Trusting Iranians...

[muttly]

At this point, it appears to be about whether The Barf can convince others that he will - with no reservations whatsoever apparently - engage in dishonesty ... simply because he can't admit that a source he quoted made a blatantly false statement ...

IOW: He's upping his "cred"

Of course, in Barf's Bizzaro World - like the other Bizzaro World - things mean the exact opposite of what they claim to be ...

I think you're a bit confused.

 

[RLENT]

I think you're a bit confused.

Not really surprising ... but then you've already demonstrated that either: 1. logical reasoning is outside the realm of your abilities, or 2. you're willing to engage in dishonesty ... in order to avoid having to admit that H/A published a false and misleading statement ...

 

[muttly]

So Iran didn't previously stonewall U.N inspectors? Yes or no?

 

[Pilgrim]

Is this thread about some Iranian deal or something?

It started out that way.

l was in AF basic training in April 1977 at Lackland AFB. During this time period, the US was training the Iranian AF at Lackland also. The day came where we were going to run the obstacle course. This same day there were several flights of Iranians scheduled to run the same course. At each obstacle, where there wasn't an Iranian Sgt observing the obstacle, all of the Iranians ran around the obstacle; laughing and giggling. Whereas, l never saw a single American skip an obstacle. So how do you trust them to do something important like following the rules of this stupid nuclear 'treaty", if they can't follow the rules of an obstacle course. BTW, those Iranians from the obstacle course are all in their mid to late 50's and presumably some of them are in positions of power today.

Why should we trust the Iranians? According to the Koran - which guides the mullahs who run their government - it's permissible for them to lie to those who would threaten life or property. Considering the adverse effects of the current sanctions imposed upon them, this would certainly qualify for them to invoke al-taqiyya when negotiating this "agreement" with Barack Hussein Obama.

In the Shi'a view, taqiyya is lawful in situations where there is overwhelming danger of loss of life or property and where no danger to religion would occur thereby.[1] Taqiyya has also been legitimised, particularly among Twelver Shia, in order to maintain Muslim unity and fraternity.[6][7]

Taqiya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Their history offers no reason for trust either, considering their sponsorship of jihadist terror organizations and the continual declarations of their goal to destroy Israel, whom they regard as a threat along with the Great Satan - America.

The Iranian Regime on Israel's Right to Exist

 

[RLENT]

It started out that way.

And then Barf had a tantrum/mental breakdown, because one of his divine oracles of truth that he quoted, got called out for lying ...

Why should we trust the Iranians?

We shouldn't ... that's why the P5+1 insisted on one of if not the most thorough verification regimes in the history of of the NPT and nuclear arms control.

It's even tougher than the Additional Protocol in some respects.

According to the Koran - which guides the mullahs who run their government - it's permissible for them to lie to those who would threaten life or property.

Are you making the case that we shouldn't threaten them ?

Considering the adverse effects of the current sanctions imposed upon them, this would certainly qualify for them to invoke al-taqiyya when negotiating this "agreement" with Barack Hussein Obama.

Well, being the astute, expert Islamic scholar that you are, I'm sure that you really have a full and complete understanding on that ...

But there is this little matter of cherry-picking, where you left out some perhaps relevant info from the Wiki article you quoted from:

For Shi'a Muslims, taqiyya is to conceal their association with their faith when revealing it would result in danger. Taqiyya is done for reasons of safety. For example, a person may fear that he might be killed or harmed if he does not observe taqiyya. In this case, taqiyya is allowed.

However, in some circumstances taqiyya may lead to the death of an innocent person; if so, it is not permissible; it is haraam (forbidden) to kill a human being to save one's own life.

Of course doing that (cherry-picking) is less than honest, and is logically fallacious, as was recently discussed in this very thread.

You and The Barf seem to have a similar affliction ...

Their history offers no reason for trust either, considering their sponsorship of jihadist terror organizations and the continual declarations of their goal to destroy Israel, whom they regard as a threat along with the Great Satan - America.

