Faramarz's Latest Rambling

Quixote's "Discussion" with himself

is just mesmerizing:)

You just keep ignoring the facts you don't like, choose (or invent) the facts that you do like, reconfirming for yourself over and over again what lies and slander and insults and mangling of logic you have spewed out. Congratulations on having a discussion with yourself!

Let's see... If I point out your slanders of me, with crystal clear proof, you just continue to slander me and say I proved you were right.

If I explain to you that proof by contradiction is not equation, you continue to stick by your lie, and say that I equated two things that are not equal. Then you add to your slander and lies by saying that I went back on what I said.

If Faramarz makes a comparison that everybody here except you agrees with, and anybody tries to conclude that an important reason for the disparity between Iran and South Korea is the government in Iran, you a)say it is an invalid comparison to begin with and b)a person making such a conclusion is only interested in assigning blame, and c)if someone challenges you on this double standard, you call them a clown, idiot, absolute fool, uneducated. In the meantime, you go on to blame without end the role of the US in those countries without any context. Congratulations on crowning yourself the owner of special priveleges Senor Quixote!

And of course, you have the gall to call all this uncivilized neanderthal behavior of yours "scientific", and in a spectacular display of cluelessness, suggest Einstein would have been justified to treat his critics rudely. It is indeed "your scientific method" and no one else's, as you clearly don't understand:

"The first fallacy here is the attribution of possession to the
scientific method. It is not "mine", my dear, nor is it yours."

No "dear", the mockery of the scientific method that you have displayed here is EXCLUSIVELY YOURS.

"It
belongs to the rational universe. "

The actual scientific method does belong to the rational universe, but clearly, YOU don't.

You see Don Quixote, you can lie and attack people and slander people and try to use force and insults in your feeble attempt to get your point across. But it won't help you.

The more you lie, the more you bring yourself down. The more you slander, the less it sticks. The more you call people uneducated, the less educated you prove yourself to be. And yes, the more you brag about yourself, the more unaccomplished you appear. Those who are accomplished in life and know other accomplished people understand this very well, and for some reason which I won't bring up here, you don't seem to. I am actually very sad for you.  You are a disgrace to all Iranians.

The degree of arrogance and pompousness you have shown here is just unbounded. You have so much gall to claim to "educate" people, when you don't know even the first thing about education. Fact is, you are a complete pompous ass who knows nothing, and really have nothing to teach anybody here, and immense amounts of learning to do. You have no desire to discuss with anybody but yourself, as evidenced by your complete disregard for those offering any opinion other than yours. So when you utter the following:

"Can't you listen to good advice?
"

The answer is of course, good advice is always welcome. It is just that you have none to give.

So if you think I am going to waste more time and keep answering each of your individual, repeated lies and self contradictions and insults and total mischaracterizations of what I or others say here, you are wrong. These showcase examples of bullshit can stay here for others to see and laugh. So far, I have been very kind to you to answer you at all, but you have clearly not been worth it. I can see, you are not a sincere person at all.

Of course, you don't need to take my word for it. Look at the reaction you have received from everybody else here. As the wise person you quoted said:

"Why not let the readers decide for themselves?"

Which I second wholeheartedly. If the readers disagree with me, I will respect that and not ridicule them and call them clowns and idiots without provocation. Only a very low, pathetic, insecure person would do that.

Perhaps the one realization you have finally come to which is correct is the following:

"You and I are not
comparable."

Which I am glad to agree with. You see, you are far (and I mean very very far) from being FAIR.

-FAIR

To summerize: Mr. (un)Fair,

To summerize: Mr. (un)Fair, is a complete liar...

This is like Ahmadinejad claiming that Mousavi is a complete liar (which he actually did.)

At times you are funny Q, but when you try too hard, you become outright pathetic to the point that one feels pity for you.

(un)Fair, trying to show off your high school diploma again?

Why don't you get the message? Nobody is interested in your having read one book and desperately trying to display your knowledge of it!

To summerize: Mr. (un)Fair, is a complete liar, I have caught him with major lies and now he's so upset with blind rage that he is repeating himself. Absolute juvenile and worthless "thought processes" that I painstakingly debunked days ago, are being repeated. This beggs the question? Is Fair interested in discourse? Of course a minimal mental level is necessary which has not been demonstrated.

What's wrong Quixote? It must be uncomfortable when you are the only one singing your own praises. So when that is not enough, of course the next thing to do is to attack those who don't sing your praises.

See my previous response about the necessity of "popularity" in truth and logic. But, so what? I am forced to laugh at your face! So you have one other asshole who is a vicious character assassin? So what? Shah-kar kardi?

You change my name, then I should be able to change yours.
Because you are a coward, you do not have a name. You use "Fair" as an ironic stand in to cover up your own insecurities. You and I are not comparable. Don't forget this!

Or once again, are you the only one who has the right to ridicule others?
No, I'm not the only one, or course. But I am the only competent one.

This is what I mean by IRI logic-
You mean slander and character assassination. Add to this severe hypocrisy and tasteless "humor" as skillfully demonstrated in the previous post. The rest of your sentence is not important.

See who started ridiculing others first,
Yes, it was Faramarz Fateh, which anyone could see. Unless of course you are blinded by anti-IRI rage (which you surely are). Now you see how out of touch with reality you are? Thank You once again, for proving my point about you being unscientific. As I explained in language even you should understand, science needs to be objective.

Rest my case, case closed, you're guilty period.

LOL! You call me arrogant? You really have much to learn.

I did not single you out personally and call you anything. My response was directed at Faramarz' words. You tried to make it personal thinking it would get you anywhere (you failed at this) and now you're sorry. I can't help you with this, it is something you must learn on your own.

You further fail to provide any evidence for your personal slanders such as claiming I am for forced regime change in Iran.

Like you fail to provide all the slander against me? Why don't you stop being a little child for one second and realize what you sound like!

I have provided ample evidence for your having IRI logic.

I said stop sounding like a child! Can't you listen to good advice?

only several lines above, you give the best proof:

In what planet was that proof? Desperate, defeated, de-activated and thoroughly blind with rage, you have now entered the twilight zone of crazy talk. If you had just listened to my instructions regarding the scientific approach, you would not have to endure this sad state of being!

So as anyone can see, your scientific method is a selective one-
The first fallacy here is the attribution of possession to the scientific method. It is not "mine", my dear, nor is it yours. It belongs to the rational universe. You should understand that this is something universal and not an object to be posessed! This is really elementary, I'm sorry you have to be told this at your age!

Secondly, given its universality, it cannot be selective, now can it? Again... please study up before you speak. It really helps put your own thoughts in order.

Whereas this very fact is at the crux of the comparison- if it is such an important factor in the differences between the states of the two countries then it should be considered,

First, I'm glad you finally give up on this silly point about the differences between two countries. Obviously you understand now so I will drop that issue. Second, you say it should be considered. Yes, it should be to contrast, the conditions of the two countries. For this you must first accept that the two are different in substantive ways and then proceed to contrast them. To compare apples-to-apples the two conditions must be both "apples!"

Being very unfamiliar with logic and sound scientific approach, it is understandable how you don't know about such elementary issues.

you neglect everything you want-
NO! you're wrong!

I am interested in discussing blame, yet you are blaming the US and anything but the IRI all throughout this "discussion".

Wrong! Really, I'm suprised at your lack of reading comprehension! quite surprised! I'm did not blame the US when I said that US involvement made the two situations different. Only when you insisted on the issue of blame, I thought I show you how wrong you are even in the blame game for not considering an important cause which I proved to you with expert quotes. I hope it is clear now, but sadly from your previous experience, I do not hold out such bold hope!

I said rather than what you invented in your head, you would notice that I said "wanting to see who is at fault", not "at fault for the war".

Nah! Sorry, you're wrong. The "wanting to see" is a cheap excuse that does not even enter the discussion over your exact words that I qouted. Unfortunately you have now provend that you do like to run away from your own words. I had secretly hoped this was just an anomoly. Unfortunately for both of us, it's not!

said "if X did not prevent Y, X is responsible for not preventing Y". That simple- any reinvention and twisting by you and filling in blanks by you to suit your needs is just that- and quite invalid.

Your long process of self-justification is nothing short of cute! I don't need to twist anything. I simply said you are interested in assigning blame and you proved me right yet again!. Seriously, are you familiar with the concept of self-contradiction?

it does not stick. I never equated IRI and Nazi Germany.

Yes, you did. You equated IRI with Nazi Germany I explained it before and I can repeat it later, if it's still confusing to you:

About your flawed Analogy

me:
The revolution is a fact. It was supported by the vast majority of the people.

you:

So many Germans supported Hitler. So Naziism was a "fact" too. Why blame WWII on Germany?

What you have here is a logical disconnect. But perhaps I was not detailed enough for your inexperienced mind before.

Yes, we all agree on both "facts". That is the Revolution and Hitler's Germany. But "Why blame WWII on Germany" is where you lose it completely. As I did answer, but I suspect in your blind rage, you forgot to recount that below, The FACT of Hiter's Germany does not excuse WWII. WWII IS Germany's fault for starting it. It's that simple.

Iran or "the revolution" did not start the Iran/Iraq war, therefore, you analogy fails flatly. I don't know how much simpler I can make this for you, but perhaps you could read a few more times.

Not that any reader would be illuminated or interested, because this has become such a very frequent and common event so far, and there is little new for readers to learn from this.

Oh. I surely agree with you as far as your facts or evidence goes, there is really nothing to learn. However, the enlightening process of education in the face of relentless blind rage and illogic, is very valuable to the young people. And this is really what its all about.

Suffice it to say, the subject of my "achievement" is an area you really don't want to go into if you don't want to make yourself look even more ridiculous.

In my considerable esperince, this is what we in the business of truth call "bullshit", variant of a pufferfish strategy for lifelong under-achievers to simply "appear" learned while concealing the cowardice of themselves. Quite illuminating indeed.

I don't feel the insatiable desire to brag about how great I am in public.

LOL! For well-known reasons!

enormous amount of verbal diarrhea you have subjected the poor readers of this thread to

Well, as a wise-appearing man once said: "Why not let the readers decide for themselves?" That man turned out to be a liar and an insecure coward who did not have the ability to walk away from something he claims is "obvious" to the readers. Live an learn, know what I'm saying?

