Iran crackin' down...

[ZARDOZ]

Are these efforts wrong parky? Are you opposed to the middle east peace process?

This is the curious phenomenon I saw on the BBC "Have Your Say" thread on Iran. That is why I started this thread. Somehow a thread at the BBC about Iran’s regime is dominated by posts "about Israel..."

http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thr...=7487&edition=2&ttl=20100210154134&#paginator

The top reader-recommended post today - Feb 10 2010 - reads:

So it's alright for Israel to have nuclear weapons(and threaten it's neighbours with their use(see October War 1972). It's alright for Israel to ignore UN resolutions and refuse to sign the NPT. No action will be taken when Israel attacks Iranian nuclear installations, with US complicity. Hypocrisy on hypocrisy. No wonder the West is despised in the Middle East..

202 people recommended that post at the BBC. Funny how a post about the evils of Israel happens to be the most-recommended post at the BBC in a thread about Iran’s regime. I find that curious.

 

[WildCat]

This is the curious phenomenon I saw on the BBC "Have Your Say" thread on Iran. That is why I started this thread. Somehow a thread at the BBC about Iran’s regime is dominated by posts "about Israel..."



The top reader-recommended post today - Feb 10 2010 - reads:


202 people recommended that post at the BBC. Funny how a post about the evils of Israel happens to be the most-recommended post at the BBC in a thread about Iran’s regime. I find that curious.

It's also astonishing that people don't seem to care that Iran signed the NPT and Israel, Pakistan, and India did not.

 

[Skeptic]

How is that relevant?

Well, it vaguely insinuates Israel supports dictatorships, and we all know that vaguely insinuating nasty things about Israel is good.

Of course, if Israel had bad relations with Iran during that time, why, that would only prove what a war-mongering, extremist country Israel is: "even the semi-dictatorial Shah didn't like Israel!".

 

[Thunder]

Well, it vaguely insinuates Israel supports dictatorships,

um...Israeli did support dictatorships...and a racist Apartheid regime.

but the USA did also support and still does support dictatorships, till this day. aka China and Saudi Arabia.

my point was, that Israel had good relations with a non-democratic state, who's leader was not accountable to or representative of..the people.

 

[The Atheist]

Israel actually had good relations with Iran until the revolution.

A puppet regime backed by US money and arms. Fancy Israel getting along well with those guys!

Now that you mention the revolution, I seem to recall that being a popular uprising against the US-backed puppet Shah.

Then Iran immediately started fighting Israel by proxy. Israel has never attacked Iran, Iran has been attacking Israel for 30 years.

Iran has not attacked Israel other than by the same proxy Israel attacks Iran and/or its allies. Even the American policy is that some allies are indivisible from it, notably Canada and Israel. Deliberately disingenuous lacking an answer is my guess.

Iran is the aggressor, deal with it.

And Israel & USA are not?

Actually I correctly assumed you have no clue as to the history of Israel and Iran and are ascribing 30 years of Iranian aggression towards Israel to Israeli concerns about Iran's nuclear program over the last 10 years or so. Pretzel logic.

Nah, I'd take the pretzel logic over the disgraceful hypocrisy any day.

Israel has how many nukes?

You're peeing in your pants at the thought that Iran might have a single nuke.

Honestly, what it shows me is simple cowardice.

On one hand, you support a xenophobic regime being armed with [multiple] nukes as it refuses basic human rights to its citizens while still occupying land it annexed in wartime.

On the other, a country attempting to get one single nuke is an evil to all mankind.

Cowardice & hypocrisy. Stuff logic.

You are siding with a theocratic regime which supports terrorism, hangs homosexuals, hangs and jails political protestors, kidnaps foreigners for propaganda purposes,...

This is where your argument goes from ludicrous to absurd.

If I bothered to make a list of the countries with human rights crimes that USA supports right now, I'd run out of skin on my fingers.

Yes, Iran is being run by an evil regime.

Big deal - so are dozens of other countries and I see nobody clamouring for an invasion of any of them. That is the single dumbest argument you could attempt.

And let's look at the "sponsors terrorism" bit.

So does Pakistan.

On the other side, exactly how many terrorist attacks has Iran sponsored on US territory?

(I can tell you the answer. 0.)

Iran actually attacks Israel for 30 years: The Atheist says they're the good guys.

Wow.

You just make up lies and state them as fact.