That, again, is more cherry-picking ...

They did offer some assistance and cooperation after 9/11 against A.Q and the Talibs:

In the days after the 9/11 attacks, Crocker and other senior U.S. State Department officials flew to Geneva to meet secretly with representatives of the government of Iran. For several months, Crocker and his Iranian counterparts cooperated on capturing Al Qaeda operatives in the region and fighting the Taliban government in Afghanistan. These meetings stopped after the "Axis of Evil" speech hardened Iranian attitudes toward cooperating with the U.S

But that alone is no reason to consider them trustworthy ... it was simply a basis and opportunity for further interactions that offered the possibility of additional trust building.

But of course George "Alfred E. Neuman" Bush promptly managed to screw that up in fairly short order with the "Axis of Evil" speech.

The Iranian Regime on Israel's Right to Exist

Corporal Goldberger ?

Zionist and former IDF'er who refused to lift a finger when he saw human rights abuses occurring right in front of him ? (Confessed to in his own book)

Hardly an objective source.

 

[RLENT]

Since you want to offer up Corporal Goldberger as an authority on Iran's intentions, I'll let the person who is possibly the most mis-quoted/mischaracterized person in the entire world speak for himself.

From Ayatollah Khamenei’s English Twitter feed:

Why should & how can #Israel be eliminated? Ayatollah Khamenei’s answer to 9 key questions. #HandsOffAlAqsa

9 key questions about the elimination of Israel

1. Why should the Zionist regime be eliminated?

Ayatollah Khamenei’s response: During it’s 66 years of life so far, the fake Zionist regime has tried to realize its goals by means of infanticide, homicide, violence and iron fist while boasts about it blatantly.

2. What does elimination of Israel mean in the viewpoint of Imam Khomeini?

Ayatollah Khamenei’s response: The only means of bringing Israeli crimes to an end is the elimination of this regime. And of course the elimination of Israel does not mean the massacre of the jewish people in this region. The Islamic Republic has proposed a practical & logical mechanism for this to international communities.

3. What is the proper way of eliminating Israel?

Ayatollah Khamenei’s response: All the original people of Palestine including Muslims, Christians and Jews wherever they are, whether inside Palestine, in refugee camps in other countries or just anywhere alse, take part in a public and organized referendum. Naturally the Jewish immigrants who have been persuaded into emigration to Palestine do not have the right to take part in this referendum.

4. What happened to the non-Palestinian emigrants?

Ayatollah Khamenei’s response: The ensuing government, which comes into power after a referendum among the original Palestinians, once settled will decide whether the non-Palestian emigrants who have immigrated to this country over the past years can continue living in Palestine or should return to their home countries.

5. How will the proposed referendum succeed?

Ayatollah Khamenei’s response: This is a fair and logical plan that can be properly understood by global public opinion and can enjoy the supports of the independent nations and governemnts. Certainly we do not expect the usurper Zionists to easily surrender to this proposal and this is where the role of governments, nations and organisation of resistance is shaped and defined.

6. Until a referendum is held, how should Israel be confronted?

Ayatollah Khamenei’s response: Up until the day when this homicidal and infanticidal regime is eliminated through a referendum, powerful confrontation and resolute and armed resistance is the cure of this ruinous regime. The only means of confronting a regime which commits crimes beyond one’s thought and imagination is a resolute and armed confrontation.

7. What is the most urgent action to take for militarily confront israel?

Ayatollah Khamenei’s response: The West Bank should be armed like Gaza and those who are interested in Palestine’s destiny should take action to arm the people of the West Bank so that the sorrows and grieves of the Palestinian people will reduce in the light of their powerful hands and the weakness of the Zionist enemy.

8. What solutions are not acceptable?

Ayatollah Khamenei’s response: We recommend neither a classical war by the army of Muslim countries nor to throw migrated jews at sea and certainly not an arbitration by UN or other international organizsations.

