Quote:
Originally Posted by Parihaka
The problem with your scepticism though is that you only seem to apply it to one side: the other apparently can do no wrong.
I on the other hand have no problem believing that the stated reasons for the Iraq war were 'sexed up' and yet am happy it happened anyway: I have no problem believing that Iran supplies sundry materials to insurgents of all types because it discomforts America, and it's leaders really aren't any more intelligent than the leaders of America who gave shoulder mounted missiles to the Mujahadeen.
|
Fair enough, but would you have similiar pattern of thinking, if America was forging evidence to
discomfort Iran? ... surely must a huge concidence that as the UN deadline appraoches, evidences seems to just pops out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parihaka
I have very little time for conspiracy theories and hidden master plans because most (and I exclude many on this board from this summation) of the people I know and see in public life just aren't that smart. Especially the ones in public life.
Now, what were you saying about Nazis?
|
forget about the Nazis ... as far as conspiracy theories are concerned ... they are a double-edge sword.
You might classify my belief as conspiracy theory, but I could equally classify your belief that Iran is arming the Sunnis as conspiracy theory from my point of view ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parihaka
How many times have we discussed thing post event that just don't seem logical, and how often have we been told that because it isn't logical it must therefore be some grand conspiracy to deceive.
|
exactly ... Iranian-sunni support for me, it is illogical, while for you, when you applying the enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-frieng it is logical.
What is a grand conspiracy to deceive? ... it is a theory which differs from the actual truth. If we unhinge the
actual truth, since none of us know it, that makes my theory and your theory, both conspiracy theories. But you are using White House offical statement as the reference point (Truth), and therefore counting anythingelse as conspiracy theory, therefore invalid, whereas I might count Tehran offical statement as the reference point (Truth), therefore counting anythingelse as conspiracy theory.
are you with me ...
A former State Department senior analyst on Iraq and Iran who left government service in 2005, Wayne White, said he did not think it was likely the Quds Force was supporting Sunni terrorists who were targeting Shiite political leaders and civilians, but stressed he did not know.
"I have no doubt whatsoever that al-Quds forces are on the ground and active in Iraq," he said. "That's about it. I saw evidence that Moqtada al Sadr was in contact with Sunni Arab insurgents in western Iraq, but I never saw evidence of Iran in that loop."
Mr. White added, "One problem that we all have is that people consistently conduct analysis assuming that the actor is going to act predictably or rationally based on their overall mindset or ideology. Sometimes people don't.
"One example of a mindset that may hinder analysis of Iranian involvement is the belief that Iran would never have any dealings with militant Sunni Arabs. But they allowed hundreds of Al Qaeda operatives to escape from Afghanistan across their territory in 2002," he said.
It takes just a sentences from White House press release for people to suddenly blame Iran. and there is no way of checking if there is any truth behind the underlines statement, except Washington's good intention. Iran has dealing with Sunni Arabs, as seen in Hamas. Loud and clear. But there is difference to have dealing with Sunni that are at your doorsteps and those that are used for propoganda value. Iran's support for Hamas is much like Napoleon's support for the Duchy of Warsaw and the Poles. He supported them, because they were somebody else problem (Russia/Prussia). Had the Polish realm close to France, there would not be a Duchy of Warsaw.