PDA

View Full Version : Iranian Democracy, or Farce?



Qdos
12-06-2009, 15:38
With Iran holding democratic elections at the present I can't help but wonder whether the ballot counting will be rigged and whether the selection program for candidates isn't too rigidly instituted.

Still in my mind are the images of the Islamic Revolution which overthrew the Shah, who left Iran in January 1979. Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Iran less than a month later. Shortly afterwards processes against the supporters of the Shah started, and hundreds were executed.

BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Iran votes in tight presidential election (http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/ukfs_news/hi/newsid_8090000/newsid_8096400/8096411.stm)

The country is rumoured to be rapidly developing nuclear weapons, but they simultaneously claim their Islamic faith prohibits the use of such devices, and all the while the rest of the world are left to puzzle whether or not this oil rich nation will move forwards peaceably or aggressively.

Some further interesting links:-

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Power of women in Iran's election (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8093366.stm)

Iranian Revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:1979_Iranian_Revolution.jpg" class="image" title="thumbtime="><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/19/1979_Iranian_Revolution.jpg/220px-1979_Iranian_Revolution.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/1/19/1979_Iranian_Revolution.jpg/220px-1979_Iranian_Revolution.jpg

The international community must be worried at a core political level over the future intentions of whichever regime Iran falls under the control of in the critical years ahead, and inparticular the Israelis.

MickeyTong
12-06-2009, 16:03
Still in my mind are the images of the Islamic Revolution which overthrew the Shah, who left Iran in January 1979. Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Iran less than a month later. Shortly afterwards processes against the supporters of the Shah started, and hundreds were executed.

Still in my mind are the images of the 1953 UK/USA overthrow of the democratically elected Mosaddeq government and their installation of the Shah with his infamous Savak torturers/murderers.

Qdos
12-06-2009, 17:16
Still in my mind are the images of the 1953 UK/USA overthrow of the democratically elected Mosaddeq government and their installation of the Shah with his infamous Savak torturers/murderers.

That would be the coup orchestrated by the covert agencies of the western governments who were fixated on the enormous barrelages of oil flowing out of Iran, however I can't remember it because I'm simply not old enough...

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/coup53/coup53p1.php (http://www.iranchamber.com/history/coup53/coup53p1.php)

It's the outcome of the present elections which concern everybody today, as a change of leadership could alter policies on oil export, nuclear development, human rights, diplomatic relations and myriad other issues - including Iranian attitudes towards Israel of course.

Qdos
13-06-2009, 03:08
Did I say 'Farce' earlier... well, according to the latest news both sides have claimed victory and there have been complaints of insufficient ballot papers, limited access to polling stations by official election overseers, rigged ballot counts... all of which means the phrase 'Democracy' has flown out of the window on polling day... :mooooh:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8098305.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8098305.stm)


State media said hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had won, and officials said he had got 67% of the 15 million votes so far counted.



But reformist challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi told a news conference that he had won by a substantial margin. Mr Mousavi also complained of a number of voting irregularities. He said there had been a shortage of ballot papers and millions of people had been denied the right to vote. His election monitors were not allowed enough access to polling stations, he added, saying he would deal seriously with any fraud. "We are waiting for the counting of votes to officially end and explanations of these irregularities to be given," Mr Mousavi said.

BigSpaseeba
13-06-2009, 04:17
Did I say 'Farce' earlier... well, according to the latest news both sides have claimed victory and there have been complaints of insufficient ballot papers, limited access to polling stations by official election overseers, rigged ballot counts... all of which means the phrase 'Democracy' has flown out of the window on polling day... :mooooh:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8098305.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8098305.stm)

One thing that bothers me about some people around the world is that they think Iranians are a suicidal nation. They think that if Iran had a nuclear bomb they would nuke Tel Aviv and then not care if hundreds of American and Israeli nuclear bombs rained down on them. It's racist to think that Iranians are this way and that they don't care about their country and their families.

