4 ms·

Saudi Arabia might export an extremist [...] but they don't advocate terror Some contradiction right there. Iran is probably the world's largest [...]

by mafribe 10y ago

Saudi Arabia might export an extremist [...] but they don't advocate terror Some contradiction right there. Iran is probably the world's largest [...] militarily expansionist. Iran has invaded which countries in the last 2000 years, and how does this compare with e.g. the Soviet Union, the US, the UK, the Mongols, the Incas? Iran is probably the world's largest terror exporter Reference needed. Which large scale terror attacks in the last few decades (e.g. 9/11 or the attacks in Paris/Nice) were supported by Iran?

berntb 10y ago
>> Some contradiction right there. So just because someone is politically/religiously extreme they are violent? >> Iran has invaded which countries in the last 2000 years 2 minutes with Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safavid_dynasty#Recovery_of_territory_from_the_Uzbeks_and_the_Ottomans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safavid_dynasty#Recovery_of_te... "The Ottoman Turks and Safavids fought over the fertile plains of Iraq for more than 150 years" (But I understand -- it was _really_ Iranian to start with. Iran's empires have been the only non-expansionist ones in human history. :-) ) >> Iranian terror. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terrorism#Specific_countries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terro... (Edit: Wikipedia for terror is simpler than referencing e.g. the South American stuff, because then you will quote the Iranian priests' declarations of innocence. IIRC, once the Iranian leadership even denied supplying Hamas with weapons at the same time Hamas went out and thanked them. Bad coordination. :-) )
- mafribe 10y ago
  2 minutes with Wikipedia: Wikipedia is not a credible source in such matters. Many of the claims are clearly dubious, e.g. "Bahraini security forces [...] arrested a number of suspects linked to Iran's Revolutionary Guards" Oh yes, Bahraini security forces, that fountain of truth, and model of just democracy.
  - berntb 10y ago
    >> Wikipedia is not a credible source in such matters. Many of the claims are clearly dubious So.... Are you claiming that the content of Wikipedia is a USA conspiracy or a Jewish one? Or both? (Edit: I really have seen people make those conspiracy claims, it is not totally a joke. They also didn't have any references, unlike wikipedia.)
    - mafribe 10y ago
      Neither the Bahraini security forces nor Wikipedia is a credible source. As a Wikipedia editor I've seen enough edit wars. It is also well documented that all sides in the middle eastern conflicts invest heavily in propaganda. Here is but one example: The U.S. military payed over $540 millions to the British public relation firm Bell Pottinger [2] to create 'al-Qaeda' videos [2]. $540M buys you a lot of willing propagandeers. Are you being paid, or are you working for free? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Pottinger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Pottinger [2] http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/01/pentagon-paid-for-fake-al-qaeda-videos.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/01/pentagon-pa...
      - berntb 10y ago
        So you argue against references in a Wikipedia article -- with a reference to Wikipedia(!). You link to something else in a neighboring country, that basically claim that propaganda is done in an active war? You can literally argue that the Earth is flat like that, using a reference to My Little Pony. Your position needs that all the news are a conspiracy -- e.g. that the Gulf countries are lying about being threatened by Iran and just wasting tens of billions of dollars in weapon buys for no reason. Extraordinary claims needs extraordinary support, you don't even have a coherent conspiracy theory -- just claims that anything that contradicts the Iranian priests could maybe be a plant. Enough.
        mafribe 10y ago
        You still have not explained why anyone should trust the Bahraini security forces. Some Wikipedia articles are more trustworthy than others. I certainly trust the Wikipedia articles I have written. The Bell Pottinger article was presumably launched by Bell Pottinger itself, so it's probably the most positive spin on Bell Pottinger. The Iranian article was probably launched by a PR agency paid to make Iran look bad. That's the reality of mass media: essentially all articles of consequence are paid for by somebody. Yes, that makes it difficult to see what the truth is. Such is life. One still needs to try. And now tell me why the Bahraini security forces are a trustworthy source of information.
grkvlt 10y ago
> Iran has invaded which countries in the last 2000 years Iraq?
- mafribe 10y ago
  When has that been the case? The Iran–Iraq War of the 1980s was started by Iraq.
  - grkvlt 10y ago
    Oops. Never mind, then.
berntb 10y ago
I saw this much later. This is a misquote of what I said: >> Iran is probably the world's largest [...] >> militarily expansionist. (But, as I noted, even the Iran priests talk about "emancipating" the Islam holy places from Saudi Arabia -- that even scared the Gulf States and SA to work with Israel.)