Poor Quixote is quite upset

What's wrong Quixote? It must be uncomfortable when you are the only one singing your own praises. So when that is not enough, of course the next thing to do is to attack those who don't sing your praises.

As far as use of Quixote, it is very simple. You change my name, then I should be able to change yours. Or once again, are you the only one who has the right to ridicule others? This is what I mean by IRI logic- one person is bestowed with special priveleges. In this case you have bestowed them on yourself!

Now your whining about my "hypocrisy" is easily answered by a simple search through the posts of this now defunct thread. See who started ridiculing others first, and who used the word idiot and clown first. Rest my case, case closed, you're guilty period.

You complain other people insult you, yet you ignore your own insults which were the first to occur in this thread.

You claim scientific method and call any argument used against you as unscientific, yet you pick and choose which factors need to be considered in isolation and which need to be considered in context as you please. And of course when called on it you attack the person who calls it.

You further fail to provide any evidence for your personal slanders such as claiming I am for forced regime change in Iran. Are you having trouble finding it? Hint: IT DOESN'T EXIST. YOU LIED AND SLANDERED AGAIN.

Your pathetic attempt at saying this is justified for you to say because I claimed you have "IRI logic" is just another amazing display of your "scientifc" approach. I have provided ample evidence for your having IRI logic. Typical of you- when unable to respond, deflect and change the subject. How "scientifc" indeed!

There are so many examples of your mockery of scientific method, it is not even funny. For example when I claim one of your expertises is "Being a complete ass who brags about himself to no end", you claim:

Once again, you are mistaken. You obviously have no scientific proof of my constitution.

only several lines above, you give the best proof:

"You know, it really is lonely. I do consider from time to time climbing
down and spending a few hours among the monkeys and pigs below, but I
prefer the site of quiet contemplation and scientific nirvana."

Thank You for repeating this. I love it!

You are so full of yourself and you admit it.

So as anyone can see, your scientific method is a selective one- you look at causes when they suit your needs, and ignore causes when they don't. You make claims for which you have no proof, and you make counterclaims for claims which have plenty of proof. And it goes on and on and on.

Your mockery of science and reasoning just keeps going on, with statements like these:

"One of the many differences between Iran and Korea is the fact
of the revolution, which is why I said "the revolution is a fact." Iran
has it, South Korea didn't. Same with War and Sanctions. These are
differences that make the comparison invalid. "

Which just illustrate your selectiveness again. This is a fact, it happenned, and so comparison is invalid. Let's not compare. Whereas this very fact is at the crux of the comparison- if it is such an important factor in the differences between the states of the two countries then it should be considered, not just used to defend the invalidity of this comparison! Only in your bizarro scientific world would such "reasoning" stand.

Or the following self contradiction:

"I do not "neglect" anything. I state facts of what the US relationship
was like and why that destroys meaningful "comparisons". You are (as I
said from the beginning) interested in a different discussion, one about blame. "

First of all, you neglect everything you want- hostage taking, IRI statements against regional governments, threats of export of revolution, and on and on and on. Second of all, you claim I am interested in discussing blame, yet you are blaming the US and anything but the IRI all throughout this "discussion". So once again, selectiveness. You can blame as much as you want, but others can't. How very scientific!

As your slander and twisting continues:

"Running away from your own words is unbecoming, of course. Here's what you wrote:"

2- ..cause of the hostage crisis which was itself the 1953 coup.
Yet when I ask IRI had no power to prevent any of it?
your "scientific approach" suddenly prohibits you from wanting to see who is at fault and just look at "facts" regardless of cause

My dear cavalier, as it is clearly demonstrated, you do say if X did not prevent Y, X is at fault for Y.

Being that X is IRI, you are repeating your life-pattern that blames
IRI for the Iraq war.

If you actually paid attention to what I said rather than what you invented in your head, you would notice that I said "wanting to see who is at fault", not "at fault for the war". There could be (and in my opinion are) more than one party at fault for this or any war. (Or in your universe can only one party be 100% at fault for anything?) What I was referring to was a government being responsible to protect the interests of its people where it can, so "who is at fault" refers to "who is at fault for NOT PREVENTING the war when they could have". i.e. it could have been avoided. So I did not say "if X did not prevent Y, X is at fault for Y". I said "if X did not prevent Y, X is responsible for not preventing Y". That simple- any reinvention and twisting by you and filling in blanks by you to suit your needs is just that- and quite invalid.

"Because you believe IRI is at fault, just like Germany is at fault."

No matter how much you try to manuacture a lie, it does not stick. I never equated IRI and Nazi Germany. And you need to specify at fault for WHAT. Once again, as I clearly stated before, your argument of something being a "fact" is so broad, it could be easily applied to completely different cases, and if it were a valid argument, it could be used to prove false things. Which proves your arguments invalidity (proof by contradiction- NOT equating). Your intellectual flatulence just never ends!

Another miserable attempt of yours to pretend being scientific:

"As I'm sure you are aware of, an 'event' is not a physical object and
light-years is a measure of distance. Since an event does not have a
location, it would be difficult to come within any distance of it, now
wouldn't it? However, if by some miracle an event such as this manifested itself
anywhere on Earth, I would by default be closer than one light-year
from it."

In case you didn't know, an "event" is something that occurs in time and space, and indeed DOES have a location. So to not come within a certain distance of an event is to not be near its location at the time of the event. However, I do agree with you that such an event (you being equated to Einstein) would be highly improbable, and if by some infinitesmally small probability it occurred, it couldn't be on Earth, which explains why I used distances on the scale of light years.

"I am truly sorry to digress and correct you so often, but I feel it is illuminating to the readers. "

Well, Don Quixote, YOU stand corrected with a big egg on your face. Not that any reader would be illuminated or interested, because this has become such a very frequent and common event so far, and there is little new for readers to learn from this.

And let me tell you something about "underachievement". First of all, it is none of your business who has achieved what in life, and attacking me or anybody on this front is just a sign of further desperation on your part. Suffice it to say, the subject of my "achievement" is an area you really don't want to go into if you don't want to make yourself look even more ridiculous. You see, unlike you, I don't feel the insatiable desire to brag about how great I am in public. And if you look at the most accomplished people in any field, they don't either.

Lastly, friend, you must realize there really are idiots in this world. Now, I wuld understand your standpoint in trying to negate this but it is a fact!

Yes, there truly are, and given the enormous amount of verbal diarrhea you have subjected the poor readers of this thread to, I agree with you on this today more than ever. I just didn't realize the attainable depths of idiocy were this deep. Truly amazing.

-FAIR

(un)Fair is an (un)F-ing (un)der achiever

thus he has to feel insecure about other people's achievements. Brother, whatever cliffs notes you may have read is insignificant compared to the read tragedy which is your life.

Yes, I read Cervantes.

Do you expect me to give you a "star" so you can show your guardians? Are you crying out for help throwing around "Quixote" and "Quixotic" 300 times? Is that supposed to be good writing? What are you trying to prove to yourself? That you are educated?

Failure again, I'm sad to say.

"You know, it really is lonely. I do consider from time to time climbing
down and spending a few hours among the monkeys and pigs below, but I
prefer the site of quiet contemplation and scientific nirvana."

Thank You for repeating this. I love it!

You have demonstrated a willingness to educate those who seek your help.

This is true. The Monkeys and the Pigs do seek enlightenment once in a while. However, very few of them admit it. I do congratulate you for passing that evolutionary barrier. Next perhaps you can climb a tree and in due time learn to ascend to the heavens!

Being a complete ass who brags about himself to no end

Once again, you are mistaken. You obviously have no scientific proof of my constitution. The only references to animals that have been uttered so far are of the Monkeys and Pigs who seek enlightenment.

Character assassination and slander of others by twisting facts and propagating lies about what a person said

LOL!

slander and character assassination you say?
Are you perhaps referring to?

(un)Fair's hypocrisy 1:
So are you employed by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth? Because swiftboating seems to be the only expertise you have

or
(un)Fair's hypocrisy 2:
And if you actually had SAVAD..

or
(un)Fair's hypocrisy 3:
you are too mentally challenged to understand.

or
(un)Fair's hypocrisy 4:
Once again, protect your dear IRI at all costs,

or
(un)Fair's hypocrisy 5:
no, that hostage taker that Kinzer describes is just as idiotic as you and Khomeini are,

or
(un)Fair's hypocrisy 6:
maybe I shouldn't- you are quite "challenged" already! What a joke you are. Thanks for all the laughs:)

or
(un)Fair's hypocrisy 7:
I don't expect an apology from such an arrogant, self congratulatory, delusional person.

or
(un)Fair's hypocrisy 8:
typical IRI "logic"

well, I'm getting tired now. But I hope this would be sufficient to show your hypocrisy. Actually, I have a feeling you will "fail" to see this hyprocrisy as well, and will try some more BS. Rest assured that it won't be lost on the readers. What other advice can I possibly give you, other than, don't wonder out of your own league?

How to invent a new arbitrary method to push your intended agenda when basic logic and common sense cannot support it, and label your new method scientific

I use methodical scientific approach to these things, which I'm sad to say you do not see the benefits of. For instance, you simply ignore points you do not want to answer. You had some BS explanation for this before, but it's really just pure intellectual laziness. How can you possibley "reply" to any argument when you don't even talk about most of it? You can't and that's why this is not really an argument, but a labor of love for me and an education for you. With regards to your specific but laughable section above, again, it pains me to have to repeat the basics: You cannot make claims without supporting them with evidence. You cannot simply dismiss the evidence because "not enough experts" have voiced their opinion. You could, for example, find these contrarian experts and present them yourself. THAT would be a good way to resolve this, but rather because of the latterly mentioned laziness and formerly mentioned blind rage, you have chosen not to do this. Thus, we only have your increasingly abstruse prose to counter sound science and logic! What can I say? You know the score!

How to take the most basic and fundamental facts that are central to a comparison and throw them out the window

Yes, I mean, 8 years of war and world-wide sanctions are surely "fundemental" to a comparison wouldn't you say? LOL!

Of course because of the aforementioned blind rage, you do not see this. Part of the scientific approach is to be dispassionate and not allow personal biases to get in. I will enlighten you further down.

