Iran crackin' down...

[WildCat]

As I keep telling you, learn your history.

Do you even read your own source?

In the 1960 and especially the 1970s Iran's oil revenues grew considerably. Starting in the mid-1960 this "weakened U.S. influence in Iranian politics" while it strengthened the power of the Iranian state vis-a-vis the Iranian public.

That supports your contention that Iran was a puppet state supported by American money?

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

What "allies of Iran" did Israel attack?

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

I could swear you said it here once...

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

How about you give some examples instead?

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?

Are you serious, or trolling? Did the Maori sail off to London one day and demand to become a British colony?

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!

There is no legal reason Pakistan cannot have nukes, they didn't sign the NPT. Iran did. And I don't think anybody is happy that Pakistan has a bomb. Or India for that matter.

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

What a simple way of thinking, where the only 2 ways to keep a country out of the nuclear club is either a strongly worded letter or a full-out invasion.

Simple is as simple does I guess.

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

Saddam would still be in power today if he hadn't invaded Kuwait. Then it would indeed be relevant, because then the situations would be equal.

But as it stands, your simple analogy falls flat.

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.

So? We've been attacked elsewhere.

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



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.

OK, they're not "the good guys". They're just the guys you side with and whose own atrocities (and there are many) you ignore.

Nah, it's just another lie.

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




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

Then explain why you think Iran can justify attacking Israel.

 

[ZARDOZ]

OK, they're not "the good guys". They're just the guys you side with and whose own atrocities (and there are many) you ignore.

Perhaps the Athiest has something to say about this... considering he's "an Athiest?"

http://www.rsf.org/Iran-is-world-s-biggest-prison-for.html

Also on 4 January, 36 parliamentarians who support President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad presented a bill under which detained government opponents would be regarded as “mohareb” (enemies of God) who should be executed “within a maximum of five days” of their arrest.

It would also reduce to five days the period allowed for an appeal in cases of “disturbing public order” and “moharebeh” (war against God), instead of the 25 days currently allowed under article 236 of the criminal code.

“We are very disturbed by the calls repeatedly made by the most senior officials for Iran to impose the ‘supreme punishment’ on detainees, including journalists,” Reporters Without Borders said.

So if this bill passes then in five days - if you oppose the current Iranian regime or disturb public order - you are executed for being "an enemy of god." Talk about draconian.

 

[The Atheist]

I could swear you said it here once...

Ah, so now when making up the most scurrilous rubbish imaginable, you "thought you saw it".

Yeah, right.

It does show just how dishonest you're prepared to be, so nice work on that.

Are you serious, or trolling? Did the Maori sail off to London one day and demand to become a British colony?

This is neither the time nor place to discuss NZ's history, but I will note another attempt to change topic.

Saddam would still be in power today if he hadn't invaded Kuwait. Then it would indeed be relevant, because then the situations would be equal.

What?

Where on earth do you get this crap?

Saddam had been out of Kuwait for years. He was attacked on the false premises that Iraq had WMD and supported Al Qaeda.

OK, they're not "the good guys". They're just the guys you side with and whose own atrocities (and there are many) you ignore.

And still making it up.

Jeez, it's lucky lying through your keyboard isn't against the MA.

Nowhere have I ever excused Iran for human rights abuses and I am not "on their side".

Again, it's a typical example of the uniophthalmagia you display when a question of the hated muslim fundies come up. Thank god you're just some nebbish who has no say or bearing on anything.

Then explain why you think Iran can justify attacking Israel.

I'll do that when Iran attacks Israel.

Perhaps the Athiest has something to say about this... considering he's "an Athiest?"

Nah, only that it's another complete fabrication. As to the article, it speaks for itself.

And it's THE Atheist.

 

[Locknar]

Looking through this thread, I've noticed a lot of bickering and other off-topic postings. Stop the bickering, keep the discussion civil and as always - on topic.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[Sporanox]

Saddam had been out of Kuwait for years. He was attacked on the false premises that Iraq had WMD and supported Al Qaeda.

In many ways, the US involvement following the first Gulf War set the stage for the second.

 

[WildCat]

What?

Where on earth do you get this crap?

Saddam had been out of Kuwait for years. He was attacked on the false premises that Iraq had WMD and supported Al Qaeda.

No, was bound by a peace agreement he continually violated. Allied nations had to patrol the no-fly zones to keep Saddam from launching air attacks against the Kurds, and he continually tried to shoot down the planes enforcing the no-fly zones. He failed to document the destruction of his WMDs, and stalled the inspectors at every turn.

