Because of stupid statements like this...
There was nothing stupid about my statement.
There's a vast difference between being sceptical of something, and out of hand *assuming* something to be a lie. Bush/Ahmadinejad/Mugabe can tell the truth too.
He thinks we are being unreasonable because we distrust the Iranian media...
Nope. My response was anyway directed at one poster among many. Unless you feel it has a certain synergy to your own viewpoint, I don't see why it should bother you.
and yet you and him are more willing to believe them than the Western Media...
More assumptions. I gauge the likelyhood of truth on a variety of factors. The fact of the matter is that the USA does have a general policy of funding rebels. The current US administration has had it's hand in coup attempts in more than one country (Haiti, Venezuela). The current US administration worked with Israel when Israel was planning its invasion of Lebanon. When another country comes with a claim that an insurgent group in their region has received US funding and training, it really isn't such an amazing claim. Especially when it's more or less identical to the type of assistance that the US has *admitted* to giving Al Qaeda.
Besides, I've read similar claims months ago in western publications.
and yet at the same time... you both claim that you disbelieve all media equally. Notice the discrepancy here?
I claimed no such thing. Stop putting words in my mouth.
Pick a position here.... if you say you distrust all Media equally,
I never said that.
OTOH, if you want to back the Iranian assertion, then just drop the whole "we don't trust anyone" facade... cos right now you are barking up two sides of three different trees... and it makes you both look life fools... comprende?
And what kind of a fool do you look like when you can't even distinguish between two different people with dramatically different viewpoints?
Xarog, this is not a simple world, things are complex, not only in nature but in everything.
as to americas wars, how would you have liked the world if america did not fight those wars?
Would suit me fine, really.
nazism, global saudi, communism, many other crackpot dogmas etc... you would have rather chosen that?
Nazis were dead the moment they attacked Russia. The Saudis are only in power BECAUSE of the US, so that one doesn't count. And I fail to see what makes capitalism such a shining beacon of an example in financial management. So far it just seems to be excusing the rampant pillaging of the world in the name of profit.
So imo, that's 0/3.
america, fights for freedom, and humanity, or at least that is their goal, and that is what happens most of the time, and therefor, I don't know of many who will or did do a better job than them.
Why does a country that "fights for freedom" routinely install murderous monsters as leaders in foreign nations? Does Pinochet ring any bells? How about Saddam, remember him? Both of them had substancial US assistance in their rise to power. Again, in Venezuela, the US did everything in its power to overthrow a democratically elected leader. How is that fighting for freedom? How can you fight for humanity when you don't even respect that same humanity?
as to islamics wars which were only for pure mindless supremacy, no philosophy or any humanism intended either.
and besides, islamics have fought more wars, and useless wars at that, than any other i know, and they are a minority above that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...an. :rolleyes:
More blind hatred from you.