9. Why do we oppose compromise proposals?

Ayatollah Khamenei’s response: That the rockets of Gaza have led to the crimes of Israel is a wrong conclusion. In the west Bank, people’s only weapons is stones and there are not many types of weaponry. But this regime massacres and humiliates people there and destroys their houses and farms. The fact that Yasser Arafat was poisoned and killed by Israel while he had the most cooperation with the Zionists proves that in the viewpoint of Israel, “peace” is simply a trick for more crimes and occupation.

Source: @khamenei_ir 12:44 AM – 9 Nov 2014

 

[muttly]

And then Barf had a tantrum/mental breakdown, because one of his divine oracles of truth that he quoted, got called out for lying ...

No, in fact what happened was Ylentl got all bat crazy because I mentioned the 2012 stonewalling of inspectors by Iran at their site. The truth is painful for him.
And he still refuses to answer that simple question . Hey Lentl, did Iran previously stonewall back in 2012? Thanks for answering in advance.

 

[Turtle]

Hey Lentl, did Iran previously stonewall back in 2012?

The funny thing is, as stated, the answer to that question would be no, because in 2012 they had not previously stonewalled.

 

[muttly]

The funny thing is, as stated, the answer to that question would be no, because in 2012 they had not previously stonewalled.

Actually the answer would be yes.
2011 is previous to 2012.
But thanks for playing.
Article excerpt below.
[bold emphasis added]

.
Amano cited Parchin at the top of the IAEA’s wishlist of facilities to inspect. The massive complex has long been thought to harbor the regime’s key work with high explosives necessary to trigger a nuclear warhead. The IAEA sought entrance to Parchin as late as 2011 because of extensive satellite reconnaissance revealing large-scale landscaping, demolition and new construction throughout the site.

He described Parchin as “a jigsaw puzzle,” pointing to the IAEA’s failure to detect Iran’s original nuclear work in the 1980s which led to the agency’s continued requests for unfettered access in order to avoid a repeat of missing key elements again.

The IAEA also recently released a report February 19 complaining of the Iranian regime’s continued stonewalling of inspections

 

[Turtle]

Even that quoted article (Blog post) gets it wrong. The Feb 19 report did not complain of Iran stonewalling of inspections. The report complained of Iran not allowing unfettered access to areas of the facility that they had never agreed to allow access to in the first place, and the IAEA now wanted access to those areas. More accurately, the report complained of a lack of response to the new requests for inspection access. Iran allowed inspectors access the areas upon which they had already agreed, as if evidenced in the UN Security Council Report, Chronology of Events, Iran. The Blogger's use of "stonewalling" is inserting opinion into the recanting of the WaPo article.

In any case, one last time, the Hotair article's statement that Iran "had previously stonewalled absolutely everyone in terms of access to the site" remains a false statement, and it will always remain a false statement regardless of how determined you are to massage it, misinterpret it, twist it, spin it, loophole it, or create a new context for it.

(was added to the Smilies options specifically with you in mind)

 

[muttly]

Good grief...

 

[RLENT]

Barf,

You really seem to be intent to continue to be wrong and racking up the #FAIL ...

No, in fact what happened was Ylentl got all bat crazy because I mentioned the 2012 stonewalling of inspectors by Iran at their site.

Funny ... I don't remember you "mentioning" it ...

I do remember you linking an article from H/A which contained a false statement tho' ...

The truth is painful for him.

ROTFLMAO ...

For you - of all people - to make that allegation is truly rich ... particularly in light of all the false statements (at least 3) you just made in the very post I am now replying to ...

And he still refuses to answer that simple question.

And of course, that's not really true either ... is it ?

Fact is, not only did I offer to answer that question, I actually committed to do so.

But it wasn't an unconditional offer or commitment ... it required you to do something as well, first.

You know the really funny thing here is that in this regard I'm practicing the type of negotiating tactics that the US used with regard to Iran under The Shrub ... and that you and your brethren appear to be such fans of ...

