Soooooo... you are saying our actions were justified because the Shah fired this guy once and then objected publicly because he thought there was going to be rioting that happened the first time he was fired. And that actually it was all at the request of the Shah to begin with because he had asked the US and the British to remove this fellow "secretly" because that's how we roll (in the shadows, like ninjas).
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Did "Iran" really threaten to "wipe Israel off the map"?
- Thread starter rambone
- Start date
-
- Tags
- iran israel warfare state
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Soooooo... you are saying our actions were justified because the Shah fired this guy once and then objected publicly because he thought there was going to be rioting that happened the first time he was fired. And that actually it was all at the request of the Shah to begin with because he had asked the US and the British to remove this fellow "secretly" because that's how we roll (in the shadows, like ninjas).
The problem is that you are using those "blame America 1st" search engines. If you were using the correct search engines all of your results would clearly show that it was the other guys fault to begin with (like secret meetings where we were actually only "helping" them out with no thought of personal gain, you know being good neighbors).
iwearcowboyboots
Expert
Holy Crap!
I didn't even think about that.
I pointed my ol' web browser to Ask.com and did a search for "Is Google turning me into a blame America 1st commie who uses contraceptives?" and here is the first result that popped up in the search...
"Is Google turning me into a blame America 1st commie who uses contraceptives?"
SemperFiUSMC
Master
- Jun 23, 2009
- 3,480
- 38
No, I've read books not written by libtarded sissies who contribute to Wikipedia about the whole operation (enter multiple libtarded sissies to call me a war monger).
iwearcowboyboots
Expert
Reading books is no fair. I thought you said it was all on Google?
That's what I used to find the small amount of declassified CIA documentation leaked about a dozen or so years ago. Is the CIA a "libtarded sissies" organization? The CIA has admitted in the past that they submit things to various media outlets. With that being the case, I can't imagine that they've never been involved influencing a Wikipedia edit?
Or wait... Maybe the CIA leaked fake documents?
Anyways, the libtarded sissy fake CIA document I'm reading states that (after a lot of ass dragging by the Shah, including pep talks from Stormin Norman Schwarzkopf's dad and a host of other people) Kermit Roosevelt personally told the Shah that if he failed to act that the US could likely act via some other plan without him because the US was not willing to accept the possibility of a communist Iran or a "second Korea." Even that didn't fully convince him, which is pretty amazing since the Shah must have remembered how he came to power...
As for the the British SIS, the CIA claims the SIS was glad to have the CIA running the show and that they were envious of the resources the CIA had at their disposal. The CIA was to be in charge of planning because the British couldn't do it without them (I must have missed the part where the British said they couldn't move forward on if the Shah wasn't on board).
If you don't believe me, a wise man once said:
Perhaps we can agree that there were two sides (at least) involved in Iran (don't forget that the USSR had its itchy little fingers involved everywhere in the Mideast as well, folks), and that there were citizens of the country who were advocates and allies of the Shah as well as his opponent. It wasn't a general uprising against the Shah, by any means. When power groups come into conflict, they have a couple ways to solve their differences. They can influence public opinion (using any or all of several methods from persuasion to violence); they can work behind-the-scenes to influence the government (in whatever form); or they can use violence to decide the issue. This isn't true of just the situation in Iran, but everywhere.
There is a sizable segment of the population opposed to the Mullahs and their theocracy and relatively favorably disposed towards the US/West, but they don't control the weapons; the Mullahs do. The easiest way to defuse the tensions between us and the Iranians, at least temporarily, would be to help this large segment get rid of their oppressive government, but no Administration lately has taken that option.
There is a sizable segment of the population opposed to the Mullahs and their theocracy and relatively favorably disposed towards the US/West, but they don't control the weapons; the Mullahs do. The easiest way to defuse the tensions between us and the Iranians, at least temporarily, would be to help this large segment get rid of their oppressive government, but no Administration lately has taken that option.
SemperFiUSMC
Master
- Jun 23, 2009
- 3,480
- 38
Nah, it's much more fun to blame American involvement for the Embassy takeover, 9/11, and the death of John Lennon. There can only be the right side and the side America was on.
Now he may come back and say otherwise but based on Blackhawk's post I don't see anywhere that he said America didn't have any involvement for the Embassy takeover, 9/11, or even the death of John Lennon.
He DID say:
"Perhaps we can agree that there were two sides (at least) involved in Iran (don't forget that the USSR had its itchy little fingers involved everywhere in the Mideast as well, folks), and that there were citizens of the country who were advocates and allies of the Shah as well as his opponent. It wasn't a general uprising against the Shah, by any means. When power groups come into conflict, they have a couple ways to solve their differences. They can influence public opinion (using any or all of several methods from persuasion to violence); they can work behind-the-scenes to influence the government (in whatever form); or they can use violence to decide the issue. This isn't true of just the situation in Iran, but everywhere.
There is a sizable segment of the population opposed to the Mullahs and their theocracy and relatively favorably disposed towards the US/West, but they don't control the weapons; the Mullahs do. The easiest way to defuse the tensions between us and the Iranians, at least temporarily, would be to help this large segment get rid of their oppressive government, but no Administration lately has taken that option."
steveh_131
Grandmaster
Since we're still tossing around the term 'blame', I would like someone to address these comparisons and explain to me why you Blame America First for crime and for the recession.
iwearcowboyboots
Expert
You know it is entirely possible to proud to be an American but not proud of absolutely 100% of the things that have happened under her flag, right? And it's an issue of honestly and integrity, not an issue of fun or lack of patriotism, to admit that sometimes that we don't (or our country) don't make the best choices or that the choices we (or our country) make sometimes have bad consequences.
