[_DeadFred_]

>could say the same thing about "Death to America." did it happen or is it just bluster?

Ding ding ding. Amen brother, you understand the point I was making. 'It didn't happen so that isn't what he called for, it was bluster' is a bullshit defense/justification for calling for the death of entire societies by those in power. Imagine waiving away what trump said, the calling for the death of a society, as harmless rhetoric or justifying his reason for doing so.

9/11 happened after my childhood and was not conducted by a supreme Islamic leader, why would it be relevant to what I wrote? The events I wrote about were all at the direction/teachings of some of the most supreme shia Islamic leaders, Bin Laden was a spoiled rich boy not a lifelong Islamic leader/teacher/researcher like Iran's mullahs. It's best to differentiate groups and not generalize about religions/people/groups down that path often lies justification for evil. If I see religious leaders/scholars/teachers it makes me wonder about the religion/church/sect/cult. If I see a school shooter, it makes me wonder at my nation's rotten core and how can I fix that, not the shooters motivation.

The multiple personal attacks you have done and your cross examine writing style are a violation of HN guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[cholantesh]

>It's best to differentiate groups and not generalize about religions/people/groups down that path often lies justification for evil.

But broad generalizations about one of the principal denominations of a religion/its adherents are entirely above board?

[_DeadFred_]

Broad generalization about what their supreme religious leaders do/say? Yep.

[cholantesh]

Which, in a sibling comment, you say reflects on the sect as a whole. This would be a clever use of weasel words if you were just more consistent.

[pazimzadeh]

> Amen brother, you understand the point I was making

No, I took your comment literally..and even if it was sarcastic I agree with it. It's like in the Art of War. Those who are strong don't need to say anything, and those who are weak bluster. Trump found himself in a weak position but wanted to look strong. Same thing with the mullahs over the years. Predictably once they felt their military capabilities were strong enough, they mellowed their rhetoric:

  It is also clear that “Death to America” does not mean death to the people of America. The people of America are like other peoples. It means death to American policies and to arrogance. 

https://english.khamenei.ir/news/2298/Death-to-America-means...

> 9/11 happened after my childhood and was not conducted by a supreme Islamic leader, why would it be relevant to what I wrote?

Sorry, I don't get your point. First, the whole world doesn't revolve around your childhood, and foreign policy is not based on your childhood. This is really getting tedious. Am I supposed to also only care about things that happened when I was a child? Ok, well as a french-iranian person in the US I received hate from actual people in real life, being called a terrorist, etc, and it only got worse when France rejected the premise of the Iraq war. Republicans started boycotting anything french, breaking wine bottles, etc. My dad's french-iranian restaurant had its windows broken when when this was happening. You don't hear me mentioning it in every comment. Did anything bad actually happen to you? For all I know you were a spoiled kid who watched too much TV and weren't brought up to question what you were told.

Second, are you actually saying that calls for destruction of the US from religious extremists are only concerning if the leader was not well off? When Khomeini didn't even grow up poor at all? It doesn't add up.

The reason it's relevant is because you implied that the primary threat is from Shia islam, even though the vast majority of and most damaging attacks against the US were not by Shias.

I haven't read the HN guidelines in a while looks like I do violate a couple, like calling out people for commenting before reading an article. That should be table stakes, I think. I also have a low tolerance for people seemingly playing dumb, and am guilty of snark for sure. I'm not really sure how to interpret the 'cross-examination style' thing in practice, but you're definitely not following this guideline:

  Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize

Here's your violation sir: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47911155

Do bear with me a moment while I sort your paperwork

[_DeadFred_]

You told me I was lazy for not including 9/11. Your supposed to understand from my response each person comes at things from their own perspective. You keep failing to understand and now find the concept tedious. That's your perspective, that other's perspective is tedious.

I am saying I don't hold random acts by one person against a group. I do however hold the teachings/words/acts of supreme religious leaders as representative of their church/sect/religion (hence I am no longer catholic).

I implied that the threat from Shia religious leaders/scholars only reflects back on shia Islam, and I should not make all of Islam accountable for it.

Old boy calls needlessly me lazy then want's to belittle me for calling him out on it. The response you link to was in response to "Hopefully you can appreciate why your feelings don't trump the ground truth." implying I wasn't being truthful/ignorant of truth, with your ground truth being "I looked, but couldn't find one instance of Iran chanting 'death to america' before Bush's 'axis of evil' comment" something disprovable with the google search 'death to America chant'. But now we are both definitely well into the guidelines, though again mine is in response to your navigating us here.