How to personally attack, ridicule, and intimidate people who don't buy your crap, hoping that challenges to your crap will be silenced

My dear sweetchuk! I don't hope for silence, this is actually fun for me believe it or not! I was perhaps expecting it after you expressed interest in letting the reader decide for themselves. "You know with their own brain?" But of course, sadly that turned out to be one of your now-numerous lies. As far as ridicule and intimidation, well, even you have to admit that some of that is in the eyes of the beholder. However, in general, I try to match or rather out-match the kind that I receive so that for the sake of fairness, it would be all even. If someone, for example, is interested in ridiculing and verbal bullying, has many deep-seeded anger issues as well as personal biases, and uses them to insult me, well, I think that person is desperately in need of some lessons. Luckily I do love to educate, and the more I do it, the more I love it!

Since I do not aim to develop myself in any of these areas, I won't be seeking your help,

Do not take this the wrong way son, but I sincerely have to dispute this point. First, it's a known fact that neophytes do not know what is best for them. But secondly and perhaps even more imprtantly -- and I would pay attention here beause it is your life we are talking about after all -- your conduct does not confirm "I won't be seeking your help." You have numerous times, thus far, replied with incomplete and utterly desolent pronunciations that surely the audience and myself are both aghast: If this is not a cry for help, what else is it? What kind of good sumeritan would I be if I did not try to help you, when you replied seeking it? No need for any kind of thanks for payment! I consider myself helping you and the audience reach a dialectical conclusion, and if there are further things you are in need of enlightenment for, all you have to do is ask! For example in the reply to this post.

Good luck finding customers!
As I have demonstrated to you, the customers are seeking me! The product literally speaks for itself!

The poor Don Quixote was the one who imagined them as ferocious giants that had to be defeated.

See my previous notes on the cliffs! The reality was, however, that they were stationary! You're welcome!

As you continue to lie and slander me:
Another principle from the natural sciences. An action will be met with equal and opposite reaction.

You just ridicule yourself more.

My friend. Crying won't make this come true.

I challenge you Quixote: WHERE EVER EVEN IN ONE PLACE DID I EVER SUPPORT FORCED REGIME CHANGE IN IRAN.

The logic of the scientific approach is simple. If I have "IRI logic" then, you are a supporter of forced regime change. I could issue my own challenges of course, but you know "challenge" is really an un-PC word not for civilized discussion. But if you really insist, please "verify" the points of hypocrisy I enumerated above, all of which were uttered by you before your "challenge."

No Senor Quixote, I am saying that if X did not prevent Y, X did not prevent Y. There you go imagining things again.

So sad to see you did not learn the flaws of your previous attempts at argument and here you are again, trying to fool (yourself?) with selfmasturbatory handwaving.

Running away from your own words is unbecoming, of course. Here's what you wrote:

2- ..cause of the hostage crisis which was itself the 1953 coup.
Yet when I ask IRI had no power to prevent any of it?
your "scientific approach" suddenly prohibits you from wanting to see who is at fault and just look at "facts" regardless of cause

My dear cavalier, as it is clearly demonstrated, you do say if X did not prevent Y, X is at fault for Y.

Being that X is IRI, you are repeating your life-pattern that blames IRI for the Iraq war. It's that simple! When I say this point is irrelevant to the particular argument you are making, you want to make it relevant. Why? Because you believe IRI is at fault, just like Germany is at fault.

Now do you see it? Again, I will be happy to delve much more in depth next time.

You admitted clearly above that merely being a "fact" is not a sufficient defense of anything

Once again, you are relying on laziness and playing telephone with the facts. Did I say merely being a "fact" is not sufficient defense of anything? Of course not! That's what YOU accused me of. Let me explain again:

One of the many differences between Iran and Korea is the fact of the revolution, which is why I said "the revolution is a fact." Iran has it, South Korea didn't. Same with War and Sanctions. These are differences that make the comparison invalid. So, how you got that this is not a defense of "anything" is beyond me. My guess is that blind rage must have overprowered your frontal lobes. It is pretty crucial to this argument of differences! Maybe if you don't try to be too cute and not take it out context next time, you will have an easier journey towards understanding it.

In other words, it cannot be used because it is a BOGUS argument.

This is not true! I just used it above. I bet you feel pretty silly now!

Merely stating that IRI is a "fact" does not serve as an argument for anything,

Nope! Sorry, You missed this one by a mile.

If it were a plausible argument, it could have been used to defend preposterous premises, like Nazi Germany being innocent of WWII,

No, it really couldn't! I'm really concerned that it is taking you this lon to get it.

So I APPLY your bogus argument to something else (which was completely different) to prove its implausibility, and you twisted and turned that into me equating IRI with that something else!

You are confused. Why would you apply a bogus argument, first of all? Second, whatever the reason, you did the equating fair and square. Honest, read it again. You'll see!

But your recognition of the importance of causes suddenly vanished in another "argument" of yours, once again contradicting yourself:

You are mistaken again. It was in fact the same argument.

when you were describing an argument you made about US role in South Korea vs Iran in the last 30 years. You call such an argument "complete", one which completely neglects the respective policies of South Korea and Iran towards the US and throws them out the window!

This starts out on the wrong premise and unfortunately goes downhill from there. I do not "neglect" anything. I state facts of what the US relationship was like and why that destroys meaningful "comparisons". You are (as I said from the beginning) interested in a different discussion, one about blame. What you want to say -- I can't believe I have to do this for you -- is that the US behavior toward Iran was rightly deserved. But even here, you fail to acknowledge the role of 1953, which according to your own loose cause and effect analysis makes US complicit in it's own "reactions".

This sort of selective memory and reasoning just make your following statement even more self ridiculing

Given that you had half the arguments wrong and did not even comprehend the other half, this is what's truly self-ridiculing!

Thank heavens that the "science" you are applying is not the science that governs the universe.

And more hypocrisy as this is clearly twisting and spinning my words. I did not say I do not believe in science that does not govern the universe. I stressed the scientific approach in my work. I hope you learned your lesson about frequent hypocrisy, attacks and twisting of arguments.

When you never came even within light years of such an event. The only person would ever equate you with anybody of reasonable intellect is yourself.

As I'm sure you are aware of, an 'event' is not a physical object and light-years is a measure of distance. Since an event does not have a location, it would be difficult to come within any distance of it, now wouldn't it? However, if by some miracle an event such as this manifested itself anywhere on Earth, I would by default be closer than one light-year from it. I am truly sorry to digress and correct you so often, but I feel it is illuminating to the readers.

your thuggish approach to discussion and utter cluelessness

By "thuggish approach" do you mean:

Your ignorance and stupidity truly has no end.....

I missed this one as an instance of hypocrisy. Rest assured it will not be forgotten next time!

So if Einstein lectures the scientific community about about his new theory of general relativity and time dilation and the audience doesn't get it, they are idiots and Einstein is justified in treating them like that?

Treat them like what? He said "you are clearly not interested in a debate," something I pointed out that Einstein would not have said. However, if he did explain something and question was exactly the same as he had just ansewred, it would be very stupid. Good questions, be it scientific or not, have to come from genuine curiosity, not "I want to Bash IRI, I don't like your answer, so I will restate the same question!"

Lastly, friend, you must realize there really are idiots in this world. Now, I wuld understand your standpoint in trying to negate this but it is a fact! People have different ways of dealing with this fact. In my case, I try to educate, but as we both know that has it's limits.

Once again, if actual scientists (not the Quixotic ones) subscribed to your neanderthal mindset, we would indeed still in the stone age.

Well, I would have a easier time believing pigs can fly than to consider you an "actual scientist", that one is clear to all! However, as usual your point is devoid of substance.

Maybe you can do better next time!

Sincerely,

Q

:)

Iraneh Azad, Thank you

You are very kind. It is important for every one of us to resist the rewriting of history and intimidation of thought as much as possible. The future of Iran is bright, and the young generation knows very well and sees through all amateurish attempts of these people.

Best Regards,

FAIR

Fair, Ghorbanet Beram!

Thank you for exposing this fake reformist IRI propagandist for what he is. His illogical approach, lies and pure arrogance has been recorded many times on this site. The record below is another great example.

He is a faghih supporter and his green flag is Sbazeh Taghalobi!

Quixote's continued self flattery

Yes, I read Cervantes. But you LIVE Cervantes. Someone who thinks so highly of himself despite having so little actual value to offer is a living manifestation of Cervantes. Only such a person would say this about himself:

"You know, it really is lonely. I do consider from time to time climbing
down and spending a few hours among the monkeys and pigs below, but I
prefer the site of quiet contemplation and scientific nirvana."

Absolutely amazing:)

You have demonstrated a willingness to educate those who seek your help. Well, so far, the only expertise you have shown is in the following areas, and are therefore you are well qualified to teach these things:

1-Being a complete ass who brags about himself to no end

2-Character assassination and slander of others by twisting facts and propagating lies about what a person said

3-How to invent a new arbitrary method to push your intended agenda when basic logic and common sense cannot support it, and label your new method scientific

4-How to take the most basic and fundamental facts that are central to a comparison and throw them out the window when they are inconvenient for your agenda

5-How to personally attack, ridicule, and intimidate people who don't buy your crap, hoping that challenges to your crap will be silenced

Since I do not aim to develop myself in any of these areas, I won't be seeking your help, thank you very much. Good luck finding customers! I mean, there must be a Sancho Panza for you somewhere (Who knows, you might find some in those windmills that you hopefully will one day defeat)

And yes, I know very well what a windmill is. The poor Don Quixote was the one who imagined them as ferocious giants that had to be defeated. Poor delusionary Quixote, just like you, imagining you have a clue about "science"!

As you continue to lie and slander me:

"Jerome Corsi who was one of the two main people from that group is
firmly in your camp and a big supporter of forced regime change in
Iran! "

You just ridicule yourself more. I challenge you Quixote: WHERE EVER EVEN IN ONE PLACE DID I EVER SUPPORT FORCED REGIME CHANGE IN IRAN. I guess in your "scientific approach" no evidence is necessary..

Here is one example of your "scientific" statements:

"and the tide of nationalism affected by the 1953 coup was too strong."