Israel finally responds with words: The Atheist condemns them and says they deserve everything they get.

And there's another!

Good work, Wildcat. You're doing your argument a power of good.

That's some rational thinking there The Atheist.

I'll leave that comment to stand in the light of the little fantasy you're having.

Hardly worth it given the last couple of lines, but here it is again....

 

[ZARDOZ]

um...Israeli did support dictatorships...and a racist Apartheid regime.

Iran has not attacked Israel other than by the same proxy Israel attacks Iran and/or its allies.

Holy off-topic derails. How does Israel fit into a thread about Europe and Iran? I guess it's a way not-to-discuss Europe and Iran. Isn't there enough Israel threads at JREF to talk about Israel in?

ETA

On the other side, exactly how many terrorist attacks has Iran sponsored on US territory?

(I can tell you the answer. 0.)

The answer is not quite zero. While technically the US Embassy in Beirut is not "American soil" Hezbollah - an Iranian proxy - still blew it up in 1983.

Judge Royce Lamberth of U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. May 30, 2003, had determined that the bombing was carried out by the militant group Hezbollah with the approval and financing of senior Iranian officials

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_1983_U.S._Embassy_bombing#Responsibility

Additionally in 1983 299 American and French servicemen were killed when Hezbollah blew up the Beirut barracks:

On May 30, 2003, Lamberth found Iran legally responsible for providing Hezbollah with financial and logistical support that helped them carry out the attack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing#Civil_suit_against_Iran

...And finally in 1979 the American Embassy in Tehran was taken by Iranian students for 444 days.

So that is three incidents where Iran - or Iran through a proxy - directly attacked Americans The Atheist.

 

[Cleon]

Holy off-topic derails. How does Israel fit into a thread about Europe and Iran? I guess it's a way not-to-discuss Europe and Iran. Isn't there enough Israel threads at JREF to talk about Israel in?

Good question. Why don't you bring it up with the person who first introduced the topic into the thread?

With all that said BBC has a "Have your Say" section and the question is "How should the world react to Iran’s nuclear regime?" And the top 5 reader's-recommended replies are all pointing fingers at the USA and Israel:

"So it's alright for Israel to have nuclear weapons.." "It's hypocrite nations like Israel and USA.." "Obviously behind it are Israel and warmonger-circles in the US..." "Israel is the biggest troublemaker in middle east and gets away with everything it does...." "n the same way the world reacted to the Israelis nuclear regime...."

http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thr...=7487&edition=2&ttl=20100209161736&#paginator

 

[Thunder]

Holy off-topic derails. How does Israel fit into a thread about Europe and Iran?

hmmm...

posted by ZARDOZ in OP:

"With all that said BBC has a 'Have your Say' section and the question is 'How should the world react to Iran’s nuclear regime?' And the top 5 reader's-recommended replies are all pointing fingers at the USA and Israel"

if you don't want Israel brought up in a thread, don't mention Israel in the OP.

duhh!!!!!

 

[Skeptic]

A puppet regime backed by US money and arms. Fancy Israel getting along well with those guys!

Well, the Ayatollah Humeini killed in his first month or so in power more people -- about 20,000 -- than the Shah in all his decades in power.

Just FYI.

And Israel & USA are not?

No.

The aggressors here are the one who threaten to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, to have their version of theocracy rule the world, that deny the holocaust while wishing for another one, that send money to the likes of Hamas and Hizbullah to kill any Jew or other infidel they can lay their hands on, and so on.

Is this mere anger at evil Israeli or American policies? Hardly. They are the type of people who hold these sorts of displays, or stone women for adultery, who think the Jews -- oops, "zionists" -- control the world through their evil money and power, and so on.

Examples of the barbaric, medieval (actually, dark ages), woman-hating, Jew-hating, freedom-hating and in general life-hating behavior of the thugocracy which rules Iran can be multiplied.

Now, when you'll see Obama declare that peace will finally come when all White people are wiped off the face of the earth, or Israelies stoning Bar Rafaeli to death for being insufficiently covered or committing adultery with a non-Jew, well, then you'd have something. Then you might have some sort of moral equivalence.

But as it is, sorry, no.

By the way, your name is "atheist". I presume you are. And yet, here you are, defending -- or at least excusing -- the world's most vicious and backward theocracy (excepting, perhaps, Sudan).