And unless I missed it, I haven't seen anyone here say that the 1979 embassy hostage situation or 9/11 was the right course of action for people to take against the US. The people who carried out those actions were not rational. But this whole argument of "it all started when he hit me back" is kind of a silly angle to promote.
Last edited:
You know it is entirely possible to proud to be an American but not proud of absolutely 100% of the things that have happened under her flag, right? And it's an issue of honestly and integrity, not an issue of fun or lack of patriotism, to admit that sometimes that we don't (or our country) don't make the best choices or that the choices we (or our country) make sometimes have bad consequences.
And unless I missed it, I haven't seen anyone here say that the 1979 embassy hostage situation or 9/11 was the right course of action for people to take against the US. The people who carried out those actions were not rational. But this whole argument of "it all started when he hit me back" is kind of a silly angle to promote.
I do not think he can. In all our discussions it's boiled down to you either accept everything our government does as being "legal" (as long as the SCOTUS doesn't say otherwise) or you are anti-american. It would appear that love of country and love of government is the same thing for him.
It's been both my personal and professional experience that the "it all started when he hit me back" argument comes most often from bullies and criminals.
SemperFiUSMC
Master
- Jun 23, 2009
- 3,480
- 38
You know it is entirely possible to proud to be an American but not proud of absolutely 100% of the things that have happened under her flag, right? And it's an issue of honestly and integrity, not an issue of fun or lack of patriotism, to admit that sometimes that we don't (or our country) don't make the best choices or that the choices we (or our country) make sometimes have bad consequences.
And unless I missed it, I haven't seen anyone here say that the 1979 embassy hostage situation or 9/11 was the right course of action for people to take against the US. The people who carried out those actions were not rational. But this whole argument of "it all started when he hit me back" is kind of a silly angle to promote.
Absolutely, you can be proud of your country but not proud of the acts carried out in her name.
In my opinion "Blame America" happens that when someone rationalizes why it was OK for someone to do something to us because of some real or perceived slight. 9/11 happened because a group of madmen flew planes into buildings. The Blame America Firsters want to sit around and talk about why they did it and convince others that it is all our fault, so there's no reason to seek hostilities. I don't care why they did it. I want brutal retribution so horrific that no one ever wants to do it again.
I don't understand your statement about hitting back. I don't care about hitting back. I care about not being hit in the first place. In the real world where most people live nations have allies and enemies, and those nations have allies and enemies, and they don't all fit nicely into an org chart. Our closest enemy can be our closest ally's ally. This week's ally is next week's enemy. An ally can become an enemy, or visa versa, in one situation but not another.
The only way to not get hurt is to demonstrate that you are willing to hurt first and most. Then, and only then, can there be real peace.
BS. In all of our discussions I've tried to keep the meaning of words like constitutional and unconstitutional as defined and used, not how Interwebz zealots want to rename them. Love of country & love of government aren't remotely the same.
Let me see if I understand you.
Here is an analogy of your first statements:
Robber breaks into your house. You shoot Robber. Robber lives and decides to take "vengeance" upon you for shooting him and he is entitled to it because you "dared" to strike back. In fact his retribution against you should be so brutal and horrific that no other should even dare to resist him in the future.
No one should care why you shot the Robber.
Your stance: Robber is in the right (you did say "real or perceived").
----
I remember working more than a few cases where someone called in an assault complaint. Get there and there is a guy claiming he was "assaulted" and wanted charges filed against another fellow. Investigation revealed that the guy who called in the complaint actually attacked the other guy first and was upset because the other guy hit him back.
An even funnier one. Two calls go out, one for a burglary and one for an assault. Turns out a guy broke into a house, not realizing someone was home, and they beat the hell out of him and he ran off. They were calling to report the burglary.
The assault complaint was from the guy who broke into the house wanting charges filed against them for beating him up after he broke in.
- your thought process seems very similar.
---
This is the common mantra of the bully or of those who have been bullied and see no other way to handle the situation. By the way, peace through fear is not "real" peace.
Now I will concede that the whole "ruling through fear" thing does work for a time, in fact many foreign countries still employ this method (as do we to a lesser degree).
I am glad that you know the distinction between love of country and love of government. It does not always appear that you do.
SemperFiUSMC
Master
- Jun 23, 2009
- 3,480
- 38
In your first scenerio you shot the robber for breaking into your house. You feel justified, the robber feels justified in seeking revenge. No one will disagree that the two parties will take the positions they have taken so far. But this is not what we are talking about.
We are not discussing right and wrong. We are discussing the assessment and assignment of blame by others. You left out the robber's mama, who goes on TV after the robber comes after you to defend that he was a good boy and you shoudn't have shot him cause he was trying to do right by his baby. Or your sister, who says it was your fault for shooting that nice young boy. You've also left out a criminal justice system that decide to try you for murder because you are 6'5" and the now-deceased robber was only 4'5" tall, screw the fact that he had a gun. These are the Blame the Homeowner First crowd.
You analogies fail.
Actually, no they don't, and they do not because in the end the Robber is the one in the wrong. Everything stems from the Robber's criminal or immoral act and as such the real "blame" falls upon him.
The only "justified" action was the action taken by the homeowner in defending himself and property.
The question would be is "America" the "Robber" or the "Homeowner" in our dealings with foreign nations. Did they initiate an attack against us or did we initiate by either trying to "influence" their government (either through assassination attempts or other shady means).
steveh_131
Grandmaster
The only person discussing the 'assignment of blame' here is you.
Everyone else is discussing actions and the consequences of those actions.
Exactly.