Ahh, so the IRI could not resist the strong tide of "nationalism" which scaled the US embassy walls and damaged our country for generations? Again, how many Iranian people actually supported the hostage taking? Was there ever a poll taken, or a debate by the people's representatives in majles about this? Where is your evidence to support this? Or are you just claiming nationalism as a blanket statement to suit your agenda?

Or another of your dazzling leaps of logic:

"But this is completely moot and is another fallacy. You are now saying
if X did not prevent Y, than X caused Y. "

No Senor Quixote, I am saying that if X did not prevent Y, X did not prevent Y. There you go imagining things again.

"I demonstrate two lies and did not manufacture any! I fail to
understand why you still cannot comprehend my writing, but alas all I
can do is to repeat them"

You demonstrated nothing of the sort. You admitted clearly above that merely being a "fact" is not a sufficient defense of anything, and does not preclude you from having any responsibility or power over events:

"You see, you were mistaken all along. It cannot be used to defend Nazi Germany, because IRI did not start the war. Nazi Germany did."

In other words, it cannot be used because it is a BOGUS argument. Merely stating that IRI is a "fact" does not serve as an argument for anything, (which is what you attempted). If it were a plausible argument, it could have been used to defend preposterous premises, like Nazi Germany being innocent of WWII, as I explained. So not only it "cannot be used to defend Nazi Germany", it cannot be used to defend anything! So I APPLY your bogus argument to something else (which was completely different) to prove its implausibility, and you twisted and turned that into me equating IRI with that something else!

But your recognition of the importance of causes suddenly vanished in another "argument" of yours, once again contradicting yourself:

"But no, that argument is important, complete in itself and there were many more that I made."

when you were describing an argument you made about US role in South Korea vs Iran in the last 30 years. You call such an argument "complete", one which completely neglects the respective policies of South Korea and Iran towards the US and throws them out the window! This sort of selective memory and reasoning just make your following statement even more self ridiculing:

"However, I am not a scientist but do apply scientic approach in many aspect of my life. "

Thank heavens that the "science" you are applying is not the science that governs the universe. Science like yours would have gravity apply only to beings that you choose gravity to apply to!

And once again, you like to flatter yourself:

"However, I am delighted to be equated to Einstein."

When you never came even within light years of such an event. The only person would ever equate you with anybody of reasonable intellect is yourself.

Especially when you make such idiotic conjectures, confirming your thuggish approach to discussion and utter cluelessness when it comes to science:

He's asking questions, and Einstein would not have reacted this way --
unless of course he had just lectured on that very subject and the
idiot didn't get it.

So if Einstein lectures the scientific community about about his new theory of general relativity and time dilation and the audience doesn't get it, they are idiots and Einstein is justified in treating them like that? Your ignorance and stupidity truly has no end.....

Once again, if actual scientists (not the Quixotic ones) subscribed to your neanderthal mindset, we would indeed still in the stone age. Fortunately for the modern world, this is not the case.

Have fun in your "Nirvana" (LOL!!)

-FAIR

Q and the Sheikh

When I publicly challenged this site's "neo-cyber-khalkhali"  to show evidence that I ever advocated foreign intervention, he replied:

"When I have the time, I will dig out the evidence as well, don't worry about that."

His response reminds me of Sheikh Sadegh Khalkhali. When he was executing people in mass, he was asked about those executed who might actually be innocent. He replied, "Right now we don't have time to look for the evidence that proves them guilty! We'll do that later! Besides if they are innocent, they'll go to heaven, and so we have done them a service!"

It looks like our resident cyber-basiji is taking on the Sheikh for role model.

(un)Fair, yes, we got it you have read Cervantes

Enough elementary school logic and meaningless drivel, a hallmark of your writing. One has a difficult time trying to educate you into a full blown maturity given this behavior. I will demonstrate what I call "meaningless"

By now, you have put your foot in your mouth so much, and you have spewed out so much jibberish, you need not worry about anybody being humiliated here but yourself.

This, for example is completely meaningless. I'm not sure why you insist on wasting time, perhaps it makes you feel like you know more than our really do, or that you have enough reason to engage in judgementalist comparisons. The problem, of course is with the ill-informed vernacular which is not only abstruse but bordering on literary malfeasance.

For example you continue to manufacture a lie about me "equating IRI with Nazi Germany", have the gall to stand behind that lie.

This is abosolutely false! I demonstrate two lies and did not manufacture any! I fail to understand why you still cannot comprehend my writing, but alas all I can do is to repeat them for you in the hope of marginal advancement in literary comprehension.

2-I said that is not a sufficient argument, because such an argument could also be used to defend Nazi Germany (which would be absurd),

The concept is an old one. It is called agent of action, please do some reading about it. I believe you will find it delightfully indicative of the wisdom I have bestowed upon you thus far.

The only way this is "not sufficient" and "such an argument could be used to defend Nazi Germany" is if Iran and Nazi Germany had something in common, which is of course the defintion of analogy! You see, you were mistaken all along. It cannot be used to defend Nazi Germany, because IRI did not start the war. Nazi Germany did. Glad we cleared this up, but I have to say, I wish you had realized your obvious mistake days ago. It would have saved us all much time.

So basically, you agree that the revolution "being a fact" is not a sufficient argument for ANYTHING.

No, that's not true. I'm not sure what you are reading here, but of course I think I explained my idea about "blind rage" building an imptenetrable wall blocking out the truth around your eyes. It is good to feel validated once in a while! :)

Yet you continue to claim that I equated IRI with Nazi Germany!

This is true! I believe anyone reading your analogy would agree. Of course, if you had not lied a second time and actually allowed the audience to make up their mind, it would go much faster.

Allow me to launch your own words back at your own orifaces, whichever ones you use to talk out of. This is so everyone knows what you equated:

So Naziism was a "fact" too. Why blame WWII on Germany? It was America's fault for meddling in European affairs.

Laughably self serving analogy? Who threatened regional governments with exporting of the revolution, and for all of them to be overthrown?

next...

So are you employed by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth? Because swiftboating seems to be the only expertise you have....

No, actually, Jerome Corsi who was one of the two main people from that group is firmly in your camp and a big supporter of forced regime change in Iran! He would not hire me, because he has already filled his ranks with your friends.

Yet when I ask IRI had no power to prevent any of it?

Perhaps it did, perhaps it didn't and the tide of nationalism affected by the 1953 coup was too strong. But this is completely moot and is another fallacy. You are now saying if X did not prevent Y, than X caused Y. Absolute fallacy that even a child can see. I may have been able to prevent being injured in a car accident, but I did not cause the accident. (Think about it).

Then this implies that that argument to which sequence is not important is an incomplete one, since you admit causes are important!

Well, to you perhaps. I find that many important things are being disregarded by you due mainly to your rage, immaturity and lack of basic knowledge. But no, that argument is important, complete in itself and there were many more that I made.

When presenting factors that you claim are responsible for the state of our country today, should their causes be considered or not?

Sure they should be considered, and of course debated. For example what you say are causes aren't necessarily the causes. But regardless if I were to make a list of the socio-political differences between Iran and SK, the causes are not important to that argument.

So far, you have gone in circles so much that you have become too dizzy to even chase a windmill!

You think you are insulting me, but you are rediculing yourself with your elementary school knowledge of literature. You do realize that windmills are stationary correct? It's OK, no harm done. See the issue about blind rage above.

Let's see.. Now I could either contnue to waste my time

This is the choice you have been making thus far! It has been a waste, as you say, since you have obviously learned nothing. This is perhaps the saddest statement of all, truly.

cheap attempt to attribute my disagreement with you to psychological problems,

Perhaps you are refering to this?

You look down on people and consider yourself owner of the absolute truth and the educator of those who are willing to follow the "right" way -i.e. your way.

It is truly impressive because you are simultaneously able to reside in parallel universes.

Interesting. Is this more waste of time? Probably so.

Obviously, you didn't listen the first time, and you are ignorant. I am happy to educate by repeating the part about time dilation

Sounds perfectly reasonable. Why should a man like Einstein waste time having to repeat himself when his audience is too stupid to listen? In real life, nobody this stupid was allowed near him.

You clearly are not interested in scientific debate, all you want to do is bash the speed of light,

Well, he is not interested in a debate. He's asking questions, and Einstein would not have reacted this way -- unless of course he had just lectured on that very subject and the idiot didn't get it.

Only an absolute fool would think that space can contract, you have clearly been blinded by your hate for the speed of light. I have provided so many well founded, well thought out, strongly supported facts to help you understand, but you lack the mental capacity to do so because you are a clown and an idiot. However I am happy to educate you.

I'm afraid I have to admit, I do not know this field of study and can't judge your theoretical Einstein's answer. However, I am delighted to be equated to Einstein.

Given the lack of agreement with you from any of the audience members,

LOL! This one takes the cake! In fact Einstein probably entered many rooms where nobody agreed with him. In a room full of students asking questions of the professor, the issue of their "agreement" is laughably unimportant.

It is very fortunate for the modern world that the number of scientists subscribing to Quixote's "method" is infinitesmally small:)

This is of course false. However, I am not a scientist but do apply scientic approach in many aspect of my life. I'm also happy that you couldn't possibly be a scientist. If you are this would probably explain the world wide economic collapse.

Meanwhile at least one person is happy to be sooo much more brilliant than everyone else:

Yes?

Absolutely inspiring

Thank You.

Happy windmill chasing!

As I took the time to explain to you above, Windmills are stationary objects. They are like buildings. Here's a picture of one. They do not move and they will be exactly in the same spot the next day. Thus what you say makes no scientific sense.

Of course, I knew this was predictable ahead of time.

Q

Quixote's science

By now, you have put your foot in your mouth so much, and you have spewed out so much jibberish, you need not worry about anybody being humiliated here but yourself.

For example you continue to manufacture a lie about me "equating IRI with Nazi Germany", have the gall to stand behind that lie. Let's recap your Quixotic logic:

1-You said that it is wrong to blame the revolution for the war and hardships that follow, making the argument that the revolution was a "fact" and was the will of the people.

2-I said that is not a sufficient argument, because such an argument could also be used to defend Nazi Germany (which would be absurd),

3-your brain had a segmentation fault then a core dump, and you called that "equating IRI with Nazi Germany"

4-I called that for the lie it was, and here is your response:

5-Yes, we all agree on both "facts". That is the Revolution and Hitler's
Germany. But ....The FACT of Hiter's Germany does not excuse WWII. WWII IS Germany's fault for starting it. It's that simple.