Had he never invaded Kuwait, there never would have been a GWI, and certainly not a GWII.

And still making it up.

Jeez, it's lucky lying through your keyboard isn't against the MA.

Nowhere have I ever excused Iran for human rights abuses and I am not "on their side".

You certainly are. Remember when you said:

No, I think it's more a case of seeing that Iran is right to feel threatened, and since they feel threatened by Israel and USA, an attack on Europe is not very likely.

No, they don't have a right to feel threatened by Israel. Israel is not a neighbor of Iran, Israel never threatened Iran. And what did Iran do? A few years after the Islamic Republic was created they started arming, training, and funding Hezbollah.

And you claim Iran has the right to feel threatened by Israel? And you're not on Iran's side?

I'll do that when Iran attacks Israel.

Can you post the essay you wrote in 1982?

 

[The Atheist]

No, they don't have a right to feel threatened by Israel.

Ah, you're so funny.

Here, check some facts.

If there's anything else you'd like to proven wrong on, get back to me.

 

[Skeptic]

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

One single nuke in the hands of theocratic nutcases who wish to bring on Armageddon by slaughtering the Jews is an evil for all mankind. The fact that other people have nukes is not exactly relevant.

Your complaint is like claiming that it's hypocritical for adoption agencies, who routinely place thousands of children with adoptive parents, to deny the psychopathic necrophiliac pedophile the ability to adopt one single child, or for the gun laws, who routinely allow people to own many guns, to not allow the convicted ax-murderer to have even one single gun.

No fair!



Oh, and P.S.

ONE! I ate ONE SINGLE BABY! And it happened to taste delicious! And people are angry at me for some reason.

 

[Skeptic]

In many ways, the US involvement following the first Gulf War set the stage for the second.

Sad but true. The USA should have hanged the sonofabitch back then.

 

[Skeptic]

Ah, you're so funny.

Here, check some facts..

You fail to see the difference between stating that one is going to go nuclear and wipe the Jews off the face of the earth in a holocaust like the previous one that never happened, and the response to such threats on Iran's part by saying (credibly or not) that if they continue in this goal, they might be prevented by force.

It is a "threat" to Iran only in the sense than Britian's and France's ultimatum to Hitler that if he invades yet another country there will, in fact, be war, was a "threat". Let us just hope there is similar resolve and ability behind those threats, as there was behind Britian's.

By the way, the similarities between Hitler and Ahmadejinad don't end in their desire to kill the Jews and their belief in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but are quite obvious in many other ways.

For example, Hitler complained it's totally unfair that Britain, a colonial empire that controlled India, didn't allow him to take over Poland -- much like Ahmajedinad complains that it's totally unfair for the USA, which has nuclear weapons, to not let him get (in the Atheist's words) "One single nuke". That these "hypocrites" had some legitimate concern of what Hitler would do to the Poles, or what Ahmajedinad would do with his nuke, given that they're both genocidal nutcases, is dismissed and considered unimportant.

Or there is both Hitler's and Ahmajedinad's conviction that all opposition to their aggressive plans is due to British -- or American -- imperialist desires, by people who just can't stand the idea of a strong and proud Germany, I mean Iran. This is another thing that many sympathizers in the west, then as now, believed. That both German and Iranian aggression was fear first and foremost by their own immediate neighbors, due to both countries' extremist policies, is considered unimportant.

Or there is the claim by Hitler's press -- just like the claim in the links you posted, with which you obviously agree -- that such threats will be ignored, are just "proof" how evil Britain / the USA / Israel are, and will just "strengthen the resolve" of the German (or Iranian) people, in their fight for their RIGHTFUL PLACE as a superpower.

Finally, there is both leaders' belief that the western opposition -- both Britian's and the USA's -- is actually orchestrated from behind the scenes by that poison of all mankind, the international Jew (or "zionist", as he is currently known), the all-powerful cause of all bad things that happen. DEATH TO THE JEWS! DEATH TO ISRAEL! ARRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!

Can I have a nuke?

 

[The Atheist]

DEATH TO THE JEWS! DEATH TO ISRAEL! ARRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!

I think you need a nice cup of tea and a lie down.

 

[Skeptic]

I think you need a nice cup of tea and a lie down.

I think you need to answer the points I made about the very close similarity between the two regimes -- especially their violence, contempt for human rights, and desire for genocide.

