Jump to content

The Original Greaser Bob

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    2788
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by The Original Greaser Bob

  1. 16 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

    And again, there are so many factors that led to 10/7 and Iran is a fair ways down on the list.

    Absolutely ridiculous statement.  Hamas caused 10/7 and Iran is the leading supporter of Hamas in terms of funds and weapons. 

    Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) worked with Hamas to plan its 7 October 2023 surprise attack on southern Israel and gave the green light for Hamas to launch the assault on a meeting in Beirut on 2 October. In the Hamas-led attack, Palestinian militants killed 1,200 Israelis, primarily civilians, and took around 200 Israeli civilians and soldiers hostage.[24] In the weeks leading up to the attack, some 500 fighters from Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad received training in Iran, under the guidance of the IRGC Quds Force.[25]

    According to The Washington Post, the attack occurred "with key support from [Iran] who provided military training and logistical help as well as tens of millions of dollars for weapons."[5] According to The New York Times, Internal documents indicate that Hamas sought to persuade Iran and Hezbollah to participate in its attacks.[26][27] The group deferred the assault from an initial 2022 plan, aiming to secure regional backing. Although Iran and Hezbollah offered support, they were unprepared for direct involvement, prompting Hamas to proceed independently.[26][27]

    So second down the list.  If you are lowballing Iranian involvement.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  2. 2 hours ago, hpslugga said:

    It also bears repeating that not only is “wiped off the map” not an expression in Farsi and not at all what Ahmadinejad said, he wasn’t even using his own words. He was quoting Khomenei from a speech he gave in 1979

    Well, at least some good can come out of this -- clearing up Ahmadinejad's good name.

  3. 3 hours ago, Tuco said:

    *Sidenote: Ahmadinejad is probably the worst, total shitstain fucker they've had as President in the last 25 years.  He said plenty of dumb, terrible inflammatory shit, including questioning the Holocaust.  But he never said anything to indicate he would nuke Israel given the opportunity. 

    In 2013, Supreme Leader of Iran Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called Israel "an illegitimate regime" led by "untouchable rabid dogs" and "doomed to failure and annihilation."[8] In 2015, he said there would be "no Zionist regime in 25 years" and that "during this period, the spirit of fighting, heroism and jihad will keep [Israel] worried every moment."[9] Khamenei referred to Israel as "cancerous" on numerous occasions, has said Israel will be destroyed, and has pledged Iran's support for any group or nation confronting it.[1

    On October 3, 2023, four days before the Hamas-led October 7 attacks on Israel, Khamenei delivered a speech in Tehran in which he said Israel would "die of [its] rage", and concluded by saying: "This cancer will definitely be eradicated, God willing, at the hands of the Palestinian people and the resistance forces throughout the region."[2] In 2024, Ali Khamenei told Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh: "The divine promise to eliminate the Zionist entity will be fulfilled and we will see the day when Palestine will rise from the river to the sea."[11]

    In 2014, Hossein Sheikholeslam, then secretary-general of Iran's Committee for Support for the Palestinian Intifada, stated that "the issue of Israel's destruction is important, no matter the method" and warned that "the region will not be quiet so long as Israel exists in it."[21]

    According to Dana H. Allin, Iran has covertly supported Palestinian suicide attacks targeting Israeli civilians.[33] The October 7 attacks on Israel—which killed approximately 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and saw the kidnapping of 250 hostages—was, at least in part, a product of Iran's strategy.[34] The Wall Street Journal cited senior Hamas and Hezbollah members who said the IRGC helped plan the assault and gave the go-ahead during an October 2 meeting in Beirut.[35] In the lead-up to the attack, about 500 Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad fighters reportedly received training in Iran under the supervision of the IRGC Quds Force.[36]

    Destruction of Israel in Iranian policy - Wikipedia

    In September [2019]] the commander of Iran’s elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said that destroying Israel was now an “achievable goal.”

    Four decades on from Iran’s Islamic revolution, “we have managed to obtain the capacity to destroy the impostor Zionist regime,” Major General Hossein Salami was quoted saying by the IRGC’s Sepah news site.  “This sinister regime must be wiped off the map and this is no longer … a dream [but] it is an achievable goal,” Salami said.

    • Hook 'Em 2
  4. 3 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

    A part of your reasoning was simplistic labeling. It reflects the odd American assumption that when we call somebody a Great Satan, we're invariably correct.