I've never been to Iran but have met other travellers who have and they said that they are an advanced culture and are probably the leading nation of the middle east. I'm from Vancouver and there is a huge Iranian community and most live in North Vancouver which is mostly mountains. I'm not surprised because Tehran looks a lot like Vancouver from photos that I've seen.

I've met a lot of Persians in Vancouver and they are very nice people who want to live in peace. Contrary to many people's opinions there are about 1.5 billion muslims who don't want to kill us westerners.

robertmf
13-06-2009, 05:06
I don't understand how democracy in the Western sense can co-exist with Islamic law/sharia. My observation is the two seem to be functionally mutually exclusive.

Perhaps if the imams were elected that would be a moslem variation of democracy ?

robertmf
13-06-2009, 05:11
... Contrary to many people's opinions there are about 1.5 billion muslims who don't want to kill us westerners.

This is true - however one must be rather prepared for that fanatic 0.05% of the 1.5b.

I am still of the opinion that if moslems want to follow "Islamic" law rather than Western legal traditions then the moslems should also take responsibility and be willing and prepared to police their own.

BigSpaseeba
13-06-2009, 06:03
This is true - however one must be rather prepared for that fanatic 0.05% of the 1.5b.

I am still of the opinion that if moslems want to follow "Islamic" law rather than Western legal traditions then the moslems should also take responsibility and be willing and prepared to police their own.


I'm not afraid of them at all.

I'm more worried about the usa government and military and what they do in this world.

They are the biggest terrorists right now.

fenrir
13-06-2009, 10:15
One thing that bothers me about some people around the world is that they think Iranians are a suicidal nation. They think that if Iran had a nuclear bomb they would nuke Tel Aviv and then not care if hundreds of American and Israeli nuclear bombs rained down on them. It's racist to think that Iranians are this way and that they don't care about their country and their families.

I've never been to Iran but have met other travellers who have and they said that they are an advanced culture and are probably the leading nation of the middle east. I'm from Vancouver and there is a huge Iranian community and most live in North Vancouver which is mostly mountains. I'm not surprised because Tehran looks a lot like Vancouver from photos that I've seen.

I've met a lot of Persians in Vancouver and they are very nice people who want to live in peace. Contrary to many people's opinions there are about 1.5 billion muslims who don't want to kill us westerners.

I've met Iranians here in Europe too and I have to agree that they were all pleasant to talk to as long as topics involving Israel or Jews in general weren't brought up.

Qdos
13-06-2009, 12:40
I've met Iranians here in Europe too and I have to agree that they were all pleasant to talk to as long as topics involving Israel or Jews in general weren't brought up.

Which faction hold the bigger grudge Fenrir, and why would that be in your opinion? Whilst we don't need a second thread on Israel, I believe Carbos thread is already one too many, however what is it that makes these two peoples desire the annhilation of eachother? :confused:

The English and the French used the hate eachothers guts, but we somehow managed to put that all behind us and learned to get on amiably.

Why not the Iranians and the Jews Fenrir? :suspect:

fenrir
13-06-2009, 13:17
Which faction hold the bigger grudge Fenrir, and why would that be in your opinion? Whilst we don't need a second thread on Israel, I believe Carbos thread is already one too many, however what is it that makes these two peoples desire the annhilation of eachother? :confused:

The English and the French used the hate eachothers guts, but we somehow managed to put that all behind us and learned to get on amiably.

Why not the Iranians and the Jews Fenrir? :suspect:

Actually, that hatred is one-sided, all coming from the Iranian side. Israel hasn't threatened to blow Iran off the map and would be happy to be at peace with such a large and distant country.

Qdos
13-06-2009, 13:23
Actually, that hatred is one-sided, all coming from the Iranian side. Israel hasn't threatened to blow Iran off the map and would be happy to be at peace with such a large and distant country.

When was the last time Iran bombed Israels nuclear facilities Fenrir?