So basically, you agree that the revolution "being a fact" is not a sufficient argument for ANYTHING.

Yet you continue to claim that I equated IRI with Nazi Germany!

So are you employed by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth? Because swiftboating seems to be the only expertise you have....

In a further dazzling display of dizziness, you admit that causes of events matter:

1- WWII IS Germany's fault for starting it. It's that simple. (see above)

2- ..cause of the hostage crisis which was itself the 1953 coup.

Yet when I ask IRI had no power to prevent any of it?

your "scientific approach" suddenly prohibits you from wanting to see who is at fault and just look at "facts" regardless of cause:

What you're getting into here is guilt assessment. As I have explained before, any scientific approach is fact based only.

So let's assign blame whenever it suits Quixote, (i.e. anywhere but IRI), and nowhere else. That sounds very scientific:) LOL

Or another gem of your "scientific approach":

I say: So you admit causes do matter. But sequence is not important?

You say:
I said the sequence is not important to that argument which was simply listing things that happened to IRI and didn't happen to SK.

Then this implies that that argument to which sequence is not important is an incomplete one, since you admit causes are important!

So Quixote, maybe it would help your case if you could actually MAKE UP YOUR MIND: When presenting factors that you claim are responsible for the state of our country today, should their causes be considered or not?

So far, you have gone in circles so much that you have become too dizzy to even chase a windmill!

Let's see.. Now I could either contnue to waste my time answering your psycho babble personal attack on me, and cheap attempt to attribute my disagreement with you to psychological problems, as well as your complete abuse of set theory and logic...

Instead, I would like to acknowledge your deep scientific approach, which is truly impressive. It is truly impressive because you are simultaneously able to reside in parallel universes. Imagine what Albert Einstein would have sounded like had he been as "scientific" as Quixote:

Einstein:" And now that I have presented you with my well thought out, well researched, well supported theory of general relativity, I am open to answer questions"

Audience member 1:"How is it physically possible for time to be dilated? "

Einstein:"Obviously, you didn't listen the first time, and you are ignorant. I am happy to educate by repeating the part about time dilation"

Audience member 2:"Some experiments have shown that gravitational fields can bend light in space, thus accelerating the photon- would the speed of light still be a constant then?"

Einstein: "You clearly are not interested in scientific debate, all you want to do is bash the speed of light, and say it is not constant. The gravitational fields are a fact, and blaming them for any acceleration of photons shows a lack of objectivity from your part. But if you need psychological help I have some friends who can help you.

Audience member 1:"could it be that the space contraction is slightly more or less than the time dilation, meaning some variance of the speed of light which is nonlinear?"

Einstein: "Only an absolute fool would think that space can contract, you have clearly been blinded by your hate for the speed of light. I have provided so many well founded, well thought out, strongly supported facts to help you understand, but you lack the mental capacity to do so because you are a clown and an idiot. However I am happy to educate you.

Audience member 3:"But you said yourself that space contracts in your theory"

Einstein:"You obviously are a complete idiot for not reading what I said- space contracts when you travel near the speed of light! You are equating light with space, and have lied to everybody. Again, my friends can help you, since obviously your father or your upbringing must have been problematic.

Audience member 4:"Given the lack of agreement with you from any of the audience members, could it be that you just might have some flaws in your theory?"

Einstein: "As you well know (actually you probably don't), that the truth and
logic of something does not depend on the number of supporters (one,
versus 2 in your case). Frequently, people of lower education, cite
this as a "reason" why someone is wrong, but in fact it is a well known
fallacy called "appeal to the people". Look it up. That's your first
lesson." (note- this is Quixote's opening statement to the last post)

It is very fortunate for the modern world that the number of scientists subscribing to Quixote's "method" is infinitesmally small:)

Meanwhile at least one person is happy to be sooo much more brilliant than everyone else:

You know, it really is lonely. I do consider from time to time climbing
down and spending a few hours among the monkeys and pigs below, but I
prefer the site of quiet contemplation and scientific nirvana.

Absolutely inspiring.....

Happy windmill chasing!

-FAIR

mr. (un)Fair, try not to also be (un)witty and (un)wise.

I am truely sorry that you will have to hear many of point that you unfortunately could not digest before. Perhaps second or third time may make it easier for your brain to decipher them.

We can only hope.

It is a very sad state to be in when the only one supporting you is yourself.

As you well know (actually you probably don't), that the truth and logic of something does not depend on the number of supporters (one, versus 2 in your case). Frequently, people of lower education, cite this as a "reason" why someone is wrong, but in fact it is a well known fallacy called "appeal to the people". Look it up. That's your first lesson.

And of course you have a strong need to say how knowledgeable you are and how uneducated others are and how you "won". I really feel sorry for you and the pathetic state you find yourself in.

It seems you also have strong need to stick around and be told this, and be humiliated over and over again. You have gone as far as claiming to let the "reader" decide, but you still seem pathologically addicted to reading about your own flaws. Perhaps something with your father or upbringing? This is only a guess. I cannot be sure, as that is not my main subject of expertise, but I do have friends that could help you.

But I guess you need to feel good about yourself somehow, because with all the times you have put your foot in your mouth, it would be difficult to do so otherwise.

Given your own problems with basic perception and ability to judge dipassionately, you are likely mistaken here as well. Although, perhaps mislead by flawed brain chemisty could be more appropriate, since I do see that you can't help the situation. I have not said anything that I did not support with objective outside evidence and quotes. Yet, the only response I receive from yourself seems to be worthless emotionalism.

Again. If you need the help, please ask for it before it is too late.

About your flawed Analogy

me:
The revolution is a fact. It was supported by the vast majority of the people.

you:

So many Germans supported Hitler. So Naziism was a "fact" too. Why blame WWII on Germany?

What you have here is a logical disconnect. But perhaps I was not detailed enough for your inexperienced mind before.

Yes, we all agree on both "facts". That is the Revolution and Hitler's Germany. But "Why blame WWII on Germany" is where you lose it completely. As I did answer, but I suspect in your blind rage, you forgot to recount that below, The FACT of Hiter's Germany does not excuse WWII. WWII IS Germany's fault for starting it. It's that simple.

Iran or "the revolution" did not start the Iran/Iraq war, therefore, you analogy fails flatly. I don't know how much simpler I can make this for you, but perhaps you could read a few more times.

It is just illustrating the complete ABSURDITY OF YOUR PATHETIC COPOUT. Something you are too mentally challenged to understand.

Hahah. Yes, I think you are beginning to exhibit the problems that I mentioned before. You are incapable of controlling your emotions which leads to bullshit responses like this. Again, please seek help.

But judging by the limitless gall you have shown so far,

This is true.

it is predictable (unlike the hostage taking) that you will not have the decency or the objectivity to retract your lie about what I said.

Hah, well, unfortunately it was not a lie, as I demonstrated above. You did equate IRI with Nazi Germany in that example. You could have used something else, but you didn't. Perhaps you are not familiar with how analogies work? I'm affraid your lie will have to remain exposed for the readers to be cognizant of it.

To tell you the truth, the other thing I have noticed in your writing is that you somehow are not capable of reading an entire sentence all the way through. You read the first part, and then, I believe what happens is, that blind rage takes over. Allow me to demonstrate for all to see this highly unproductive mental product possessed by yourself:

So you admit causes do matter. But sequence is not important?

What I actually said was:

I said the sequence is not important to that argument which was simply listing things that happened to IRI and didn't happen to SK.

Because of the rage issue I already disclosed, you failed to read or understand the second part of the sentence from "to" on. Obviously the sequence is important for a variey of things, but when the argument is simply listing a set of X things that happened to Iran and Y things that happened to South Korea, it is in fact not important. This is elementary set inclusion. I hope you can understand without further explanation, but if you do not, I can provide a few paragraphs next time.

Things "just happenned" to IRI, and IRI had no power to prevent any of it?

What you're getting into here is guilt assessment. As I have explained before, any scientific approach is fact based only. For example, we can agree that a war happened in Iran. You may wish to say that IRI started it (this is false of course), and I say that Iraq's Saddam started it. It does not matter who started it, but the fact remains it existed in Iran but not in SK. This fact is the only thing germain in listing the differences.

Any discussion on validity of conduct, can of course be brought up as I myself did later. But as I pointed out before (and I think the rage issue again blocked your vision), you are not considering the germain and well supported cause of the hostage crisis which was itself the 1953 coup. Another flaw in an emotion-based argument like yours is that you want to blame IRI when it is convinient by drawing loose connections of cause and effect (for example that Saddam's attack was an effect of the hostage crisis) but you do not accept much more concrete and academically sound cause and effect arguments such as the link between Operation AJAX and the embassy take over.

Once again, protect your dear IRI at all costs, and throw any relevant historical facts and realities out the window.

Unfortunately I did not see any relevent facts from your writing. You are correct that I did throw away much of what you write, but that's because it was worthless rubbish, not because it was fact based.

You throw facts that make you uncomfortable out the window. You also take something that you would like to protect from being blamed, and call it a fact, hoping that people will just leave it alone.

Please study my answer above about the validity of facts and the worth of their source of articulation.

you have immense bias against anybody who dares to implicate IRI in the state of our country today,

I humbly disagree with your private and completely subjective observation. I prefer to think of it as valuating truth over emotional drivel and biases. You are welcome to disagree and you are welcome to stop being a liar by actually letting the audience decide this. However, your two major lies continue to be on display as of this point in time.

you personally judge harshly those who disagree with your "conclusions" by calling them uneducated, clowns, idiots.

Only when deserved! :)

You also personally judge yourself to be superior to others, and pat yourself on the back for what you consider to be a strong argument.

The problem with this assessment is the bias of the person making it. Of course, I do not "pat myself" in the back, this is again is a misperception, I conjecture, is about the blind rage issue that seems to have engulfed you.

It is amazing how lonely life must be for you at the top- even if it is an imaginary top!

You know, it really is lonely. I do consider from time to time climbing down and spending a few hours among the monkeys and pigs below, but I prefer the site of quiet contemplation and scientific nirvana. This is just my preferance and I do not judge yours on your level.

Have a nice day.

