The Source he believes are Creepy floyd's State sponserd nonse. i dont blame him, until you actually see how unpopular the curent system at first hand, you cant possibily believe it. Calling the members of the armed forces or the local bakery shop as secular intellects is outlandish. the regime has repaid the lives of the member the sacrafice of the "janbazan" who lost the limbs during the iraq war with nothing. they dont or havent even provided them with any accomidation. many killed themselves. the remaining ones are living like animals in poverty. yet they see fit to send million to there moslim arabs who sided with saddam in the war with us verman inferior persians. People in bam are still living in the streets. iran's economy languishes at a remarkable 119 in the world with all the resources. unemployment is staggaring. iran has the highest drugg addiction rate on the planet.
I miss the days of Reagan.... Back then, terrorists just wanted to hijack planes for a free ride back to Lebanon and some Shish Kabab. It was more of a joke then anything to worry about. Those were the good ole days. And we could just sit back, laugh it all off, and what them good ole boys Dukes of Hazard. If we only knew....
So? It could be true, I am not denying that, but I haven't seen any 'numbers' to support that statement. Provide proof from a somewhat reliable source and we can talk. Your opinion does not count as a fact -- even though you usually post as if it is. I am in academia, I have different standards, sorry if you find it annoying. No, I am challenging you to provide proof or some sort of numbers to back up your arguments, which are often so extreme that one can't help but dismiss them. LOL! Ahh, you fail to counter with a solid argument so your start throwing around the 'mollah sympathizer' label...I know it's easy to fall into that trap, but but it's beneath you, and it's indicative of a person who can't tolerate differing opinions or those who challenge his long-held views. It won't deter me in any case, but if you decide to take that route you're no better than those who would call you a 'terrorist sympathizer' for being a Muslim or some darker skinned individual. You're not sure of anything, please stop speculating. That's exactly what I take issue with in your posts: you routinely pass your opinions and personal observations for 'facts', and become extremely annoyed when anyone attempts to debate you or challenge you on it (you start throwing around the 'Mullah sympathizer' label; this is not the first time you do so, and it's not the first time I warn you on it). I have no problem with you, but I will continue to ask for evidence when you make statements along the lines of, "most Iranians hate/love the current regime." Don't take it personally when I -- or someone else who's not as quick to take your statements for facts -- challenges your opinions. I have no problem with your opinions, I have a problem when you attempt to pass your opinion and those of other 'secular elitists' or expats as representative of an entire nation of people, most of whom are poorer and have had different experiences in life than that of your own. Use some supportive evidence for you arguments, that's all I am asking for. Otherwise, you're just a person who's shouting his opinions over an Internet forum to an audience that isn't necessarily well-versed in Iranian politics/society/culture, and therefore might be more inclined to take your statements for facts, when some of them are anything but. There we go again with the name calling and unfounded speculations. Suffice it to say that Creepy Floyd's views were as extreme and one-sided as yours are; you two are on opposite ends of the spectrum, yet are more alike than you might realize, the exception being he had better grammar. You both are hell-bent on force-feeding your 'audience' (the D&D, that is) your own views, and anyone who dares challenge them is either a 'Mollah lover' or a racist or whatever else 'flavor of the day' name you care to call him/her. This is the last time I warn you about your language/accusations. If you're unable to offer anything of substance to back up your bold statements -- and instead decide to resort to your childish behavior -- then I will cease this debate with you. Just be aware that name-calling is a form of 'surrender', it indicates that you have nothing more of value or substance to add, so you resort to childish behavior instead. Keep that in mind as we proceed...
Coming from you, that is a resounding endorsement...I am holding back tears. You're as ignorant as they come, there is enough evidence to establish that, therefore I never bother debating you anymore, I feel like I am picking on someone who's not worthy, and I don't like that feeling. As usual, feel free to litter the D&D with your informative crapola...
From what I know 1988 was when Libya bombed the Pan Am flight. 1986 was when the U.S bombed Libya!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I think you have the wrong facts
I am truly shocked and..."befuddled". For your information, DaDa, the bombings of Libya Reagan ordered in 1986 were a supposed retaliation for the La Belle Discotheque bombing in West Berlin, not the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing.
I agree that many are not satisfied with the system, but I think you're going too far in terms of how the people would percieve any sort of assasination. There's a simple distinction you are missing. The Iranian people a) are patriotic and nationalistic and b) probably dislike the regime in various degrees Assasination of Iranian leaders violates the first tenet and it's a tenet that you strongly discount. People are always protective of their homeland and dislike foreign intervention. That's why Christians in Lebanon strongly back Hezbollah today. Despite their hatred of Hezbollah, they hate Israeli intervention more. People worry more about national identity and nationalism more than they worry about leadership because leadership is much more fluid. People are not as liberal as you make them out to be. They strongly dislike the regime, but they also dislike American foreign policy as well. Assasination solves one problem but magnifies another since a) people are nationalistic and b) people despise American intervention in their affairs. If the perception of the US was a lot better than it is today, then maybe your argument would have some legs to stand on but our credibility is probably lower than the Iranian regime's among the people of Iran.
I thought he helped OBL in Afghanistan against the soviets? And didn't he arm Saddam via Rummy or was it Bush Sr?
No? Care to explain? The U.S. might not have always directly provided such aid, but we certainly did through 'middle men' (i.e. the Saudis, UAE, and other Arab client states).
Truth is stranger than fiction ... I think it turned out that Lybia was not responsible for the Discotheque bombing, but was responsible for the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing. Thus, Reagan's preventive bombing of Lybia was not efficacious.
That article is crap. Nowhere does it show any connection between Regan and bin Laden. Here is the break down. The CIA was sending arms to Pakistan's ISI. The ISI was giving training and arms to the Afghans. The CIA was never dealing with Arabs. The CIA did go to Saudi Arabia and asked that they matched dollar for dollar what they spent on the war. The Saudi's did this, but they funded seperate groups, including Arab fighters like bin Laden. Also the House and Senate were controlled by Democrats. The legislation that was passed to increase the CIA buget, so that they could fund the war, was largely pushed through by Texas Democrat Charlie Wilson. The Regan administration was mostly interested in the Iran/Contra affair and ignoring Afghanistan to the dismay of many CIA insiders. A great book about this is "Charlie Wilson's War". Here is an article disputing that the US helped bin Laden that backs up much of my info.
so the CIA funded and armed the taliban at the very least and if Reagan had nothing to do with Afghanistan, he had nothing to do with Soviets' demise? democrats defeated USSR?
Correct. The Taliban has ties to the Pakistani ISI. So they were given the CIA arms. I would not say Reagan had nothing to do with the Soviets demise, but he is given way too much credit. Afghanistan was a covert proxy war, so most people know nothing about it. They just know that the Soviet Union was collapsing when Reagan was president. Its amazing how much it really was just Charlie Wilson influencing key people to get the CIA budget increased for the war. Also I belive it was Carter that signed the presidential order that allowed the CIA to intervene. So Democrats should get a lot of the credit and/or blame for the war.