I know that Israel has bombed Iran in the past. Can you show me that the Iranians (who you're saying are the only party harbouring hatred here...) did something similar to Israel?

Israel has nukes, correct? Iran wants them, and is evidently trying to develop them. Perhaps they want their very own deterrent and nothing more. If Israel wishes to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities whilst preserving it's own is that actually going to appear fair and just to any of Israels neighbours?

I'm merely pointing out that what's sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander... and I am not taking sides, but merely stating a couple of facts :)

Qdos
13-06-2009, 14:28
Naturally, there are serious allegations of vote rigging, as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was returned to power with a claimed majority well in excess of the 50% required by edict.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8098305.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8098305.stm)

Right now only 80% of votes have been counted, but with a 64% majority declared it means his rival, Mir Hossein Mousavi, cannot possibly win.

He has said...



"I personally strongly protest the many obvious violations and I'm warning I will not surrender to this dangerous charade..."

"The result of such performance by some officials will jeopardise the pillars of the Islamic Republic and will establish tyranny."


Mr Mousavi previously stated there was a shortage of ballot papers and alleged that millions of people had been denied the right to vote. He claims that his election monitors were not allowed enough access to polling stations.

The head of the Committee to Protect the People's Votes, a group set up by all three opposition candidates, said the group does not accept the result, alleging fraud.

They have asked Iran's Guardian Council - a powerful body controlled by conservative clerics - to cancel the results and re-run the elections.

The BBC's Jon Leyne, in Tehran, says the result has been greeted with surprise and with deep scepticism by many Iranians.

It reminds me of a certain other nations election rigging... :suspect:

Russian Lad
13-06-2009, 17:44
I'm more worried about the usa government and military and what they do in this world.

They are the biggest terrorists right now.

That's exactly true.

Scrat335
13-06-2009, 19:10
If Irans election being a farce or not is the question I have to ask if GWB was elected in 2000.

:o:o

fenrir
13-06-2009, 19:32
When was the last time Iran bombed Israels nuclear facilities Fenrir?

I know that Israel has bombed Iran in the past. Can you show me that the Iranians (who you're saying are the only party harbouring hatred here...) did something similar to Israel?

Israel has nukes, correct? Iran wants them, and is evidently trying to develop them. Perhaps they want their very own deterrent and nothing more. If Israel wishes to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities whilst preserving it's own is that actually going to appear fair and just to any of Israels neighbours?

I'm merely pointing out that what's sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander... and I am not taking sides, but merely stating a couple of facts :)

Israel bombed Iraq, NOT Iran.

Does Israel have nukes? Just like many people on this site ask about question if Iran or NK will really attack Israel or the West, etc. Well, where is your proof that Israel has nukes? They have NEVER confirmed it, no one has seen one, etc. Maybe this is just another WMD fantasy.

BigSpaseeba
14-06-2009, 03:22
Actually, that hatred is one-sided, all coming from the Iranian side. Israel hasn't threatened to blow Iran off the map and would be happy to be at peace with such a large and distant country.

That quote about wiping israel off the map was interpreted incorrectly. It was something more along the lines of Israel will vanish from the pages of time like the USSR. Russia is still here but the USSR is gone.

It's too late though because millions believe that Iran wants nuclear weapons to bomb Israel to wipe them off the map. This would mean the Iranians are suicidal because they would definitely be nuked by probably ten times the bombs. Not only that but nuking Israel would kill millions of Palestinians and other Muslims plus pollute the entire Middle East with radiation.

Do you really believe that Iran has that intention?

BigSpaseeba
14-06-2009, 03:28
I've met Iranians here in Europe too and I have to agree that they were all pleasant to talk to as long as topics involving Israel or Jews in general weren't brought up.

I have a Persian friend in Vancouver who's married to a Jewish woman.

Qdos
14-06-2009, 03:37
Israel bombed Iraq, NOT Iran.

