranian desert.

 

"Then you say, See! The next one is in the middle of Tehran. So, we mean business. You want to be wiped out? Go ahead and take a tough position and continue with your nuclear development.

 

http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Adelson-US-should-drop-atomic-bomb-on-Iran-329641

Such a peaceful religion

http://www.timesofisrael.com/khamenei-calls-death-to-america-as-kerry-hails-progress-on-nuke-deal/