Being on the receiving end of it though, you don't seem to care for it much.

Now, shall I repost that first question for you ?

 

[muttly]

Btw, my usage of 'previously back in 2012' is correct. Although Iran stonewalled in 2011,

Barf,

You really seem to be intent to continue to be wrong and racking up the #FAIL ...


Funny ... I don't remember you "mentioning" it ...

I do remember you linking an article from H/A which contained a false statement tho' ...


ROTFLMAO ...

For you - of all people - to make that allegation is truly rich ... particularly in light of all the false statements (at least 3) you just made in the very post I am now replying to ...


And of course, that's not really true either ... is it ?

Fact is, not only did I offer to answer that question, I actually committed to do so.

But it wasn't an unconditional offer or commitment ... it required you to do something as well, first.

You know the really funny thing here is that in this regard I'm practicing the type of negotiating tactics that the US used with regard to Iran under The Shrub ... and that you and your brethren appear to be such fans of ...

Being on the receiving end of it though, you don't seem to care for it much.

Now, shall I repost that first question for you ?

Nothing false in the statement Ylentl.
Still waiting for your answer. Honesty Isn't your strong suit though.

 

[paulnstef39]

Has Trump and Khamenei been secretly meeting?

 

[RLENT]

Nothing false in the statement Ylentl.

Sure there isn't Bob ...

Still waiting for your answer.

And I for yours ...

But of course, I've been waiting longer than you ... for answers to multiple questions ...

Honesty Isn't your strong suit though.

In this matter my honesty hasn't been tested ...

But you have it within your power to see whether it will be.

The only real question is whether you have enough brass to man up and make that happen.

 

[muttly]

[Bold emphasis added ]

.
The Iran deal is a bait-and-switch - The Boston Globe
Barack Obama has never made a secret of his determination to reach a deal with Iran regarding its nuclear program. Very early in his run for the White House, he announced that he was prepared to meet, without preconditions, with the rulers of Iran and other hostile regimes. “I think it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them,” he said during a 2007 debate with Hillary Clinton. As president,Obama’s outreach to Tehranbegan on Day 1. “We will extend a hand,” he promised in his inaugural address, “if you are willing to unclench your fist.” By 2011, he had dispatched then-Senator John Kerry to open a secret dialogue with Iran.

It has long been clear that Obama envisions a grand nuclear bargain with Iran as a cornerstone of his presidential legacy. “It’s my name on this,”he says. “I have a personal interest in locking this down.”

public skepticism runs deep. A Pew Research poll released Tuesday found just 21 percent support for the agreement. Gallup reports only one in three Americans approve Obama’s handling of US policy toward Iran. That’s not typical — the public usually backs presidents on arms-control agreements. But voters don’t like being conned any more than shoppers do.

How has the administration engaged in bait-and-switch on the Iran deal? Here are five ways.

a CNN interview in April, Obama’s deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, confirmed that “under this deal, you will have anywhere/anytime, 24/7 access as it relates to the nuclear facilities that Iran has.” When a leading Iranian general scoffed at the suggestion that foreigners would be permitted to investigate possible nuclear activity at Iranian military sites, the Obama administration pushed back. “We expect to have anywhere/anytime access,” Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz reiterated bluntly.

But in the final accord, “anywhere/anytime” is nowhere to be found. The administration claimed it had never existed. (Switch!) “We never sought in this negotiation the capacity for so-called anytime/anywhere,”Rhodes told CNN’s Erin Burnett. Secretary of State Kerry went even further. “There’s no such thing in arms control as anytime/anywhere,” he insisted. “This is a term that, honestly, I never heard.”

Sanctions snap back. The administration acknowledged that stiff economic sanctions had brought the Iranians to the negotiating table. It repeatedly assured skeptics that sanctions would automatically “snap back” into effect if Iran violated any terms of the nuclear accord. “The UN sanctions that initially brought Iran to the table can and will snap right back into place,” Kerry told reporters in Vienna. That echoed what his boss had been saying all along. “We can crank that dial back up,” Obama told an interviewer in 2013. “We don’t have to trust them.”