Why? It's an enemy of the USA of Israel, so it can't be all bad.

 

[Thunder]

Now, when you'll see Obama declare that peace will finally come when all White people are wiped off the face of the earth,

 

[ddt]

The combination of the funding of terrorism, and oppression of it's own people, makes Iran a potential threat. Once they get "the bomb" do you think Iran's current draconian regime would suddenly become the Mary Poppins of the Middle East? Or would a nuclear-armed Iran run by a draconian regime be a clear and present danger to stability in the region?

You still haven't made a case for that connection between domestic and foreign policies. There's a plethora of examples either way. The US has a history of helping Latin-American tinpot generals overthrow civilian governments. Let's not even get started about the French meddling in the affairs of various African countries. Clearly both are domestically free and democratic countries. OTOH, say, the Myanmar regime or the Pinochet regime has never posed a threat to its neighbours.

Care to at last make your case?

Because I didn't realize that I needed to use Darth Rotor-approved list for my analogies while posting on JREF. Perhaps you or Darth Rotor could post a Darth Rotor-approved list of analogies acceptable for use on JREF and I shall review it. Meanwhile I used the analogy I used because of the answer I already gave - Gleichschaltung. It was the first thing that came into my head. Frankly I didn't write a PHD thesis on the similarities between Iran and Nazis so try to let go.

Persecution complex much? I note that Darat in post #35 suggested you drop the comparison, yet you continued with it in post #38. The Nazi comparison has the additional baggage of WW2 and the Holocaust, and you haven't even started to argue that Iran is on that course.

 

[GreNME]

Wow, lots of extreme taking-sides-too-far arguing going on in here.

Look, the US didn't begin ostracizing Iran because they started attacking Israel, the US began ostracizing Iran because their revolution chased out the Shah that we helped install who had nationalized Iranian resources to sell cheaply to the US and a few other nations, and then took Americans hostage. One might be able to argue that this was sufficient cause to ostracize Iran, even, but the "proxy support of terrorists" thing is an after-effect. Additionally, the Saudi Arabian regime looked the other way as thousands of Saudis crossed over into Iraq and millions of dollars in monetary and material support went into supporting Iraqi insurgents during our recent foray into Iraq (more so that Iran prior to 2006/2007), and the US has not ostracized Saudi Arabia one bit. For all the actual valid arguments that could be presented about the sanctions on Iran, turning this into a Hamas/Hezbollah/Israel argument is not one of them.

For those claiming that comparisons to the Nazi regime aren't warranted, I would humbly sumbit that comparisons to the Gestapo are not only warranted but quite accurate. The Basiji are very much a modern-day Gestapo force who acts domestically to stomp down on any dissent against the regime, authorized to engage is some of the most vile behavior against their own citizens for not supporting the regime in power. This was displayed in sickening clarity during the summer of last year, while the current convictions and death sentences are underscoring the similarity. So, while the Islamic Republic's rhetoric doesn't match that of the Nazi regime, the comparisons between the Basiji forces and the Gestapo are appropriate and accurate. This doesn't mean that Ahmadi or Khamenei are Hitler and thus we should invade, it means that the level of outright fascism we've observed in Iran is comparable to the historic example that is well known by many, which is an accurate assessment.

And finally: what this is supposed to mean to the possibility of a nuclear-powered Iran is tricky at best, deceptive at worst. Let's all be honest in admitting that the main reason most of the Western powers don't want Iran to have nukes is because we don't want Tehran to hold allies (like Tel Aviv) hostage with a possible nuclear strike in case we (in the US) decide to invade them. This is all well and good as a reason to not wish Iran to have nukes-- I don't dispute that-- but it maintains a constant diplomatic bad faith with Iran that keeps any hope of opening a workable dialogue for improving relations with (and, hopefully, lessening the overt fascism in) the country with whom the only semblance of diplomatic communication over the last 30 years has been saber rattling on both sides. I'm not sure of a plan or answer to this stand-off that can definitely solve the problem, but I strongly feel that the protests and growing dissent in Iran is going to be key to a solution. At this point finding a way to open communications further in a way that doesn't discredit the current growing dissent in Iran is probably the best avenue for undermining the current regime's rhetoric and reducing its threat to our allies while avoiding military action. The only alternatives I've seen even fielded in debates on the subject have been to continue the complete ostracizing that has not gotten any better for three decades or some form of military action where I feel the outcome would be disastrous and set back progress even further.