My apologies, I meant to say Iraq but had Iran on my mind after reading the election news regards Tehran today :)

I was also mixing up my facts because Israel have been threatening Irans nuclear program for a number of years... and because they're still thinking of ways to attack Irans nuclear program - albeit they've been denied backing from the international community.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/07/israelandthepalestinians.iran (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/07/israelandthepalestinians.iran)


Does Israel have nukes? Just like many people on this site ask about question if Iran or NK will really attack Israel or the West, etc. Well, where is your proof that Israel has nukes? They have NEVER confirmed it, no one has seen one, etc. Maybe this is just another WMD fantasy.

Does Israel have nukes? Errhm... weren't you on the thread below yourself, earlier this year? I notice you issued 'thanks' to several posts in the thread, so I'm guessing you remember reading it's content... :)

http://www.expat.ru/forum/current-affairs/123224-israel-all-out-war-hamas-3.html#post477376 (http://www.expat.ru/forum/current-affairs/123224-israel-all-out-war-hamas-3.html#post477376)

http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/israel/nuke.html (http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/israel/nuke.html)

Israel is the only nuclear power in the middle-east Fenrir, this is the reason that they've gotten away with upsetting the Arab League, and inparticular the Palestinians (with constant land grabbing tactics and human rights infringements) in the past :)

BigSpaseeba
14-06-2009, 03:38
Israel bombed Iraq, NOT Iran.

Does Israel have nukes? Just like many people on this site ask about question if Iran or NK will really attack Israel or the West, etc. Well, where is your proof that Israel has nukes? They have NEVER confirmed it, no one has seen one, etc. Maybe this is just another WMD fantasy.

Check this site:

Israel's Nuclear Weapons (http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_israel_nuclear.php)

There are many more sites.

Also check out Israel's Samson Option which seems to be a last chance suicide option killing everyone:

Samson Option - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also the Israeli whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu and Israel's nuclear program:

Mordechai Vanunu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Mordechai_Vanunu.jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/55/Mordechai_Vanunu.jpg/250px-Mordechai_Vanunu.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/5/55/Mordechai_Vanunu.jpg/250px-Mordechai_Vanunu.jpg

Iran has the largest Jewish population in the Middle East outside of Israel; the Iranian Jewish community is guaranteed one seat in the Majlis, currently held by Maurice Motamed. A large population of Iranian Jews resides in Israel, including former President of Israel Moshe Katsav, former Chief of Staff and Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz, former Chief of Staff Dan Halutz and Israeli hip-hop star Subliminal.

vladimir_seroff
14-06-2009, 08:45
Israel bombed Iraq, NOT Iran.

Does Israel have nukes? Just like many people on this site ask about question if Iran or NK will really attack Israel or the West, etc. Well, where is your proof that Israel has nukes? They have NEVER confirmed it, no one has seen one, etc. Maybe this is just another WMD fantasy.

I am not sue I understand, what any of these have to do with the original question, which was whether Iran was a democracy or a farce.

I, personally, do not see any reasons to suggest that it is not a democracy based on the recent elections.

Just because there are people in the streets claiming that the elections were rigged, doesn't mean that they were, or that they were to the extent, to which they claim they were.

There are more people in Iran that deny Holocaust. Does it give us any reasons to doubt Holocaust? What makes us so sure we should take the claims of those, who insist that the elections were rigged, seriously?

If, on the other head, we use the fact that the true head of state in Iran is the Supreme Leader, who has not been elected, then we can claim that it is not a democracy. Then we may also conclude that it is a farce. But to be sure, I believe, we should look more closely at the system of government in Iran.

The mere fact that Iran represents a danger to the world doesn't automatically mean that it is not a democracy.

Russian Lad
14-06-2009, 19:38
There are more people in Iran that deny Holocaust. Does it give us any reasons to doubt Holocaust?

Why, it does. How many Jews there were that died? 6 million? USSR lost 30 million, some of them were Jews and people of other nations, I agree, but I think it will be safe to surmise that we lost at least 20 million Russians. Is there such a thing as Russocaust? The Jews just like to be distinguished, even in death.

captaincaveman
14-06-2009, 21:35
Iran & Korea !!!