Yet now they sell the deal as a last chance to salvage some Iranian compliance from a sanctions regime that is crumbling anyway. (Switch!) Our allies “certainly are not going to agree to enforce existing sanctions for another 5, 10, 15 years,” Obama said in hisAmerican University speech last month. And in any case, “sanctions alone are not going to force Iran to completely dismantle all vestiges of its nuclear infrastructure.” Snap back? Merely bait.

Right to enrich. A deal with Iran absolutely would not invest the Islamic Republic with a right to enrich uranium, the administration firmly asserted. “No — there is no right to enrich,” Kerry declared. “In the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), it’s very, very clear that there is no right to enrich.” This was a key point, since Iran insisted not only that it did have a right to enrich uranium, but that the West must acknowledge that right, or there would be no deal.

Before long, however, Kerry had changed his tune. “The NPT is silent on the issue,” he conceded in testimony before a House committee. The final deal authorizes Iran to operate 6,000 centrifuges and to continue enriching uranium. “We understood that any final deal was going to involve some domestic enrichment capability,” a senior administration official told The Wall Street Journal in April. “We always anticipated that.” (Switch!)

Military option. Over and over and over, Obama proclaimed that he meant to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and that all options —including military attack — were “on the table.” But that assurance has gone down the memory hole. (Switch!) As he lobbied for the nuclear deal that was signed in Vienna, his message was reversed. A military option is not on the table and will not eliminate an Iranian nuclear threat, Obama told Israeli TV. “A military solution will not fix it. Even if the United States participates, it would temporarily slow down an Iranian nuclear program but it will not eliminate it.”

Deal or no deal. But perhaps the most egregious bait-and-switch of all involves the standard by which any accord with a deadly regime like Tehran’s should be assessed. From President Obama on down, administration officials used to affirm constantly that “no deal is better than a bad deal.”

They were right. And the deal they produced is indeed a bad deal. It does not dismantle Iran’s nuclear program, nor constrain its murderous ambitions, nor lessen its influence. It will not enhance the security of America and its allies, nor make the world more peaceful.

Yet the president and his allies have abandoned their old standard. Their case for this bad agreement comes down to: It could be worse. It may be flawed and far from what was promised, but any deal with Iran is better than no deal. Most Americans, and most members of Congress, don’t agree. And the bait-and-switch that was used to clinch this sale is going to leave a bad taste in a lot of mouths for a long time to come.

After seeing the lies that were told by our administration officials in this article, it's quite telling that some like Ylentl would be for this deal.

 

[muttly]

But will Ylentl man up and admit that our administration's officials lied to us, like was illustrated in the previous article, or be in denial? .

 

[Turtle]

After seeing the lies that were told by our administration officials in this article, it's quite telling that some like Ylentl would be for this deal.

Not even. I stopped reading after the second of the five ways the Obama administration has engaged in a bait and switch. I stopped because he's loaded, loaded, loaded with the same cherry picking and confirmation bias logical fallacies that you are so fond of. It's no surprise that you would agree so giddily with this article - cuz it tells you want you want to hear.

 

[RLENT]

Pope Francis Endorses Iran Nuclear Deal

 

[RLENT]

Barf,

Consider this as being a charity "bone" I'll throw to ya, so that you can avoid soiling yourself even further on the Soapbox stage:

I'm guessing that you really haven't stopped to fully consider the H-I-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y on your part of demanding an answer from me to your (later) questions ... when you yourself are unwilling to provide any answer to my (previous) questions to you ...

On your part you have indicated no willingness whatsoever to answer up ... while I, on the other hand, have not only indicated a a willingness, but have also given a commitment to actually doing so ...

You may wish to revisit that decision, in light of the (utterly hypocritical) position it places you in.

Or not ...

Either way, I'm good ... because it's pretty easy to see who occupies the moral high ground on the matter ...