Supposed comments “confirming” official US narrative
“Brig. Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh, who as commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard’s Aerospace Force oversees most of Iran’s missile arsenal, stopped short of threatening further concrete military action. He also said Iran hadn’t intended to kill anyone in Wednesday’s attack but only to cause material damage.
Gen. Hajizadeh’s remarks at a press conference in Tehran, broadcast by state television, fit the mold of recent Iranian statements that appear to try to calm tensions with Washington following the U.S. killing of Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, while also assuring an Iranian audience at home that the retaliation isn’t over.” https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/iranian-general-lays-out-aim-to-expel-us-from-mideast/ar-BBYNcLN?ocid=spartanntp
But if this is true the why does the “semi-official” Iranian news still have this up:
Unless someone has a video of this press conference, or the Iranian media admit that this is true, I will remain under the assumption that US soldiers died and Trump couldn’t follow through with his threats. There is a propaganda war going on.
I don’t care, nor know how I’ve gotten into a convo with you about it.
I was asking @loppar on what basis is he an expert on thousands of years worth of global history and politics?
I’m inclined to believe he is not in the slightest based on some laughable posts in this thread, but he can perhaps prove otherwise by listing substantial and impressive credentials.
It isn’t as if I am in line with much of TheCB’s views, but I wonder also how he does it. I know he has done a lot of contract work I think more construction related in a lot of countries, and that it makes sense to have a knowledge of local conditions, but it seems he could just work towards a tenured professorship at a university.
Edit: Or maybe I should take it all in and not ask?
I may be wrong with this, but I take him to mean that try view it as one and the same thing. In other words the exact opposite of the separation of church and state. Therefore any dissent with the state is also de facto a dissent with the religion
Why? Why don’t you just debate the points he makes. What could he possibly post that you wouldn’t attack?
What’s laughable is a white supremacist with zero credentials that anyone knows of pollutes this thread after talking about what a genius he was in a different one. Can’t you just read Mein Kampf again?
It’s a lifting message board politics forum. Shit ain’t that serious. Just debate points if you don’t agree with him and quite asking for his transcripts and life story. You think he’s made laughable points but you’re actually going to change your mind that the points are genius if you approve of his background? That makes zero sense.
Also, there’s no separation of the private and public sphere of religious observance which is a fairly recent Western phenomenon.
The Hadiths regulate a vast array of practical, real life issues. They are considered a interpretation of the literal word of God.
If God has made through the prophet his position clear on these issues, how can a believer submit himself to the ruling of an infidel court that contradicts God’s position?
Incidentally, the Donatist Christians in North Africa assumed the same uncompromising position - rejection of secular (in their case Roman) law. One of the elements of that enabled the spread of Christianity was (at least temporary) practical cohabitation with existing secular authorities, something impossible through doctrinal Islam.
Many moons ago the BB forum had a poster who positioned himself as an expert on all things BB, with much of the board flocking to him for his approval and advice.
It turned out after literally about 10,000 posts that this person had barely ever trained at all, despite regularly heavily implying he was the reincarnation of Milo.
It is entirely reasonable to ask someone to provide some background info on their credentials when they post 24/7 about absolutely every aspect of history and politics across the Earth spanning multiple thousands of years.
I’ve never come across someone so knowledgeable and find it incredible that a potential senior professor at a globally renowned university finds the time to post on an obscure politics forum on a bodybuilding website.
I’ve started reading T-mag in 1999 when it still had numbered issues and featured prominently on its homepage the cartoon characters of the editors. I’ve been also lifting weights for …well close to 30 years now.
I miss the old times of internet anonymity as current social media is not conductive to such discussions, not to mention real-life consequences through the outrage culture.
Posting here is a fun intellectual exercise that hones my debating skills sharp and keeps my writing style tight which helps me immensely in my real life endeavors.
If he tells you something you don’t believe then search for it online. There is disinformation everywhere so anybody could be quoting the wrong things, but from my experience he is a very knowledgeable guy and if he doesn’t go around making up bullshit.
It would be straightforward to list some credentials while staying completely anon.
I feel it is a fair request considering you position yourself as being immensely knowledgeable of seemingly all global history and politics spanning millennia.
So you are a willing and deliberate victim of the appeal to authority? If he makes good well reasoned arguments (I don’t know whether he does or doesn’t), and you can validate claims he makes where it is possible to do so, why would that not be enough to make you listen? Likewise if he had credentials but talked bullshit, would you still be inclined to listen?
If he has a phd in history/politics and has spent 30 odd years as a professor, or something similar.
Then OF COURSE I am more inclined to think he knows what he is talking about, when it comes to history or politics. It doesn’t mean I’d agree with him.
He appears to think he is an expert on global history and politics spanning thousands of years. If he has spent decades of his life working in these areas, then fair enough.
If he has almost nothing to back up his expertise, then I think he should tone down his pontifications of literally every known event in all history.