Quixotic in quite a sad state

It is a very sad state to be in when the only one supporting you is yourself. You are the only one saying that your points are well researched and scientific and objective, etc. etc. And of course you have a strong need to say how knowledgeable you are and how uneducated others are and how you "won". I really feel sorry for you and the pathetic state you find yourself in.

But I guess you need to feel good about yourself somehow, because with all the times you have put your foot in your mouth, it would be difficult to do so otherwise. Like this completely twisted gem of yours:

Laughably self serving analogy?

This means you dispute my assessment of your analogy.

And if you actually had SAVAD you would realize that what YOU called ANALOGY was not an analogy between two countries- it was an example I brought of how your completely void copout of an argument below:

The revolution is a fact. It was supported by the vast majority of the people.

to which I replied:

So many Germans supported Hitler. So Naziism was a "fact" too. Why blame WWII on Germany?

could be used to defend anything, even Nazi Germany. Now where is that EQUATING IRI with NAZI GERMANY? It is just illustrating the complete ABSURDITY OF YOUR PATHETIC COPOUT. Something you are too mentally challenged to understand. I could bring other examples, but you are holding your ears and shouting like a 3 year old so I won't bother.

But judging by the limitless gall you have shown so far, it is predictable (unlike the hostage taking) that you will not have the decency or the objectivity to retract your lie about what I said.

So much for the "scientist".

Or the following brilliant display of confusion:

I never siad the causes don't matter. I said the sequence is not important to that argument which was simply listing things that happened to IRI and didn't happen to SK.

So you admit causes do matter. But sequence is not important? Things "just happenned" to IRI, and IRI had no power to prevent any of it? Once again, protect your dear IRI at all costs, and throw any relevant historical facts and realities out the window. All this just makes the following jibberish of yours even more of a joke:

Let me teach you a little something about scientific approach: It's just facts, no biases and personal judgements.

LOL! You with your scientific approach. In your case, it is indeed about these three things. Let me expand on it for you:

1)You throw facts that make you uncomfortable out the window. You also take something that you would like to protect from being blamed, and call it a fact, hoping that people will just leave it alone.

2)you have immense bias against anybody who dares to implicate IRI in the state of our country today, and

3)you personally judge harshly those who disagree with your "conclusions" by calling them uneducated, clowns, idiots. You also personally judge yourself to be superior to others, and pat yourself on the back for what you consider to be a strong argument.

It is amazing how lonely life must be for you at the top- even if it is an imaginary top!

-FAIR

Dear Jamshid

Thank you very much, your responses are also excellent. Creatures like Q are the worst curse on humanity- people who dictate their viewpoints on others, and are willing to "educate" people just in case they reach the wrong (i.e. not their) conclusion. This thuggery has been the plague of humanity, whether it has been in the form of Arabs forcing their religion by the sword on other countries, conquistadors massacring indigenous people to "civilize" them and liberate them from heathenism while taking away their gold, or the IRI murderers and rapists today raping and killing young girls for the crime of saying "where is my vote"?

Notice how Q goes through extraordinary lengths to not have anybody blame IRI for anything. The system must be protected at all costs. A concept by many in modern history- the securitate in Romania, the SS in Nazi Germany, the Mukhaberat of Saddam, you name it. Notice the common fate of all these systems. Quixotic Q can pat himself on the back as much as he wants, his system will suffer no less fate.

Of course, creatures like Q will easily change face in such a case and find the next tyrant to defend. And so the disease continues.

Long live Iran, Iranians, and may the lives of all our men and women of our country lost in the last 30 years due to idiots like Q and his bosses be not in vain.

FAIR

Jamshid, why did I know you will abandon any real substance

at the slightest hint of losing an argument?

Why? I mean, I'm really curious to know.

Where did I "excused" these atrocities?

What is the point of you dismissing the execution of 100,000 South Korean civilians by their own government as "war-time numbers"? Why did you say that they are "not accurate" when they are just as accurate as anything else we discuss and in fact much better supported?

Please explain.

If I had said these things against anything you cared about you would instantly accuse me of "excusing" and being "IRI lacky" and "worse than baseeji" as you already did. So please, don't take the readers for fools.

Q

I read your last response to me. It is important for you to "defeat" people, is it not? Isn't this too juvenille?

The desprate juvenille writes, "Unlike you, I do not excuse these atrocities."

Where did I "excused" these atrocities? You sound like an IRI interogator who arbitrarily accuse people of whatever they feel like. Don't their similarities with your behavior scare you, at least just a bit?

"Once again, defeated and cornered you point the finger elsewhere. What a surprise."

Point the finger elsewhere? Are you denying the behavior of IRI thugs? It is no surprise that in your mind, those thugs should not be pointed at.

"There's no shame in learning something from someone else."

Glad you could learn something kiddo.

"to hurt someone throwing around words and concepts at people"

Hurt you? With comparing your camp to Yazid and Shemr? How sensitive! You brought tears to my eyes Q! This should remind one of the interogator I mentioned earlier, going to a Masjed after a "hard" day of work, and listening to some Rozeh about Hossein and then crying, feeling hurt for him!

When cornered, you are no longer annoying, instead, you only become such entertaining amuzement:

"I never siad the causes don't matter. I said the sequence is not important to that argument"

Laughing outloud! I rest my case!

Jamshid, not a nightmare at all, friend

you and "fair" and all the other characters real and fake, put together are hardly a "nightmare" for me. It's closer to a passing wind, actually, if you're curious!

The rest of your "psycho" sophistry can be laughed at by all.

Fair, this isn't even amusing anymore...

It's like you are banging your head against the truth. I don't know what you want from the audience, but if you truly wanted them to decide you would have stopped going around in circles. I don't know how many times I have to reapeat my well-researched points about Korea, you simply don't accept them, and go on bashing IRI. If you aren't lying you could stop anytime and let the readers decide.

Yes, you absolutely equated IRI with Nazi Germany. Already forgot due to self-selective memory? I'm not surprised but let me remind you from only a few posts ago:

me:

Blame WWII on Germany because they started it by invading other countries!. Iran is not Nazi germany in your laughably self-serving "analogy".

you:

Laughably self serving analogy?

This means you dispute my assessment of your analogy. But you go on further trying to argue IRI was the "aggressor" (just like the Nazis were above)

Who threatened regional governments with exporting of the revolution, and for all of them to be overthrown?

Who stormed the embassy of another country, which is sovereign territory of that country, thus declaring war on that country?

It's clear to anyone reading that you used Nazi Germany as a placeholder for IRI in your analogy. You argue they both were aggresssors, and you said I'm trying to excuse them because of "US meddling." That's clear to normal people. To you, of course, it's not. You can take it back of course, but knowing you, you will just babble on.

Of course the sequence matters!

Does not matter to the argument that simply says they all happened to IRI by not SK. It does matter if you are trying to assingn blame instead of looking objectively at the differences. But even if you are trying to assign blame (meaning proving me right on my "thesis"), you fail.

These things happenned all AFTER and DUE to the hostage taking,

Which was itself DUE to 1953, as I showed with support below.

So you argue that the factors matter, but the causes of those factors don't?

You are letting anger blind you again. I never siad the causes don't matter. I said the sequence is not important to that argument which was simply listing things that happened to IRI and didn't happen to SK.

Let me teach you a little something about scientific approach: It's just facts, no biases and personal judgements. Understand this and you will go far in your life.

I could go on and on. But first you should retract your LIE about what I said. Mr. "interested in the truth" (yeah right).

Now you're trying to be funny. But this is a failure too.

Dear Fair

Good responses. It is Q's nighmare to face off with and be cornered by people like you who can actually catch his use of sophistry and fallacy and put it in HIS face, and demand answers.

This character is worst than a Basiji. With a Basiji, at the very least one could say he was not only brainwashed but consistently isolated from other views. That is why he is so fanatic.

But this character has not been isolated. He is constantly exposed to other views, and reads about IRI's crimes on a daily basis. Yet he chooses to continue to defend the misery that the IRI is.

Worst yet, despite constantly beating his chest, he does not care about Iran or Iranians, he only cares about his greater goals, just as we saw in Khomeini. To him Iran is just a ground to grow and brew the infectious stray weeds of his ideology.

No amount of reasoning or logic can awaken a lost individual like him. I am not religious, but if what religious people say is true about afterlife, then a very rude awakening is waiting for him, this time, not by your voice or mine, but by the hand of god himself.

"Learn to Read" from Jamshid??? LOL

With "war-time" numbers, I meant violence that occured during war-time. Learn to read before labeling people.

LOL! Listen to yourself! God! Learn to read what? Your mind? Sorry, too much crap in there to read anything.

It doesn't matter either way. Unlike you, I do not excuse these atrocities. You can possibly blame this one war (like you are doing) IF the people being killed were North Koreans, but absent that you are simply excusing this mass murder. It's good to know that you just excused all IRI behavior during the war.

It's still better than how you and your fellow thugs judge people in Iran and proceed to prosecute them.

Once again, defeated and cornered you point the finger elsewhere. What a surprise.

Based on your comments in this blog, it looks like you'd need to first teach it to yourself.

Wow, I'm thoroughly devestated by your quick wit and well placed comebacks! There's no shame in learning something from someone else. Perhaps when you are wiser, you will realize this.

How does it feel then to suddenly find yourself in the Yazid, Shemr and Mo'avieh camp? Does it not feel like finding yourself in the ending of a story right out of a twilight zone episode?

It feels like some pathetic insecure loser, thoroughly defeated on substance, trying desperately to hurt someone throwing around words and concepts at people he neither knows, nor takes any steps in understanding.

Quixotic Q

You think you can educate people to your point of view....by TWISTING FACTS and misrepresenting what I say?

You are NOBODY to teach anybody anything, or speak of respect for Iranians or truth. Your pathetic thesis of "all I am interested in is bashing IRI" is such a cheap easy shot, anybody can make. I can easily also say all you are interested in is bashing the USA or allies of the USA.  The facts speak for themselves, regardless of how selective you are in choosing them (or inventing them when it suits you)

You and I and others can make whatever case we want, and readers can decide for themselves. You know, actually think for themselves and form their own opinion. Freely. Not by force and ridiculing. But you are hopelessly unaware of any such concept.