I can't help thinking that Iran and NK are now unlikely bedfellows! Both want to go nuke (they say for energy) but we all really know why, they are both totally lose cannons and will not be told what to do by their own people, or by anyone else! Democracy only comes after the letter C in their dictionary!

We should send Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Kim Il-sung a CD "I did it my way" by Frank S.

I heard they were seen lunching together looking like a newly married couple, blushing and looking coy.

Any thoughts??? Jezeez whats the world comming to!?

fenrir
14-06-2009, 21:48
Check this site:

Israel's Nuclear Weapons (http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_israel_nuclear.php)

There are many more sites.

Also check out Israel's Samson Option which seems to be a last chance suicide option killing everyone:

Samson Option - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option)

Also the Israeli whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu and Israel's nuclear program:

Mordechai Vanunu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordechai_Vanunu)

Iran has the largest Jewish population in the Middle East outside of Israel; the Iranian Jewish community is guaranteed one seat in the Majlis, currently held by Maurice Motamed. A large population of Iranian Jews resides in Israel, including former President of Israel Moshe Katsav, former Chief of Staff and Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz, former Chief of Staff Dan Halutz and Israeli hip-hop star Subliminal.

This looks very similar to Bush's case for the invasion of Iraq.

fenrir
14-06-2009, 21:49
Why, it does. How many Jews there were that died? 6 million? USSR lost 30 million, some of them were Jews and people of other nations, I agree, but I think it will be safe to surmise that we lost at least 20 million Russians. Is there such a thing as Russocaust? The Jews just like to be distinguished, even in death.

Your lot wasn't hunted down and massacred in the same way (though that was the eventual intention).

Qdos
14-06-2009, 21:59
Your lot wasn't hunted down and massacred in the same way (though that was the eventual intention).

And the perpetrators of the holocaust and almost all dead and buried, so what is the point of continuing to maintain the hatred? IMHO the Jews are behaving today like they're their own worst enemies................. :)

Russian Lad
14-06-2009, 22:12
edit

Russian Lad
14-06-2009, 22:13
Your lot wasn't hunted down and massacred in the same way (though that was the eventual intention).

How was it different? Were they saying to the Russians something like "Sorry, you are a nice chap, but, oh, well, I really hate the Jews, I am killing you cause I just have to, nothing personal, ok?".
Even if it was different in any way (it is hard for me to see in which way), it is the final result, or the death toll in this case, that counts. Everything else is just Zionist rhetorics.

BigSpaseeba
14-06-2009, 22:21
This looks very similar to Bush's case for the invasion of Iraq.

Yeah right.

Carbo
14-06-2009, 22:29
Back to the original topic of the thread, which was whether the election was likely to be a farce: it appears that it was a farce. There is pretty strong circumstancial evidence suggesting that the election was stolen from the more progressive candidate, Mousavi.


Informed Comment: Stealing the Iranian Election:

Top Pieces of Evidence that the Iranian Presidential Election Was Stolen

It is claimed that Ahmadinejad won the city of Tabriz with 57%. His main opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi, is an Azeri from Azerbaijan province, of which Tabriz is the capital. Mousavi, according to such polls as exist in Iran and widespread anecdotal evidence, did better in cities and is popular in Azerbaijan. Certainly, his rallies there were very well attended. So for an Azeri urban center to go so heavily for Ahmadinejad just makes no sense. In past elections, Azeris voted disproportionately for even minor presidential candidates who hailed from that province.

Ahmadinejad is claimed to have taken Tehran by over 50%. Again, he is not popular in the cities, even, as he claims, in the poor neighborhoods, in part because his policies have produced high inflation and high unemployment. That he should have won Tehran is so unlikely as to raise real questions about these numbers.