    I'm being pulled into arguments about civilian casualties when my initial point is that Iran has always stressed wanting to destroy Israel.  Hence, Israel is justified in wanting to destroy their capability to wage nuclear war.  I'm not interested in justifying their behavior beyond this very justifiable behavior. 

  5. 4 minutes ago, Tuco said:

    It was a response to blaming Iran for Israel systematically killing unarmed civilians in Gaza.  It is the only reasonable response.  

    Iran and Hamas are blameless in the killing of unarmed civilians in Gaza?

    Can they be blamed at all for the killing of unarmed civilians in Israel?

    Just curious about your answer to this question:

    Should the Japanese be blamed at all for the deaths of civilians at Nagasaki and Hiroshima?

     

  6. 5 minutes ago, Tuco said:

    Do you think there is any ethical difference between killing civilians of a "western democracies" (a term which gets more meaningless by the day) and civilians of some other form of government?  (I would argue that civilians in a democracy actually have more culpability in their government's actions than those of a theocracy.)  

    Do you think there is an ethical difference how you kill civilians - terrorism or with intentional targeting by the military?  Who was worse - the French Resistance murdering Nazi collaborators or Nazi soldiers lining up civilians and gunning them down?

    And, for my last question - over the last year, who do you think has intentionally killed more civilians - Israel or Iran?  

    1) It depends on the reasons and the method for the killing.  (Whatever the culpability of its citizenry, is a western democracy or a theocracy more ethical?)

    2)  Sure, there is a big ethical difference in how you kill civilians.  Nazi's lining up civilians is "worse" because Nazi collaborators are worse than regular civilians.

    3) I'm assuming Israel considers many of the scientists and leaders it has intentionally targeted as civilians, so I am thinking Israel.

    I'd say Iran has an equal or greater culpability for civilian deaths in the region because of its strategy and aid to terrorist groups like Hamas who attack civilians and encourage civilian deaths through their tactics.  

     

  7. 1 minute ago, Tuco said:

    Do you really need a definition for propaganda?  Do you acknowledge the continuous stream of propaganda regarding Iran for the last 50 years?

    Yep, sure, reasons.  Iran's government sucks.  No question or argument on that. But, do you not acknowledge the propaganda? 

    No, but some folks here do.  The definition of propaganda is "misleading or biased".  You're also free to tell me what part of my post was misleading or biased.  

    I acknowledge the stream of propaganda from every government for all time.

     
     
     
    prop·a·gan·da
    /ˌpräpəˈɡandə/
    noun
     
    1. 1.
      information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
  8. 18 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

    As in simplistic, biased, and naive.

    1) We're unilaterally helping 2)an ally 3) dismantle the defenses of a 4) truly vile perpetrator of violence 5) that has sworn to pursue the destruction of at least two Western democracies.

    1) Apologies if I'm leaving El Salvador out.

    2) Israel is an ally

    3) Israel has effectively destroyed Iran's defenses.

    4) Iran supports Hamas, Hezbollah and its weapons kill Ukrainians and Americans.

    5) Iran clearly supports the destruction if Israel.  Should have left it at that and added "and clearly promotes killing civilians and soldiers of western democracies through terrorism and direct aid."

     

  9. 6 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

    If this truly disrupts Iran's verified attempt to build a bomb (all speculation at this point, I know), why would this be a bad policy?

    Possible answers: We're unilaterally attacking another country; Our actions may not have even been necessary; We've just had our toe pulled into Israeli plans to further make the MidEast its defacto empire.

    We're unilaterally helping an ally dismantle the defenses of a truly vile perpetrator of violence that has sworn to pursue the destruction of at least two Western democracies.  A nation that is driven by religious fanaticism that everyone should abhor.  As in twice as much as we abhor the present trend toward authoritarianism driven by religious fanaticism in our country. 

    The unilateral way that the dotard did this should be condemned, but beyond that - at best the argument is that there is a good chance it will backfire in some way that no one has anticipated.  But the gamble looks decent to me for now.

    I would have given the Israelis the bunker busters, loaned them the B2 and let them go at it "alone".

    • Rage+1 1
    • Drool 1
  10. 12 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

    I 'member when I got yelled at for saying the US and Israel are the biggest state sponsors/perpetrators of terror in the world. 

    I'm whispering that this is a dumb fucking statement.