 

[Thunder]

I sense a persecution complex and an upcoming self-made sense of martyrdom...in the Force.

 

[WildCat]

A puppet regime backed by US money and arms. Fancy Israel getting along well with those guys!

he Shah was not a puppet of the US, nor was Iran backed by US money.

Now that you mention the revolution, I seem to recall that being a popular uprising against the US-backed puppet Shah.

Once again, what is your evidence the Shah was a puppet of the US? Are all allies of the US our puppets?

Iran has not attacked Israel other than by the same proxy Israel attacks Iran and/or its allies.

Please list the Israeli-backed attacks on Iran.

Even the American policy is that some allies are indivisible from it, notably Canada and Israel. Deliberately disingenuous lacking an answer is my guess.

Now you're just babbling.

And Israel & USA are not?

Why no, they aren't. Israel nor the US has attacked Iran. Meanwhile, Iran finances, trains, and arms Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran also arms and funds insurgents in Iraq.

Poor innocent little Iran...

Nah, I'd take the pretzel logic over the disgraceful hypocrisy any day.

Inability to counter the point noted.

Israel has how many nukes?

Enough that their anti-semitic dictatorship neighbors haven't dared attack them since they were acquired. Except through their terrorist proxies of course.

You're peeing in your pants at the thought that Iran might have a single nuke.

I am?

Honestly, what it shows me is simple cowardice.

Says the guy whose bravest act was spitting in the face of an octogenarian American WWII veteran.

On one hand, you support a xenophobic regime being armed with [multiple] nukes as it refuses basic human rights to its citizens

What "basic human rights" does Israel deny its citizens?

while still occupying land it annexed in wartime.

How did New Zealand come about again?

On the other, a country attempting to get one single nuke is an evil to all mankind.

Is that all they want, one? And it doesn't concern you that followers of an apocalyptic doomsday cult are seeking nuclear weapons they are forbidden to possess by treaty?

Cowardice & hypocrisy. Stuff logic.

Seriously, I'm amazed your brain stem is powerful enough to send the signal for you to breathe.

This is where your argument goes from ludicrous to absurd.

If I bothered to make a list of the countries with human rights crimes that USA supports right now, I'd run out of skin on my fingers.

Define "supports".

Yes, Iran is being run by an evil regime.

Big deal - so are dozens of other countries and I see nobody clamouring for an invasion of any of them. That is the single dumbest argument you could attempt.

So who is "clamouring for an invasion" of Iran? oh, right, you simply pulled that out of your nether regions with the rest of your "deep thoughts".

And let's look at the "sponsors terrorism" bit.

So does Pakistan.

And?

On the other side, exactly how many terrorist attacks has Iran sponsored on US territory?

(I can tell you the answer. 0.)

You gloat like this is somehow relevant to anything...

Wow.

You just make up lies and state them as fact.

No lies. If you ever bothered to pick up a newspaper and read it you may have known that Iran has been sponsoring Hezbollah since the early days of the revolution.

Your ignorance is not my fault.

And there's another!

Good work, Wildcat. You're doing your argument a power of good.

Since you are wrong about everything so far I'll take that as a compliment.

 

[WildCat]

my point was, that Israel had good relations with a non-democratic state, who's leader was not accountable to or representative of..the people.

So in your opinion Israel should not try to have good relations with Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Dubai, etc etc?

 

[Thunder]

So in your opinion Israel should not try to have good relations with Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Dubai, etc etc?

no..they should. but this should not be confused with popular acceptance of Israel.

i.e...Anwar Sadat's unlucky run in with a bullet.

 

[WildCat]

Wow, lots of extreme taking-sides-too-far arguing going on in here.

Look, the US didn't begin ostracizing Iran because they started attacking Israel, the US began ostracizing Iran because their revolution chased out the Shah that we helped install who had nationalized Iranian resources to sell cheaply to the US and a few other nations, and then took Americans hostage.

Right away you go off the rails.

What Iranian resources were "[sold] cheaply to the US and a few other nations"?

 

[WildCat]

no..they should. but this should not be confused with popular acceptance of Israel.

So what was your point wrt Israel having relatively good relations with Iran under the Shah?

 

[The Atheist]

Holy off-topic derails. How does Israel fit into a thread about Europe and Iran?