by mafribe 10y ago

berntb 10y ago

>> Some contradiction right there. So just because someone is politically/religiously extreme they are violent? >> Iran has invaded which countries in the last 2000 years 2 minutes with Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safavid_dynasty#Recovery_of_territory_from_the_Uzbeks_and_the_Ottomans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safavid_dynasty#Recovery_of_te... "The Ottoman Turks and Safavids fought over the fertile plains of Iraq for more than 150 years" (But I understand -- it was _really_ Iranian to start with. Iran's empires have been the only non-expansionist ones in human history. :-) ) >> Iranian terror. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terrorism#Specific_countries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terro... (Edit: Wikipedia for terror is simpler than referencing e.g. the South American stuff, because then you will quote the Iranian priests' declarations of innocence. IIRC, once the Iranian leadership even denied supplying Hamas with weapons at the same time Hamas went out and thanked them. Bad coordination. :-) )

mafribe 10y ago
2 minutes with Wikipedia: Wikipedia is not a credible source in such matters. Many of the claims are clearly dubious, e.g. "Bahraini security forces [...] arrested a number of suspects linked to Iran's Revolutionary Guards" Oh yes, Bahraini security forces, that fountain of truth, and model of just democracy.
- berntb 10y ago
  >> Wikipedia is not a credible source in such matters. Many of the claims are clearly dubious So.... Are you claiming that the content of Wikipedia is a USA conspiracy or a Jewish one? Or both? (Edit: I really have seen people make those conspiracy claims, it is not totally a joke. They also didn't have any references, unlike wikipedia.)
  - mafribe 10y ago
    Neither the Bahraini security forces nor Wikipedia is a credible source. As a Wikipedia editor I've seen enough edit wars. It is also well documented that all sides in the middle eastern conflicts invest heavily in propaganda. Here is but one example: The U.S. military payed over $540 millions to the British public relation firm Bell Pottinger [2] to create 'al-Qaeda' videos [2]. $540M buys you a lot of willing propagandeers. Are you being paid, or are you working for free? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Pottinger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Pottinger [2] http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/01/pentagon-paid-for-fake-al-qaeda-videos.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/01/pentagon-pa...
    - berntb 10y ago
      So you argue against references in a Wikipedia article -- with a reference to Wikipedia(!). You link to something else in a neighboring country, that basically claim that propaganda is done in an active war? You can literally argue that the Earth is flat like that, using a reference to My Little Pony. Your position needs that all the news are a conspiracy -- e.g. that the Gulf countries are lying about being threatened by Iran and just wasting tens of billions of dollars in weapon buys for no reason. Extraordinary claims needs extraordinary support, you don't even have a coherent conspiracy theory -- just claims that anything that contradicts the Iranian priests could maybe be a plant. Enough.
      - mafribe 10y ago
        You still have not explained why anyone should trust the Bahraini security forces. Some Wikipedia articles are more trustworthy than others. I certainly trust the Wikipedia articles I have written. The Bell Pottinger article was presumably launched by Bell Pottinger itself, so it's probably the most positive spin on Bell Pottinger. The Iranian article was probably launched by a PR agency paid to make Iran look bad. That's the reality of mass media: essentially all articles of consequence are paid for by somebody. Yes, that makes it difficult to see what the truth is. Such is life. One still needs to try. And now tell me why the Bahraini security forces are a trustworthy source of information.

grkvlt 10y ago

> Iran has invaded which countries in the last 2000 years Iraq?

mafribe 10y ago
When has that been the case? The Iran–Iraq War of the 1980s was started by Iraq.
- grkvlt 10y ago
  Oops. Never mind, then.

berntb 10y ago

I saw this much later. This is a misquote of what I said: >> Iran is probably the world's largest [...] >> militarily expansionist. (But, as I noted, even the Iran priests talk about "emancipating" the Islam holy places from Saudi Arabia -- that even scared the Gulf States and SA to work with Israel.)