Incidentally, today, Feb. 11, is 22 Bahman in the Persian Calendar, the day the poor, misunderstood Ahmadejinad, terrified of Israeli agressiveness and resentful of American imperialism, declared would usher in the demise of the capitalist system and the end of the USA, the "biggest impediment" to establishing a worldwide Islamic revolution. Oh, and as is reported, the theocratic mullahs are now trying to have "Chinese-style" crackdown on the people. No internet, no cell phones, no twitter...

...but at least they're not the Shah, right? They hate America, so they can't be all bad.

We'll see what happens. But hey, why can't he have a few lousy nukes? What's this unfairness???

Reality continues to ruin your lovely worldview, Atheist. Drat!

 

[GreNME]

I think you need to answer the points I made about the very close similarity between the two regimes -- especially their violence, contempt for human rights, and desire for genocide.

Incidentally, today, Feb. 11, is 22 Bahman in the Persian Calendar, the day the poor, misunderstood Ahmadejinad, terrified of Israeli agressiveness and resentful of American imperialism, declared would usher in the demise of the capitalist system and the end of the USA, the "biggest impediment" to establishing a worldwide Islamic revolution. Oh, and as is reported, the theocratic mullahs are now trying to have "Chinese-style" crackdown on the people. No internet, no cell phones, no twitter...

...but at least they're not the Shah, right? They hate America, so they can't be all bad.

We'll see what happens. But hey, why can't he have a few lousy nukes? What's this unfairness???

Reality continues to ruin your lovely worldview, Atheist. Drat!

Did you read the second link you provided? From the description in the second link it seems that the regime is quickly on its way to some serious changes. From page 2 of your second link:

The first was Grand Ayatollah Abdul Karim Mousavi-Ardebili, from Qom, one of the country’s leading clerics. Mousavi-Ardebili asked Khamenei to back off, to restrain from using violence against the people, and to release the political prisoners. Khamenei told him to pound sand. When Mousavi-Ardebili went to his car, Khamenei accompanied him, and before getting into the vehicle, the Grand Ayatollah said to Khamenei “you remind me of the shah in his final days; you have lost contact with the country, you do not understand what is going on.”

This guy is one of the few in all of Iran who has the vote capable of removing Khamenei from power. Rafsanjani is another who has such a vote, and also paid Khamenei a visit (and secured the release of Ali Reza Beheshti). There are Iranian politicians (along with millions of Iranian citizens) literally putting their lives on the line to bring down the current regime, and the "theocratic mullahs" seem to be siding with those people in the highest echelons.

Can you really not see that Ahmadi's bluster is signaling a critical mass for the current regime over there? The Atheist seems to be seeing it. I certainly see it, hence my earlier comments about talk of aggression toward Iran right now being completely stupid as an argument. Are you seriously so wrapped up in ideological hyperbole that you're not seeing what's happening socially and politically in Iran? The "theocratic mullahs" seem to be opposing the current regime, and many Grand Ayatollahs are advocating a more democratic government. How does this match up with your rather colorful interpretation of the situation in Iran when almost all non-partisan accounts coming from Iran paint a situation that is far different than you propose?

 

[Sporanox]

Did you read the second link you provided? From the description in the second link it seems that the regime is quickly on its way to some serious changes. From page 2 of your second link:

This guy is one of the few in all of Iran who has the vote capable of removing Khamenei from power. Rafsanjani is another who has such a vote, and also paid Khamenei a visit (and secured the release of Ali Reza Beheshti). There are Iranian politicians (along with millions of Iranian citizens) literally putting their lives on the line to bring down the current regime, and the "theocratic mullahs" seem to be siding with those people in the highest echelons.

Can you really not see that Ahmadi's bluster is signaling a critical mass for the current regime over there? The Atheist seems to be seeing it. I certainly see it, hence my earlier comments about talk of aggression toward Iran right now being completely stupid as an argument. Are you seriously so wrapped up in ideological hyperbole that you're not seeing what's happening socially and politically in Iran? The "theocratic mullahs" seem to be opposing the current regime, and many Grand Ayatollahs are advocating a more democratic government. How does this match up with your rather colorful interpretation of the situation in Iran when almost all non-partisan accounts coming from Iran paint a situation that is far different than you propose?

I'll believe regime change when I see it. The tinder seems to be there, but I am not sure the movement will take root in a substantial way.

 

[GreNME]

I'll believe regime change when I see it. The tinder seems to be there, but I am not sure the movement will take root in a substantial way.

