• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Admin: Congressional Crackdown on Terror Will Violate Iran Deal

Mycroft said:
Okay.

There are other sources. Check them out.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not finding anything mainstream of from a known credible source. I'll keep an eye open.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
See:
-Cubana de Aviación Flight 455 and support for Luis Posada Carriles
-US training, supplying, and supervising of right wing death squads in El-Salvador
-US support for FRAPH in Haiti
-US funding, training, and support for the Contras in Nicaragua
-See the US School of Americas
-See US involvement in Chile in the 1970's
-See US support for Orlando Bosch
-See US support for Jundallah
Click to expand...

See US support for ISIS...
 
Mycroft said:
Okay...you do the seeking if you want to.

I have no reason to believe that The Washington Free Beacon would lie about what Mr. Mull said to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Click to expand...

I do. The WFB is a hyperpartisan rag.
 
If they back out give Bibi the green light.

The end.
 
Kobie said:
I do. The WFB is a hyperpartisan rag.
Click to expand...

Committee hearings are part of the public record. This ought to be an easy claim for you to prove.
 
Kobie said:
I do. The WFB is a hyperpartisan rag.
Click to expand...

Actually, looking over some of their article titles is seems they really are not so partisan. They go after or report on a wide number of issues...both left and right.

But hey...you can go ahead and play your "condemn the source" games. Just know that you'll do it without me.
 
It's nothing more than a back door attempt to undermine the Iran nuclear deal.
 
Montecresto said:
It's nothing more than a back door attempt to undermine the Iran nuclear deal.
Click to expand...

I don't know about you, but I don't think there should be a deal of any kind. The US should keep their hands off Iran and let them prove they want to be a peaceful member of the world community.

This "deal" seems to me to be nothing more than a propaganda weapon that will be used in the years to come by Iran's radical religious leaders to stir up hate against the "west".

If Iraq is proven in the future to be selling nukes, or making them available to enemies of the "west" who end up using them, the "west" can simply remove Iraq from the planet.
 
ocean515 said:
I don't know about you, but I don't think there should be a deal of any kind. The US should keep their hands off Iran and let them prove they want to be a peaceful member of the world community.

This "deal" seems to me to be nothing more than a propaganda weapon that will be used in the years to come by Iran's radical religious leaders to stir up hate against the "west".

If Iraq is proven in the future to be selling nukes, or making them available to enemies of the "west" who end up using them, the "west" can simply remove Iraq from the planet.
Click to expand...

That wouldn't have been your position had it been a Bush administration deal.
 
Mycroft said:
shrug...

As I said...suit yourself. Your doubts are your problem...not mine.
Click to expand...

All our problem if people are too willing to accept that which isn't shown to be accurate.
 
Boo Radley said:
All our problem if people are too willing to accept that which isn't shown to be accurate.
Click to expand...

Or...people too willing to disregard that which hasn't been shown to be inaccurate.
 
Mycroft said:
Or...people too willing to disregard that which hasn't been shown to be inaccurate.
Click to expand...

True, but the standard isn't that you can find it in one source, but that there are multiple mainstream sources that support it. Merely finding it in like sources (tea party most note) isn't using multiple sources. We should be able to find it outside those confines.
 
Boo Radley said:
True, but the standard isn't that you can find it in one source, but that there are multiple mainstream sources that support it. Merely finding it in like sources (tea party most note) isn't using multiple sources. We should be able to find it outside those confines.
Click to expand...

Actually, since the article quotes various people, it is incumbent upon those who would disregard the article to show where it is inaccurate.
 
Mycroft said:
Actually, since the article quotes various people, it is incumbent upon those who would disregard the article to show where it is inaccurate.
Click to expand...
No, that's actually wrong. The rules of evidence suggests that those who make the claim show it to be accurate, not out of context, and representative of the truth. It's far too easy to misrepresent something.
 
lebronjames said:
it is cheating
Click to expand...

Most certainly the case.

White House Sees Signs Iran Missile Test Violated U.N. Resolution

U.S.: Iran Missile Test Was ‘Clear Violation’ of U.N. Sanctions

Iranian missile test violated U.N. ban: Report - Washington Times

But then, did anyone with any sort of reasonable level of intelligence expect anything different than this? I mean seriously.

Just waiting for those 'snap back' sanctions that were promised. :lamo

Kerry and Obama are fools to have believed the Iranians would comply with this deal of theirs.

No, if you really want to give yourself a mental hot foot, just count the number of voices that were already warning against this behavior of Iran, and count the number of times either or both Kerry and Obama claimed that it wouldn't be so.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, that's actually wrong. The rules of evidence suggests that those who make the claim show it to be accurate, not out of context, and representative of the truth. It's far too easy to misrepresent something.
Click to expand...

Rules of evidence???

This isn't a court trial...it's a news article. Heck, by your reasoning you would be unable to believe what most mainstream news organizations present. LOL!! A lot of them even cite "anonymous" sources, for god's sake.
 
Mycroft said:
Rules of evidence???

This isn't a court trial...it's a news article. Heck, by your reasoning you would be unable to believe what most mainstream news organizations present. LOL!! A lot of them even cite "anonymous" sources, for god's sake.
Click to expand...

No one said it was a court. But it is how argument works no matter where it is taking place. And its an article. It's accuracy is in question.
 
Boo Radley said:
No one said it was a court. But it is how argument works no matter where it is taking place. And its an article. It's accuracy is in question.
Click to expand...

It's only in question in your own mind...that is something you will have to deal with on your own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom