Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
To Defeat ISIS, Iraq Forced to Accept Iran's 'Suffocating Embrace'Yet Iran is assisting Iraq AGAINST the caliphate.The analogy requires an assumption that Iran's aim is a thousand year Reich.
Correction
A thousand year Caliphate.
Jesus, the manufacturing of bullshit has really reached a new level around here.ISIS militants outline chilling five-year plan for global domination Daily Mail Online
Now if this isn't a plan that Iran supports...
Most Iranians love America, Americans, and American products.The OP fails as a false comparison fallacy.
And you are being redundant. "false comparison fallacy.".... what else is can "false" be but a fallacy?
But where is the "false comparison"?
Hitler was threatening Europe.
Iran has SAID clearly within the last two weeks:
July 14, 2015 at 4:00 am
Tehran staged its traditional Quds Day[1] rallies on July 10 in 770 cities across Iran. Quds Day was established by the founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the late Imam Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini, ostensibly to unify the Muslim world to "liberate" the Palestinian people from the "Zionist Entity's" disputed "occupation."
However, in reality, Quds Day has become a day in which Iran and protestors in other societies attack the legitimacy of the state of Israel ("The Little Satan") and threaten the United States ("The Big Satan").
In the lead-up to Quds Day, the former President of Iran, Al Akbar Rafsanjani, mused in an interview about the eventual disappearance of Israel from history. [2]
The chants at this year's rallies were familiar: "Death to America" and "Death to Israel."
Reportedly, President Hassan Rouhani attended a rally in Tehran and was treated to posters of Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Obama, and King Salman of Saudi Arabia being burned. He did not protest.
The ritualistic rally-cries of death to America and Israel, and the burning in effigy of the leaders of Israel, America, and Saudi Arabia underscore the basic lie that underpins Quds Day: the Iranian regime is focused on Iran's revolutionary extremist agenda, not on the welfare of Palestinian Arabs.
Iran s Quds Day Death to America Death to Israel
View attachment 44557
I'm trying to understand how a "This deal offers an opportunity to move in a new direction," Obama said. "We should seize it."
when participants what the destruction of Israel and the U.S.
Do we see ANY similar protests in Israel/U.S. calling for the destruction of Iran or the burning of Iranian flag?
Distance can be emotionally deceiving. The nuclear deal imperils the United States as much as Israel, just not as immediately. The Supreme Leader directs crowds in chanting "Death to America." The Iranian navy practices blowing up U.S. aircraft carriers, and its armed forces bear responsibility for the deaths of hundreds of American soldiers who fought bravely in Iraq.
Ex-envoy Iran deal bad for Israel U.S. and world - CNN.com
Has there been any similar practices of blowing up Iranian vessels?
Well, Chamberlain was Conservative.
Most Iranians love America, Americans, and American products.The OP fails as a false comparison fallacy.
And you are being redundant. "false comparison fallacy.".... what else is can "false" be but a fallacy?
But where is the "false comparison"?
Hitler was threatening Europe.
Iran has SAID clearly within the last two weeks:
July 14, 2015 at 4:00 am
Tehran staged its traditional Quds Day[1] rallies on July 10 in 770 cities across Iran. Quds Day was established by the founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the late Imam Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini, ostensibly to unify the Muslim world to "liberate" the Palestinian people from the "Zionist Entity's" disputed "occupation."
However, in reality, Quds Day has become a day in which Iran and protestors in other societies attack the legitimacy of the state of Israel ("The Little Satan") and threaten the United States ("The Big Satan").
In the lead-up to Quds Day, the former President of Iran, Al Akbar Rafsanjani, mused in an interview about the eventual disappearance of Israel from history. [2]
The chants at this year's rallies were familiar: "Death to America" and "Death to Israel."
Reportedly, President Hassan Rouhani attended a rally in Tehran and was treated to posters of Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Obama, and King Salman of Saudi Arabia being burned. He did not protest.
The ritualistic rally-cries of death to America and Israel, and the burning in effigy of the leaders of Israel, America, and Saudi Arabia underscore the basic lie that underpins Quds Day: the Iranian regime is focused on Iran's revolutionary extremist agenda, not on the welfare of Palestinian Arabs.