The reason I don't answer all your points is you are just rambling on and ridiculing me instead of actually having a discussion with me. Or with anybody but yourself for that matter. I am actually being very nice to even answer you, but you will ridicule me even more for saying this. Go ahead.

One classic example of how you completely change what other people say to suit your own twisted goal is this:

(un)Fair first said IRI is like "Nazi Germany" which started WWII. When I politely pointed out that this is nonsense since IRI

When did I EVER say that IRI is like Nazi Germany?

I said that your argument of revolution in Iran being a fact is a nonargument, and one could use such a nonsense argument to also defend Nazi Germany by saying Naziism is a "fact".

So by bringing the word Nazi Germany in the same paragraph as IRI, I have equated the two?

Have you no shame?

And then you expect me to actually answer all your points?

You should retract your lie about what I said immediately. That is, if you are interested in the TRUTH.

Are you? Or are you going to let your lie stand?

And as far as hostage taking being taken by historians to be justified, you have brought the opinions of two historians. And that is just that- historians. Their opinion does not constitute truth, and does not make the act of hostage taking predictable. Predictable is when something would happen with high probability following similar conditions. So let's see:

1953 coup in Iran-> leads to hostage taking in 1979.

So if there was a coup in Chile by the CIA against the popularly elected government of Chile, there should also be a hostage taking of the American embassy in Chile. Or in Guatemala, or in the Phillipines, or in Vietnam today. Why is Iran the ONLY example of such an instance? It was predicted based on what PRECEDENT? If Iran was afraid of another 1953 coup, it could have easily expelled the US diplomats and closed down the embassy. But no, that hostage taker that Kinzer describes is just as idiotic as you and Khomeini are, and did something stupid that we and our children still pay for. Predictable? Or just downright STUPID?

Those historians are entitled to their opinions, and everyone else is entitled to theirs. I don't have to follow what they or you think. Get over it.

Another example of your selective twisting:

Unfortunately, "fair"s understanding of justice is terribly flawed. Saddam did not have the right to invade Iran a

Who said anything about JUSTICE? Do you actually expect there to be justice in this world? When did I say Saddam had the right to invade Iran? I said the war was PREVENTABLE. Khoemeini could have chosen to not take hostages and not threaten Iran's neighbors with overthrow and revolution (something he also had no right to do- or do you think he did? Somewhow, it is clear you will avoid this question and not answer it..)

And here is another garbage from somebody who claims to be "scientific":

It means the argument about the difference factors between Iran and SK, does not rely on the sequence of events. Regardless of the sequence of events, these things happened and they did not occur for SK.

Of course the sequence matters! These things happenned all AFTER and DUE to the hostage taking, which you say was understandable and predictable. So you argue that the factors matter, but the causes of those factors don't?

What kind of "science" have you been reading?? What a joke.

I could go on and on. But first you should retract your LIE about what I said. Mr. "interested in the truth" (yeah right).

FAIR

Twists and turns

With "war-time" numbers, I meant violence that occured during war-time. Learn to read before labeling people.

"simply because You believe they are... Because they walk like a duck as judged by yourself!"

It's still better than how you and your fellow thugs judge people in Iran and proceed to prosecute them.

"you have finally figured out the fallacy of negative proof. Next I will have to teach you about circular reasoning."

Based on your comments in this blog, it looks like you'd need to first teach it to yourself.

It feels like a quicksand, doesn't it Q? The more you twist and turn the truth, or otherwise struggle to justify the IRI, the deeper you sink.

On that note, although I have never asked you, but I am certain I would be accurate to say you are a devote Shia Moslem. Correct?

How does it feel then to suddenly find yourself in the Yazid, Shemr and Mo'avieh camp? Does it not feel like finding yourself in the ending of a story right out of a twilight zone episode?

Jamshid, don't be such an obvious hypocrite

the 100,000 are as good as any that you have, including "8000" that is surely an exaggeration and supported by no facts. Yes, that's somehow good enough for you? Again, with the poinless hypocrisy. No shame in defending and watering down the acts of clear dictators, simply because they suit your pathetic interests.

For your information, these are not war time numbers. The wartime numbers were non existent or severely distorted. This was done by a commission that took years of evidenced and unearthed at least 150 mass-graves and publishe it's results just a few years ago, not during "war time".

Your hypocrisy has no bounds.

I have already answered this to you. But I repeat it here: If it walks like a duck, if it swims like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, then it must be...

So, basically, the only thing verifiable here is that they are "IRI supporters" simply because You believe they are. And why do you blieve they are? Because they walk like a duck as judged by yourself!

Such BS!

You know, I just realized after years of thankless struggle by myself and others on this forum, that you have finally figured out the fallacy of "negative proof", as evidenced by the fact that you no longer rely on it like you used to. That's great progress, I'm happy for you! Next I will have to teach you about circular reasoning.

Yes, sherlock, I believe -- and have believed -- that there have been crimes committed under the IRI.

(un)Fair, you have lost it completely,

None of what you say makes any sense anymore. You hardly even touch any of the arguments, and like a scared little 3rd grader, answer only 2 points with a lot of BS baggage.

I'm not sure where to begin. I think at this point, any further discussion with you will be a waste of time. I will, for the sake of completeness, address the 2 points (among many others he forgot) that he chose to talk about.

1. On the ill-conceived Nazi Germany analogy

(un)Fair first said IRI is like "Nazi Germany" which started WWII. When I politely pointed out that this is nonsense since IRI was attacked by US-supported Saddam Hussein, he is now desperately trying to save a failed analogy by saying:

Laughably self serving analogy? Who threatened regional governments with exporting of the revolution, and for all of them to be overthrown?

OK, so in his mind, it was OK to invade Iran because of Khomeinist rhetoric.

Unfortunately, "fair"s understanding of justice is terribly flawed. Saddam did not have the right to invade Iran and the excuses that he used and that US used for giving him the tools to kill Iranians with chemical weapons are now being repeated by Fair.

Once again Fari proves he couldn't care less about Iran, Iranians or any truth. He only wants to bash IRI under any circumstances.

2. (un)Fair, disputes a very well supported fact as argued by many historians and experts.

I had written this:

They were however a predictable consquence of meddling as almost every solid historian has written on this.

Unfair's response was this:

Really, it was predictable? America had done much worse meddling in other countries, why did those countries not take American diplomats hostage?

Yes, it was a predictable consequence. As I said you do need to educate yourself because this is now accepted by most historians and experts.

Here's some clues to help you start that education. I only hope you will not reject it as you have every other avenue of self-learning that I have provided for you. But alas, I'm not holding my breath.

Patrick Houghton writes in the book US Foreign Policy and the Hostage Crisis:

Generations of Iranians were brought up in the shadow of 1953 and it became a defining experience and national rallying point - part myth perhaps but also part historical facts - in their lives. Consequently when another Iranian leader whose political priorities clashed markedly with Western interests appeared on the scene, it is easy to see why historical experience should have become activated in such a striking way.

Read the whole book, it's really good.

From Stephen Kinzer, author of "All the Shah's Men"

He told me an amazing story. He said, “I had been sitting in my solitary cell as a hostage for about a year, when one day the cell door opens, and there is standing one of the hostage takers, one of my jailers. And all of my rage and my fury built up over one year sitting in that cell just burst out, and I started screaming at him, and I was telling him, ‘You have no right to do this! This is cruel, this is inhumane! These people have done nothing! This is a violation of every law of god and man! You cannot take innocent people hostage!’” He said, “I went on like this for several minutes. When I was finally out of breath, the hostage taker paused for a moment, and then he leaned into my cell and said, in very good English, ‘You have no right to complain, because you took our whole country hostage in 1953.’”
That story really reinforced to me the connection and the fact that those hostage takers took those hostages not out of nihilistic rage, but for a very specific reason that seemed to make very good sense to them. In 1953, the Iranian people had chased the Shah out, but CIA agents working inside the American embassy in Tehran organized a coup and brought him back. So flash forward to 1979, people of Iran have chased the Shah out again. He has been admitted into the United States.

3. Your last (lame) point highlights your hopeless misunderstanding of my words at best and your deliberate obfuscation at worst.

I had written:

I am aware of the sequnce of events. I did not rely on them for my argument.

Your response:

In other words, I was misleading people by ignoring this sequence. When you gave me the facts, I threw them out the window.

No my ill-educated friend! It means the argument about the difference factors between Iran and SK, does not rely on the sequence of events. Regardless of the sequence of events, these things happened and they did not occur for SK. You are now changing the issue, trying to say "IRI deserved it", which proves you were not interested in SK arguments anyway, but still you fail there again. As I pointed out the 1953 issue directly lead to the hostage crisis directly lead to America's reaction to it. So even here, you have nothing but irrelevant non-sequitors and time wasters.

It does however make it clear, without a doubt that your main stated purpose for this debate was a lie. You are only interestedin bashing IRI, the context and the truth is un-important.

"the 100,000 people killed

"the 100,000 people killed in one episode of South Korea were SOUTH KOREAN CITIZENS..."

You lie Q. There were not 100,000 people "killed". According to your own source, this number is still circumenstantial at best and based on estimates that in turn are based on interviews. It could be proven wrong. You can not use this as a done deal evidence.

Besides, you are reliying on war-time numbers.

I wrote, "I am angry at all the violence, imprisonments, rapes and executions that are taking, have been taking, place in Iran."

You responded: "OK, but can you point to anything you have done about it other than "verraji"? Of course you can't."

What I have done or not done about IRI's crimes should not be a concern for a weasel snitch like you. It shall not become public until the day that we can all feel safe from your fellow thugs in Iran.

But did you say "OK?" Q, are you finally admitting to the IRI's crimes? Please clarify this because if you are admitting them, then I shall look at you as a completely different person. It is still not too late for you to return to the arms of your people. (This was meant as a joke, as I already know you'll never take your people's side.)

"and how do you know they are IRI supporters?"

I have already answered this to you. But I repeat it here: If it walks like a duck, if it swims like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, then it must be...

... According to you, it must be an elephant!

Do you realize that schools will open in one month? Does it distress you that there might be more dangers laying ahead for the IRI? I guess there are more sleepness nights, like those in June, awaiting you.

Q has the typical mullah thought process..

... it goes like this:

1- There is no "ekrah" in religion, so you are not forced to belive. Go study and educate yourself.