I think this has been dealt with by others re: your own OP.

The answer is not quite zero. While technically the US Embassy in Beirut is not "American soil" ....

Then they're not what I asked for, so I'll just ignore them.

By the way, your name is "atheist". I presume you are. And yet, here you are, defending -- or at least excusing -- the world's most vicious and backward theocracy (excepting, perhaps, Sudan).

I really don't care what doctrine is involved. Dubbya and Blair have their god, the Ayatollahs have their allah.

he Shah was not a puppet of the US, nor was Iran backed by US money.

As I keep telling you, learn your history.

Please list the Israeli-backed attacks on Iran.

Again, let's leave your wet dreams out and deal with reality. I said "allies of Iran" and that's what I meant.

Says the guy whose bravest act was spitting in the face of an octogenarian American WWII veteran.

Wow. You really do harbour some amazing delusions. Where on earth did you get that one?

What "basic human rights" does Israel deny its citizens?

I really don't believe you're dumb enough to not know, but I'll give you some links anyway.

How did New Zealand come about again?

Ha. The old "I have no answer so will flagrantly change the subject" tactic, chief! Great move.

Just a quick history lesson again for you. New Zealand was never annexed and there was no war for the territory, but don't let those facts stand in the way of whatever fantasy you have about NZ. You don't bother with facts anywhere else, so why would it matter?

Is that all they want, one? And it doesn't concern you that followers of an apocalyptic doomsday cult are seeking nuclear weapons they are forbidden to possess by treaty?

No more so than the thousands of nukes possessed by Israel, USA, Pakistand and India, no. You do make me laugh with the treaty rubbish though. The members of the nuke club are happy for insane states like Pakistan to have as many nukes as it likes, but Iran is looking to have one, so wet pants time!

Seriously, I'm amazed your brain stem is powerful enough to send the signal for you to breathe.

Again showing the paucity of your argument.

So who is "clamouring for an invasion" of Iran? oh, right, you simply pulled that out of your nether regions with the rest of your "deep thoughts".

Oh, you're not? How you going to stop them producing nukes without invading them? Send then a strongly-worded letter?

You gloat like this is somehow relevant to anything...

Of course it's bloody relevant. It's relevant in the same way that Iraq "sponsored terrorism" and had WMD.

Empty rhetoric by insane warmongers. The fact is, no American on Amercian soil has ever been attacked by Iran or a terrorist sponsored by Iran.

I know that doesn't matter to you.

No lies. If you ever bothered to pick up a newspaper and read it you may have known that Iran has been sponsoring Hezbollah since the early days of the revolution.

Nice try on the deliberate disingenuousness, but this is the lie I was talking about:

The Atheist says they're the good guys.

It's a lie. I have not ever said that, and if you actually read what I'd posted, you probably wouldn't bother lying.

Your ignorance is not my fault.

Nah, it's just another lie.

I'll quote again so you get it this time maybe:

Israel finally responds with words: The Atheist condemns them and says they deserve everything they get.

It's straight out lying. Nowhere have I made any comment which bears relationship to what you posted. Outside of your brain, that is.

 

[rwguinn]

Six years for opposing Ahmadinejad... goodness, sounds like Nazi Germany during Hitler's reign. In another thread I commented that I work with a guy from Iran who is visiting on a work visa. His wife is a semi-famous musician with the Tehran Symphony Orchestra. They have had friends who support Mousavi taken in for questioning, his wife, and other friends, have been beaten by police at Green protests, other people they know - who have been very vocal - have had their flats ransacked by the police. His wife keeps him updated via Skype almost daily.

With all that said BBC has a "Have your Say" section and the question is "How should the world react to Iran’s nuclear regime?" And the top 5 reader's-recommended replies are all pointing fingers at the USA and Israel:



Which leads me to the question, since these "Have Your Say" reader's-recommended replies are mainly by Europeans, are many Europeans really blind about the dangers a nuclear-armed Iran poses?

(Now before the strawman is created for me that I said "all europeans are blind about the threat Iran poses" is run up the flagpole I just want to say on record I never said that...nor do I believe it.)

There are a large number of people, some of them here, who don't see a difference between a largely self-governed people having nuclear capability, and a people, whose leader is a self-proclaimed genocide and fanatic whose religion states that the way to paradise is to take an honor guard of infidels with you, having nuclear capability