Iran s Quds Day Death to America Death to Israel
View attachment 44557
I'm trying to understand how a "This deal offers an opportunity to move in a new direction," Obama said. "We should seize it."
when participants what the destruction of Israel and the U.S.
Do we see ANY similar protests in Israel/U.S. calling for the destruction of Iran or the burning of Iranian flag?
Distance can be emotionally deceiving. The nuclear deal imperils the United States as much as Israel, just not as immediately. The Supreme Leader directs crowds in chanting "Death to America." The Iranian navy practices blowing up U.S. aircraft carriers, and its armed forces bear responsibility for the deaths of hundreds of American soldiers who fought bravely in Iraq.
Ex-envoy Iran deal bad for Israel U.S. and world - CNN.com
Has there been any similar practices of blowing up Iranian vessels?
And how do you know this?The difference between Chamberlain and obumble is that people believed Chamberlain.
hm has created a very good Fallacy of false derivative analogy.
The two situations are very, very different.
The only alternatives were to crank up sanctions or go to war. War will not produce the results wanted by the West, and sanctions may have led to the collapse of major portions of the Middle East, which would lead to catastrophic results for the world.
You far right neo-cons need to think with your head on your shoulders not the head of your dick.
hm has created a very good Fallacy of false derivative analogy.
The two situations are very, very different.
The only alternatives were to crank up sanctions or go to war. War will not produce the results wanted by the West, and sanctions may have led to the collapse of major portions of the Middle East, which would lead to catastrophic results for the world.
....
Actually that is kind of the situation that Chamberlain was in.
THey wanted to stop Hitler but the only way to do it was a war they could not win, so, appeasement.
The biggest disaster in modern US history was Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq. Was that appeasement, or the opposite?
Jesus, the manufacturing of bullshit has really reached a new level around here.ISIS militants outline chilling five-year plan for global domination Daily Mail Online
Now if this isn't a plan that Iran supports...
If one checks the history they will discover England had nothing to stop Hitler at Munich. At the end of WWI England was devastated and passed a rule for ten years that there would be no war so no preparation was needed. At the end of the ten years they passed it again finally at Churchill's suggestion they made the "Ten Year Rule" sort of permanent. England had nothing to stop Hitler and Chamberlain knew it too well.
And you think these people think with their heads???
Tell that to these Iranians...And you think these people think with their heads???
If you can't distinguish Iran from ISIS, you shouldn't be in the discussion.
And anyone who constantly declares every threat is just like Hitler also shouldn't be in the discussion.
France was putting her faith and money into the Maginot line she had her defenses almost completed. But I think the biggie was both France and England just didn't want another war, The slaughter of WWI may have been a factor, in their reluctance to go to war so soon, it certainly was a major factor with Churchill's planning throughout the war.If one checks the history they will discover England had nothing to stop Hitler at Munich. At the end of WWI England was devastated and passed a rule for ten years that there would be no war so no preparation was needed. At the end of the ten years they passed it again finally at Churchill's suggestion they made the "Ten Year Rule" sort of permanent. England had nothing to stop Hitler and Chamberlain knew it too well.
FRance had a huge military, including more tanks than Hitler had. France could have easily invaded German and retook the Rhineland and Hitler would not have been able to stop it. Hitler even admitted as much.
Sounds familiar. Remember Obama stumped on ending the liberation of Iraq and even helped in creating the ISIS community with statements like these that he and the other idiot traitors made about the USA!!!France was putting her faith and money into the Maginot line she had her defenses almost completed. But I think the biggie was both France and England just didn't want another war, The slaughter of WWI may have been a factor, in their reluctance to go to war so soon, it certainly was a major factor with Churchill's planning throughout the war.If one checks the history they will discover England had nothing to stop Hitler at Munich. At the end of WWI England was devastated and passed a rule for ten years that there would be no war so no preparation was needed. At the end of the ten years they passed it again finally at Churchill's suggestion they made the "Ten Year Rule" sort of permanent. England had nothing to stop Hitler and Chamberlain knew it too well.
FRance had a huge military, including more tanks than Hitler had. France could have easily invaded German and retook the Rhineland and Hitler would not have been able to stop it. Hitler even admitted as much.