  11. Look, intelligent beings know you didn't defend a genocidal regime.

    The 77 million beings who voted for Trump, once they get in line, aren't going to see it that way.  Nor are most of the fuckheads who didn't vote.

    Iran, bad, bombing them good.

    All prior presidents since Carter missed their fucking chance.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  12. 9 hours ago, Dnaguy said:

    Dude got played by Bibi.

    What a clown. 
    Art of the heel.

    All true, yet he's going to profit from it big time.

    I think with this move, people may start to consider Andrew Johnson or James Buchanan as worse Presidents than the Dotard.

  13. 6 minutes ago, Hagbard Celine said:

    in what context?

    I guess in the Bourbon context:

    But he [Porter Rockwell] was that most terrible instrument that can be handled by fanaticism; a powerful physical nature welded to a mind of very narrow perceptions, intense convictions, and changeless tenacity. In his build, he was a gladiator; in his humor, a Yankee lumberman; in his memory, a Bourbon; in his vengeance, an Indian. A strange mixture, only to be found on the American Continent.[16] - Fitzhugh Ludlow

  14. You know, I don't remember much about it, but I thought David Chase's Not Fade Away (2012) (another fake biopic) was pretty good.  I always thought this garage/basement scene captured four guys trying to play a song pretty precisely.  Especially the bass.

    Rotten Tomatoes, a review aggregator, reports that 69% of 89 surveyed critics gave the film a positive review; the average rating is 6.50/10. The site's consensus reads, "Exuberant and bittersweet, Not Fade Away is a coming-of-age story set to a British Invasion beat that occasionally meanders but mostly charms."[3]

    Keith Uhlich of Time Out New York named Not Fade Away the second-best film of 2012, citing it as proof that Chase's work on The Sopranos was "no fluke".[4] In 2020, Uhlich named it the eighth-best film of the 2010s.[5]

     

     

  15. 1 hour ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

    I should put it in the "Things that make you surly" thread, but how can anyone in this day and age still misspell 'Israel'?  It's not like the word isn't plastered over every major website 24/7.

    You'll see lots of misspellings from me. I was never a great speller.  And to be honest, I probalby pronounce it "Isry-al" more often than not.

    I've also got a condition called central serous retinopathy.   Retina gets some fluid in it and blurs the center of one's vision.  Thankfully it's in one eye.  Unfortunately, it's in my dominate eye.  Kind of had vision issues from childhood.  Most times the condition is acute and goes away but mine's chronic.  You end up looking slightly to one side of the letter you are looking at and see the letter through just a bit of periphery.  It tires your eyes out.   

    If I'm looking at the word "Israel" on the page, it looks like "Isr  l" or "Is  el".  You can figure out most words by recognizing 60% oi the letters anyway.

    I'm spending so much time just making sure my work emails are correct that by the time I get on these boards I'm tuckered out.  I can barely see the little red squiggles that indicate I have a spelling issue.

    Anyway, that's one reason I misspell Isreal and other words.  Hey - no red squiggles on Isreal!

     

     

    • Hook 'Em 4
    • Like 1
  16. 12 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

    I imagine it didn't help matters.

    I am no friend of the tyrannical Iranian regime.

    But they did sign an agreement to stay good and followed it. That should have counted for something. It didn't though.

     

    Beyond the fact that it doesn't help matters, it gives Isreal carte blanche to treat Iran as the existential threat it is. 

    It's not Isreal's agreement.  And I would respect an agreement between Isreal and Iran more than I would anything we were involved with.   

    On June 12, 2025, IAEA found Iran non-compliant with its nuclear obligations for the first time in 20 years.[165] The IAEA stated that Iran's repeated failure to fully address questions about undeclared nuclear material and activities amounts to non-compliance.[166] It also raised concerns over Iran's enriched uranium stockpile, which could be used for both reactor fuel and nuclear weapons.[166] Iran dismissed the resolution as politically motivated,[166] and declared plans to build a new enrichment site and install advanced centrifuges.[167]

  17. 1 minute ago, Valmy77 said:

    It was. Until some bastards overthrew their government and put a reactionary monarchy in charge.

    And so that changes our approach to Iran, a country that is a threat to Isreal, how?

    (I'm not arguing that the US should encourage war.  I'm only arguing that if Isreal ends the threat, there might be some advantages for the region.)

×
×
  • Create New...