Please define "imminent threat"

Originally posted by neformoreAny nation can pose a danger to another one. Even us lil old Brits could pose a really rather severe danger to the US if circumstances required it.

What's with the self deprecation and posturing? Of course the UK could pose a threat to the US but doesn't because of the long standing "special relationship". I'm really having diifficulty grasping your point. In fact you have answered your own question indirectly.

I suspect the real question you're trying to get answered in this thread is
"What evil deeds perpetrated by the US have caused Iran to take it's current agressive stance" I say this since it's so obvious that Iran does pose a threat to the US, that the question becomes almost rhetorical.

Now, the next question is - why - exactly - does Iran pose a danger to the US?

And if you want to harp on about state sponsored terrorism, please present a logical argument why they would wish to do that

It's clear now that you're fishing for someone to illustrate your view that Iran is percieved as hostile to the US, by bringing up the US's policies of "isolation", the backing of the former Shaa', support of Israel, exploitaion of the oil riches of Arabia and Persia, etc.

Please present arguments logically and clearly. The phrase "they hate our freedoms" is forbidden, because it means nothing at all except in propaganda terms.

True, it's not the "freedoms" per se, but rather our secularized modern "everything is permissable" western culture. I don't think this argument applies to Iran, but does with many groups in the Muslim world. I'll add that I stand with many Muslims in my distaste for many aspects of our western culture, I however, do not call for jihad or issue fatwahs.

If it will satisfy you I'll say it....

Iran is hostile to the US (AND the UK, AND Canada, AND France, Germany) because of our States Middle East Policies, primarily support of Israels right to exist, our economic and military aid to Israel, our lack of respect for thier cultural values, and our exploitation of their only real resource, oil. And you can only call it exploitation if you think buying crude oil at $70 a bbl is exploitation.

So there you have it. As you knew from the begining, Iran is a threat to US interests (not it's soveriegnty). And as you've been tying to get some one to say.....it's our own fault due to our greed and stupididty for electing Adolf Hitler reincarnate.


[edit on 6/29/2007 by darkbluesky]

[edit on 6/29/2007 by darkbluesky]

Originally posted by darkbluesky
What's with the self deprecation and posturing? Of course the UK could pose a threat to the US but doesn't because of the long standing "special relationship". I'm really having diifficulty grasping your point. In fact you have answered your own question indirectly.

My point is that I'm trying to analyze the use of the terminology as it is commonly banded about in the terms of Iran by a large majority of users on ATS (and in mainstream media and everyday life) and get to the roots of it, as I believe most people these days tend to look at the words without actually looking at the deeper meanings of them.

And it wasn't self depreciation or posturing, it was an example with a small element of sarcasm

I suspect the real question you're trying to get answered in this thread is
"What evil deeds perpetrated by the US have caused Iran to take it's current agressive stance" I say this since it's so obvious that Iran does pose a threat to the US, that the question becomes almost rhetorical.

If I'd wanted that question answering I would have asked it. I don;t tend to beat about the Bush (excuse the pun)

It's clear now that you're fishing for someone to illustrate your view that Iran is percieved as hostile to the US, by bringing up the US's policies of "isolation", the backing of the former Shaa', support of Israel, exploitaion of the oil riches of Arabia and Persia, etc.

Well I wasn't fishing as such. The fact that Iran is precieved as hostile by the US is a given one , as it prompted my starting the thread.

True, it's not the "freedoms" per se, but rather our secularized modern "everything is permissable" western culture. I don't think this argument applies to Iran, but does with many groups in the Muslim world. I'll add that I stand with many Muslims in my distaste for many aspects of our western culture, I however, do not call for jihad or issue fatwahs.

The problem I have with the "they hate our freedoms" is that its use is a purposeful and direct attempt to dehumanise an element of society.

As for the fatwah issue - I understand where you are coming from but - and its a big but - there needs to be a wider historical context taken in the viewpoint surely? None of the "established" religions are lily-white when it comes to using violence and decrees to foster their belief systems.

I guess my problems are to do with "soundbyte" culture and possibly a gross over simplification of issues. The "War on Terror" is very much an MTV generation war with lots of buzz-words and catchphrases and I'm looking at it and trying to dissect it all, maybe even get some thinking going on a deeper level and - who knows - explain a few reasons why people overseas see things differently to the US. Language is a complex thing, and to English people, and people learning traditional English elsewhere in the world some of the adopted meanings in all this are completely different - so much is evident from the start of this thread because I define "imminent threat" as something completely different to some of the posters.

If it will satisfy you I'll say it....

It doesn't satisfy me because I'm not looking for any great satisfaction out of all of this. I'm reasonably versed in the history of the whole region to understand alot of the problems and I'm also more than aware that, despite you typing this;

And as you've been tying to get some one to say.....it's our own fault due to our greed and stupididty for electing Adolf Hitler reincarnate.

I've actually not been trying to get anyone to say it, because the problems go back an awful lot further than the Bush Administration (although it has, I beleive poured more oil on the fire than anyone else has, pardon the pun again) and are much more deeper and complex than oil revenues.

I'm something of a linguist. One of my fascinations is the use of propaganda. Language is as much of a weapon and a tool as anything else, especially in the media age, which is why I'm interested in how people define it. I did diversify from my original topic a bit I admit, but thanks for the response. More food for thought

Originally posted by deltaboy
Sounds like you are underestimating what poor 3rd world countries are capable of. Especially when you consider terrorists as a bunch of stupid idiotic, can't speak English, live in caves, gun totting AKs can hurt the U.S. by inflicting harm by psychological and physical. So imagine some country like Iran are capable of as they gain access to nuclear technology to achieve what they could not do using proxy groups like Hezbollah and other groups.

I'd missed this one Delta, but I'm interested in some of the terms used.

"Stupid"
"Idiotic"
"Can't speak English"
"Live in Caves"

These are sterotypes and dangerous ones really, when you think about it. Defining someone as "stupid" and "idiotic", whilst having a comfort element for the user really is misleading, and in alot of respects is very dangerous.

For example, if I'm fighting an enemy that is "stuipd" and "idiotic" I could probably really expect an easy victory because I am smart and reasoned and therefore they are not my intellectual equal and will make more mistakes and be less careful about how they carry out their business.

On a woder context then, describing terrorists as "stupid" and "idiotic", particularly in the widespread political and media vein might lead a population to beleive that fighting against such people will be quick and easy, and clearly its not. Surely "ruthless" and "cunning" are better terms?

"Can't Speak English" applies to a large portion of the worlds population and I have no idea why you even used it. Is speaking English a pre-requisite for intelligence?

"Live in caves" is dehumanisation by western standards and implies a backwards culture. If anything its more of an example of the toughness of the people that are being fought - take your average western person and stick them in a cave in a semi-desert landscape and see how long they survive.

As for the point about Iran and Hezbollah, I see where you are coming from but then I would point you in the direction of the US and the CIA, which does/did essentially the same thing - although thats probably best kept for another topic