Iran’s Proxies in Iraq Threaten U.S. With More Sophisticated Weapons

[tzu]

Could you clarify?

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@peek-a-boo

@Supreme_War_Pig

…but they are a viable country with stable leadership.

No doubt many on the left feel as you do.

I would be very interested in your counterpoint though.

They are a state sponsor of terrorism. Nothing else matters. That’s my counterpoint.

Well, what is your criteria for a viable country with stable leadership? They have an educated middle class and a valuable export. As far as leadership, they have been rock solid since the revolution over 40 years ago. What more do you require?

I am not disputing that they are sponsors of terrorism, I am disputing your characterization of them as “irrational”. They are engaged in asymmetrical warfare. That is not irrational. Trying to achieve their aims conventionally? That would be irrational.

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@tzu

It’s a fact that the CIA is funding Baluchi terrorists.

It’s also a fact that US policy in the region has been disproportionate, deadly, costly, destabilizing, counterproductive and in many cases, useful to terrorists. There’s a discussion to be had about whether this qualifies as state terror.

What I find odd, personally, is the need to valorize US conduct, especially since Korea. The US has engaged in military and proxy action that has caused tremendous suffering, and with little gain. This is and ought to be subject to domestic criticism, without the moral scolding that seeks to stifle reflection about foreign policy choices.

Wow. Well said.

[YOSUP]

You yourself justified giving terrorists money because we funded them in the past, if anyone needs to clarify it’s you. Because we invested in the Baluchi terrorists in the past it makes it ok we invest Iran’s state sponsored terror of Today? Two wrongs don’t make a right.

[tzu]

I think you are misreading what I wrote. No. I don’t just think that. I know it.

[YOSUP]

Two wrongs don’t make a right.

[tzu]

Could you please explain how this latest reply addresses your misreading?

[YOSUP]

You were using that examples that other administrations were funding terrorism to justify it’s ok if Bidens admin does it.

[tzu]

1. Biden was not mentioned.

2. I did not suggest that past funding of terrorism justifies present funding of terrorism.

3. I am not recommending that any terrorism be funded.

Now, if you would, show exactly the text wherein you believe you read that.

[YOSUP]

1. you were defending his administrations funding of Iran by bringing up Baluchi terrorists

2. you basically are saying to peek a boo why are you not upset about other people funding the Baluchis and so focused on Iran, moving yard sticks. You are trying to excuse this admin

3. that’s news to me as of this current post, considering you are justifying the funding of Iran by bringing up the Baluchis

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@YOSUP

You were using that examples that other administrations were funding terrorism to justify it’s ok if Bidens admin does it.

Funding of insurgents is part and parcel of American foreign policy: from the Middle East, to Central/South America, to Asia. That is a fact.

[YOSUP]

So because it’s a fact makes it right? Look left don’t look right doesn’t work here.

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@YOSUP

1. you were defending his administrations funding of Iran by bringing up Baluchi terrorists

2. you basically are saying to peek a boo why are you not upset about other people funding the Baluchis and so focused on Iran, moving yard sticks. You are trying to excuse this admin

3. that’s news to me as of this current post, considering you are justifying the funding of Iran by bringing up the Baluchis

Yowza. I know you are responding to Tzu, but I’d be interested in any information you have regarding the current administration’s funding to Iran.

[tzu]

Yosup:1) you were defending his administrations funding of Iran by bringing up Baluchi terrorists

Untrue. No claim has been made about ‘funding of Iran’.

Yosup:2) you basically are saying to peek a boo why are you not upset about other people funding the Baluchis and so focused on Iran, moving yard sticks. You are trying to excuse this admin

Untrue. Erroneous. Wholly invented. Terribly misread. And sadly, edgar allen, clumsily trabsparent.

Our discussion was about geopolitics, and the idea that Iran is a strategic regional power.

Yosup:3) that’s news to me as of this current post, considering you are justifying the funding of Iran by bringing up the Baluchis

This remains entirely your fabulist invention.

Please, refer back to the original text, the better to correct your misreading.

Thank you so much.

[YOSUP]

Did you not just listen to BIBI saying we are entering the deal again? That’s free money for Iran.

[YOSUP]

Let Peek a boo be the judge of the intentions of your post, because as another reader that’s how it came off to me.

[tzu]

Bad faith posting is what’s obvious.

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@YOSUP

So because it’s a fact makes it right? Look left don’t look right doesn’t work here.

Well, Tzu can speak for himself, but I suspect his point to Peek is “how can you call Iran funding proxies irrational if we are also funding proxies”.

Which is to say that it is war by other means.

[YOSUP]

The conversation morphed from Iran to the CIA funding Baluchi terrorists as if it’s ok this is all going on because it’s gone on in the past. You were justifying the Iran deal. Why even bring up the Baluchis?

[YOSUP]

Or you could sum It up as two wrongs don’t make a right, even though he is justifying it as such.