2- But if you convert away from Islam, we have the right to kill you.

That is right, Q says that if you don't agree with him, then it must be you don't understand and he is happy to "educate" you. But if you reach the "wrong" conclusion and disagree with him, you are a clown and an idiot.

What is laughable Q is when you say I didn't bring facts. I did, and you just threw them out the window. This is also a gem of yours:

No, it just means establishment of the IRI was the will of the people. Consequences of individual actions are still valid.

How about the hostage taking? Did the IRI confer with the people before deciding? Or did a bunch of criminals scale the walls of a foreign embassy, create an international incident, and Khomeini decided to go with it? Was there a poll? Was there a debate in Majles? What will of the people?

How about the export of the revolution? Was that also the will of the people? Did a majority of Iranians support overthrowing regional governments? Was there a poll was there a debate in the majles, with people's elected representatives?

How about the continuation of the war after 1982? How about the execution of so many Iranian patriots? Did the majority of people support the execution of innocent people like Hoveyda and so many others by a thug like Khalkhali?

The will of the people, yeah right.

And you go ahead and twist and twist without end:

Blame WWII on Germany because they started it by invading other countries!. Iran is not Nazi germany in your laughably self-serving "analogy".

Laughably self serving analogy? Who threatened regional governments with exporting of the revolution, and for all of them to be overthrown?

Who stormed the embassy of another country, which is sovereign territory of that country, thus declaring war on that country?

The Iran Iraq war started in September 1980. The hostage taking happenned on November 4, 1979. The threatening of regional governments occured also all throughout 1979 and afterwards. Who did the first act of aggresion in this sequence?

The Iran Iraq war was preventable. By the IRI. Because of their carelessness, so many of my friends and countrymen body parts are buried in fields you have never heard of, and missing forever. And then you have the gall to tell me about "respect for Iranian people".

The following BS from you about the hostage taking is quite laughable also:

They were however a predictable consquence of meddling as almost every solid historian has written on this.

Really, it was predictable? America had done much worse meddling in other countries, why did those countries not take American diplomats hostage? Chileans, Filipinos, Vietnamese, Guatemalans, Nicarguans, all should all have taken American hostages, why didn't they if such an action is so naturally predictable? America had meddled in all those coutnries much more than in Iran. The difference is mullah vs non mullah way of thinking.

Also, I love this one:

I am aware of the sequnce of events. I did not rely on them for my argument.

In other words, I was misleading people by ignoring this sequence. When you gave me the facts, I threw them out the window.

The fact is Q, you cannot tolerate people having different opinions than yourself. You ridicule people, make fun of them, talk down to them, and have the gall to claim you are willing to educate people. You don't even realize how pathetic you are. Look at all the people here who have taken this comparison as valid, are they all clowns and idiots and laughable and uneducated? How about anybody not reading this blog that thinks this? Them too?

If so, you remind of the joke- one day the traffic reported "everybody travelling on Route 10, beware, there is a lone motorist going the opposite way on the highway". Then this guy on route 10 was listening and said "one person? It seems like a lot more!"

-FAIR

(un)Fair, why do you have to prove me right so quickly?

Can't you see you are acting 100% according to my perscriptions? Blissfully ignorant, and devoid of facts, you keep using words and jargon but in reality you just keep saying "I hate IRI, I hate IRI".

There are better ways to deal with your psychological anger. You don't have to pretend you are in a discussion about Korea to unload your mental baggage. This is getting rediculous.

The people supported it. So it is immune from having any consequences?

No, it just means establishment of the IRI was the will of the people. Consequences of individual actions are still valid.

So many Germans supported Hitler. So Naziism was a "fact" too. Why blame WWII on Germany?

Blame WWII on Germany because they started it by invading other countries!. Iran is not Nazi germany in your laughably self-serving "analogy". If you want to get technical: Iran is Poland. You and Jamshid are akin to the Nazi brownshirts who said "Poland asked for it" and "Poland should have settled for peace", "should have trusted Hitler with a BS peace plan with no guarantees". That's what you're saying about Iran because your hatred has blinded you!

It was America's fault for meddling in European affairs.

This is where I believe you could really use some education. Why do you resist my goodwill advice? You don't know jack about History or sound argumentation. America was not meddling, so it was not America's fault in Germany.

America HAD meddled in Iran, and it was supporting a puppet dictator in Iran. Honest, these are facts. Don't let your obviously uncontrollable rage blind you to facts.

You miss the points again. I never said the hostage crisis achieved anything. They were however a predictable consquence of meddling as almost every solid historian has written on this. Again... education!

I am aware of the sequnce of events. I did not rely on them for my argument. I simply said economic sanctions, encirclement, investments and supporting of Saddam Hussein were crucial factors not present in South Kora.

Honestly, what about this is difficult for you to understand? Tell me what language you are comfortable with and I will deliver. You are sounding like a broken record going in circles. These are facts.

I and others have answered your NONSENSE hands down.

Answered my valid and well-supported points with non-sequitor ideological crap and worthless diversions. YES, you have! YES!

The rest of your post is yet another predictable diverstion. You can talk about my high school if it makes you feel better, but don't tell me you are not wasting time and engaging in BS diversions. It's painfully obvious now.

Q is dizzy from his own circular logic

So the revolution is a "fact". Therefore it is disqualified from being a cause of anything?

So then you can adjust your argument accordingly- AFTER excluding certain conclusions that you don't like.

And you have the gall to even use the word "scientific"?

The people supported it. So it is immune from having any consequences?

So many Germans supported Hitler. So Naziism was a "fact" too. Why blame WWII on Germany? It was America's fault for meddling in European affairs.

And blaming the hostage crisis is laughable. Great. We can't touch that one either. So maybe you can remind everybody here, as far as Iranian assets and returning the Shah, DID THE HOSTAGE CRISIS ACHIEVE ANYTHING?

Hint: NO!

Now here is what is LAUGHABLE Q- Your twisting and deception of history and facts- , the Iranian assets were frozen AFTER taking of hostages, and the neighborhood bully attacked Iran AFTER the taking of hostages. By the way, the biggest supporters of the neighborhood bully are now doing trade big time with IRI, selling them junk that no one else would buy. Oh, oops, there I go again, criticizing the IRI! How unacceptable!

Get Real Q.

Here is another FACT:

I and others have answered your NONSENSE hands down. On every front- economic, political, social, international, scientific. The childish game is all you- holding your ears when you see something coming you don't like to hear. All you can do in response is slander and ridicule people, like you did Jamshid (whose challenge to you is still unanswered: Prove the following: "You have repeatedly attacked anyone who was against War and Sanctions and have de-facto justified them.").

You have no logic, no respect, no notion of debate or discussion, and expect everybody to just listen to your monologue. You look down on people and consider yourself owner of the absolute truth and the educator of those who are willing to follow the "right" way -i.e. your way. No wonder you don't like people criticizing the IRI- they are your fellow arrogant thugs!

Looks like your high school days were more traumatic than I thought. So traumatic, it has taken you back to preschool.

-FAIR

Whatever Jamshid, talk is cheap and your excuses are aplenty

I explained to you already that the 100,000 people killed in one episode of South Korea were SOUTH KOREAN CITIZENS, had nothing to do with the war.

But it seems, you are not above defending human rights abuses by Western "friendly" dictators like Shah or Rhee, and of course you never have anything to say on war atrocities by the US and Israel. That, we also already knew about you.

I am angry at all the violence, imprisonments, rapes and executions that are taking, have been taking, place in Iran.

OK, but can you point to anything you have done about it other than "verraji"? Of course you can't. I suppose it makes you feel like you are "doing something" when you spend hours trying to rabidly attack perfectly reasonable antiwar and antisanctions activists as "IRI agents" thinking you are "helping". If it wasn't so sad, it would be comical.

Your logic: IRI supporters are against war and sanctions. Therefore, they should be immune to all kind of criticism. If you critisize them, you must be pro-war and pro-sanction.

Yes, and how do you know they are "IRI supporters"? Because they don't want war and sanctions? What does that mean exactly? Thanks for exaposing the kind of juje-fascist ideology that makes insecure bullies feel better about themselves without providing the slightest help to Iran or Iranians.

Congratulations again!

Q, your fanatic backwarded views is depriving you of your mind

It was more than 8000, not 4000 who were executed by the IRI in the late 80s in the span of few weeks. South Korean government did not commit such crimes during non-war peace times.

South Koreans do not lash, amputate nor stone people to death. Your IRI government does all of these. I guess this makes the IRI more Sweden-like?

Me angry? Certainly. I am angry at all the violence, imprisonments, rapes and executions that are taking, have been taking, place in Iran. I am also angry at people like you who indirectly support these acts of violence, but turning their back at the victims.

I can just imagine if the rapes were taken place in Palestine, how much noise you would have made about it. But when the victims are Iranians, they are just a minor "cost" for your ideology's greater goals.

You call me a liar again. You do so despite your own lies being documented, one of them presented right here. I publicly challenged you to make good on your accusation. Your best attempt:

"You have repeatedly attacked anyone who was against War and Sanctions and have de-facto justified them."

Your logic: IRI supporters are against war and sanctions. Therefore, they should be immune to all kind of criticism. If you critisize them, you must be pro-war and pro-sanction.

Sure Q, sure.

There are many individuals who have critisized the IRI's killings, rapings, lootings and corruption. You have attacked many of them, many times. It looks like by your own logic, you have de-facto justified these deplorable acts, and so you must be a pro-murder, pro-rape and a thief too.

That's quite some logic you got Q. Do you see the hole you have dug for yourself? What kind of stupic logic is this?

It is the same logic always used by cornered and deparate scared thugs, coward thugs such as those running the IRI's violence against innocent Iranians, which, was clearly displayed to the world in the past few months, an exposure that surely must have distressed you with sleepness nights.

Lastly, it looks like it is you who is tearing himself apart, not me. Look at you. Look at your reasoning. Look at the level of you fahaashi and the level of words you are using (koon, etc., like one of those basiji thugs.) Look at the hole you've dug for yourself. Look at the rapist regime you've been vehemently supporting. Look at the "evidence" for IRI crimes you so many times asked for. Then look at yourself in the mirror and watch the similarities, as god is watching in disgust.

As I said, there is a special place in hell reserved just for people like you.