Where have you been the last nine months? It's already there in a substantial way. Members of the Iranian Guardian Council-- who have the sole political authority to depose Khamenei-- are getting more on-board with the Green Revolution movement (last year at this time it was mostly just Rafsanjani). The last anti-Western holiday in Iran was met with huge protests against the current regime at the risk of the protesters' lives. The Green Revolution movement itself is made up of predominantly younger people, and half of Iran's population is under 30. The Iranian regime has actually had to ship people in from other countries to help crack down on its citizens, and even this hasn't slowed the movement down (and, if anything, has inflamed more people to join).

Exactly what do you have to see to acknowledge "tak[ing] root in a substantial way" in Iran?

 

[Skeptic]

Can you really not see that Ahmadi's bluster is signaling a critical mass for the current regime over there?

Let us hope you're right -- but there have been many "almost there" revolutions that failed completely.

To your main point, I am quite certain that the average Iranian is not at all impressed by Ahmadejinad's rhetoric. I know some Iranians and, their unanimous opinion about Ahmadejinad is, "Oh Jeez, what did this idiot say now?". He's seen not so much as even evil, but as a huge embarrassment.

But the problem is, a nut with a nuke is dangerous precisely because he is a nut, and might indeed use the nuke if he's nutty enough, or feels threatened enough. It is common -- Hitler at the end of WWII had done the same -- for such megalomaniacs to see their own loss of power or death as equivalent to the end of the world, and to try and bring about that end in revenge on the world as a whole, or on their own people who "betrayed" them, once they realize their cause is lost. The gas chambers worked to the last possible moment; if Hiter had the bomb, he would not have hesitated for a moment to use it on London or Moscow, even if he had known for sure he would still lose the war, just in order to satisfy his thirst for revenge.

If there is one thing more dangerous than a nutty theocratic genocide-supporting fanatic regime with nukes, it's an unstable nutty theocratic genocide-supporting fanatic regime with nukes.

Exactly what do you have to see to acknowledge "tak[ing] root in a substantial way" in Iran?

Khamenei, Ahmadejinad, and a few others hanged from the lampposts in Tehran.

 

[GreNME]

Khamenei, Ahmadejinad, and a few others hanged from the lampposts in Tehran.

And it's this type of hyperbole that makes you unable to be taken seriously, because if that's honestly what you would prefer to see then you're qualitatively no better than them.

 

[GanipGnop]

A-Bombs For Everyone.....Oh Shia

.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?

I'd say the top 5 reader's-recommended replies show that many Europeans aren't blind to the fact that Israel's possession of nuclear weapons drives Iran and other Muslim nation in the region to desire the same power. A nuclear armed Iran poses no more of a world threat then a nuclear armed North Korea or Pakistan. Iran isn't going to make good on any crazy threats they make because they'll be wipe off the face of the earth if they try. Israel already has a huge head start in any arms race that the Iranians want to run as does most every other member of the nuclear club. Any nuclear attack on Israel would receive a withering response the same goes for the US in spades. The Shia sect would nearly cease to exist in one day if they used nukes for anything more than a bully pulpit.

The main threat to Israel is that Iran would force them to increase military spending. I predict a lot of hand wringing and sanctions from the UN security council but no military action. Israel might make good on their preemptive threats but they won't be able to destroy Iran's dual use facilities without a major commitment of force. US Defense Secretary Gates has stated that any military option would only delay Iran's intentions by a few years so it may not be worth the effort anyway.

I don't like it but that's what Atoms for Peace can do for us. One day you're helping the puppet you installed with a few HEU research "prestige" reactors the next he get deposed and the new guys use the knowledge you provided against you.

 

[WildCat]

Ah, you're so funny.

Here, check some facts.

If there's anything else you'd like to proven wrong on, get back to me.

I'm sorry, can you find anything prior to Iran attacking Israel through Hezbollah?

That Israel threatened Iran after they'd been attacking them for over 20 years is hardly a reason for Iran to have attacked them over 20 years ago. Again, pretzel logic.

And where is the essay you wrote in 1982, when Iran's Revolutionary Guards helped Hezbollah spring into existence? You swore you'd write one after Iran attacked Israel, or has it been lost after all these years? If so, you can just post the executive summary.

 

[Skeptic]

And it's this type of hyperbole that makes you unable to be taken seriously, because if that's honestly what you would prefer to see then you're qualitatively no better than them.

Oh, nonsense.

Wishing that murderous, genocidal thugs be hanged from the lampposts is very different than being a murderous genocidal thug who wants everybody they dislike dead.

They used to say, "there will be peace when Franco's widow will be standing in front of Mussolini's grave crying, 'who shot Hitler?'". I think people who said that were quite different, "qualitatively" and otherwise, than Franco, Hitler, and Mussolini.