"Iran funds, trains, and equips terrorists."

US does too. They call them Green Berets, Special Forces, CIA, and some such. They are used around the world to destabilize and overthrow governments ;)

"The US has had continuously bad relations with the nations in that area since our first encounter, when they attacked US ships and enslaved US soldiers starting in 1784. We'd only been a nation for 8 years at the time we were first attacked by Muslims."

Well, the United Kingdom did much worse, and sooner, right after you became a nation. Yet, you managed to be friends, allies and now, puppeteers of them? :)

'"Iran funds, trains, and equips terrorists."

US does too. They call them Green Berets, Special Forces, CIA, and some such.'

Unbelievable. That's a huge insult to the men and women who honorably serve their country. I can't even imagine what it must be like to live in the kind of worldview you do.

"Well, the United Kingdom did much worse, and sooner, right after you became a nation. Yet, you managed to be friends, allies and now, puppeteers of them? :)"

America and the US weren't dependable allies till just before World War II. There were numerous times in the 19th century where the US and America nearly went to war. Your argument is anachronistic to compare US-British relations in, say, 1812, to those of the present day.

The insult is not directed at servicemen, it is to their commander-in-chief. Wehrmacht was also a fine army, if only they weren't directed by a lunatic corporal, they would never be ill-remembered in history. Who participated in the downfall of Salvador Allende? Or Manuel Ortega? Or Saddam Hussein. All of them were legally heads of their states... The list is long...

I wasn't the one who started using 1700-ies as an argument about bad relations in the present.

"I can't even imagine what it must be like to live in the kind of worldview you do."

Yes, that about sums up the whole of the problem :) Most of the people around the world can at least understand American motives, but not the other way around. Happened to Romans, too, when they thought they ruled the world.

I wasn't either. And if you think comparing my President (whomever he may be, Reagan, Bush, Obama, even Hayes) to Hitler would make any self-respecting American come to your side you've got the wrong idea, bud.

It's not an exclusive American outlook! It's looking at everything so pessimistically and assuming everything is for the worst.

@Mach.. i never said what iran is doing was right did i, or that i agree with it, im just saying america/uk shouldnt critise them as they have done it themselves and are still doing it.

You can call it what you want its not jihab and as such if islam is right those terriorists aren't going to heaven. If people actually understoond what a jihab was and the rules governing it then i bet a lot of these fundamentalists would think again, if the right,repesected person informed them

Obviously overthrowing other countries' governments is a reprehensible thing, but I would hardly call the CIA terrorists for engaging in it. Or do you think the goal of the CIA is to invoke terror in others? That's like calling Stalin a fascist.

i didnt call the CIA terrorists

Denzel73 basically did, a couple posts back.

I'm just pointing out gaps in logic that no one else seemed to address.

fair enough, seen any other ones

I haven't really seen any others that jump out at me that haven't already been addressed. If I do see any others, I'll likely point them out though.

Marchosias,
I may actually be incorrect about my Bush Sr. quote assertion. Given my innocent impressionable age and politics at the time (18 and socialist) and the passage of 28 years, I realize upon reflection that it is possible that my memory was of commentators characterizing Bush's policy statements as supportive of first-strike capability and stance... He may not have said it himself. Memory is a funny thing. I associate Bush and first-strike and eventually the origin of the connection becomes fuzzy. I still think that his policies (and every president since him) have been dangerous in their embrace of first-strike capable weapons... but he may not have said what I thought he did. One thought that lead me to question my memory is that I realize that he probably wouldn't propose it out in the open - no one in the modern age would... if he was thinking it, I'm sure it was spun as defensive only... (e.g. Department of War becomes Department of Defense in 1947...)

Denzel: "US does too. They call them Green Berets, Special Forces, CIA, and some such. They are used around the world to destabilize and overthrow governments ;) "

The CIA I'll accept, they're a bunch of wackjobs without serious oversight, but give me an example, post-Iraq, not including Afgahnistan, of US special forces "destabilize(ing) and overthrow(ing) governments"?

"Well, the United Kingdom did much worse, and sooner, right after you became a nation. Yet, you managed to be friends, allies and now, puppeteers of them? :) "

Because diplomacy worked with the UK, didn't it? Still hasn't worked with the terrorists.

Trim: You've never come right out and said that Iran is doing right, but you sure as hell have defended them at every opportunity.

I don't call it Jihad. The "Jihadists" do. Thats what the terrorists call it. To them, thats what it is. To the rest of the world, a state of "jihad" exists between the terrorists and the "crusaders".

"if the right,repesected person informed them"

Thats the problem, Trim. The "right, respected" people ARE the ones advocating the jihad.

Dexter: Appreciated. Makes me happy that someone else is willing to step off an unsupported argument :)

It seems that every one is forgeting that the Jihadist are not just attacking western targets. Hindu, Budist, Communist, Siek, Animist, atheist. You name it they will or have attacked it.