It is claimed that cleric Mehdi Karoubi, the other reformist candidate, received 320,000 votes, and that he did poorly in Iran's western provinces, even losing in Luristan. He is a Lur and is popular in the west, including in Kurdistan. Karoubi received 17 percent of the vote in the first round of presidential elections in 2005. While it is possible that his support has substantially declined since then, it is hard to believe that he would get less than one percent of the vote. Moreover, he should have at least done well in the west, which he did not.

Mohsen Rezaie, who polled very badly and seems not to have been at all popular, is alleged to have received 670,000 votes, twice as much as Karoubi.

Ahmadinejad's numbers were fairly standard across Iran's provinces. In past elections there have been substantial ethnic and provincial variations.

The Electoral Commission is supposed to wait three days before certifying the results of the election, at which point they are to inform Khamenei of the results, and he signs off on the process. The three-day delay is intended to allow charges of irregularities to be adjudicated. In this case, Khamenei immediately approved the alleged results.

I am aware of the difficulties of catching history on the run. Some explanation may emerge for Ahmadinejad's upset that does not involve fraud.... But... this... looks to me like a crime scene. And here is how I would reconstruct the crime. As the real numbers started coming into the Interior Ministry late on Friday, it became clear that Mousavi was winning. Mousavi's spokesman abroad, filmmaker Mohsen Makhbalbaf, alleges that the ministry even contacted Mousavi's camp and said it would begin preparing the population for this victory. The ministry must have informed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei... who found this outcome unsupportable. And, apparently, he and other top leaders had been so confident of an Ahmadinejad win that they had made no contingency plans for what to do if he looked as though he would lose. They therefore sent blanket instructions to the Electoral Commission to falsify the vote counts. This clumsy cover-up then produced the incredible result of an Ahmadinejad landlside in Tabriz and Isfahan and Tehran.

The reason for which Rezaie and Karoubi had to be assigned such implausibly low totals was to make sure Ahmadinejad got over 51% of the vote and thus avoid a run-off between him and Mousavi next Friday, which would have given the Mousavi camp a chance to attempt to rally the public and forestall further tampering with the election. This scenario accounts for all known anomalies and is consistent with what we know of the major players.... The public demonstrations against the result don't appear to be that big. In the past decade, reformers have always backed down in Iran when challenged by hardliners, in part because no one wants to relive the horrible Great Terror of the 1980s after the revolution, when faction-fighting produced blood in the streets. Mousavi is still from that generation. My own guess is that you have to get a leadership born after the revolution, who does not remember it and its sanguinary aftermath, before you get people willing to push back hard against the rightwingers.

So, there are protests against an allegedly stolen election. The Basij paramilitary thugs and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards will break some heads. Unless there has been a sea change in Iran, the theocrats may well get away with this soft coup for the moment. But the regime's legitimacy will take a critical hit....

I'd be glad to be proved wrong on several of these points. Maybe I will be.

PS: Here's the data.... Interior Minister Sadeq Mahsouli: "Of 39,165,191 votes counted (85 percent), Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won the election with 24,527,516 (62.63 percent)." He announced that Mir-Hossein Mousavi came in second with 13,216,411 votes (33.75 percent). Mohsen Rezaei got 678,240 votes (1.73 percent). Mehdi Karroubi with 333,635 votes (0.85 percent). He put the void ballots at 409,389 (1.04 percent).

Russian Lad
14-06-2009, 23:58
it appears that it was a farce. There is pretty strong circumstancial evidence suggesting that the election was stolen from the more progressive candidate, Mousavi.

I enjoyed the Mousavi-support hysteria that developed into a veritable frenzy on BBC before the elections in Iran. Even if they were forged it was fun to see the GB wriggle, trying to accomplish the unattainable via its major news outlet.

Qdos
15-06-2009, 00:05
I enjoyed the Mousavi-support hysteria that developed into a veritable frenzy on BBC before the elections in Iran.

Are you referring to the huge issue of the two arrests which were made at the Iranian Embassy in London amongst a small crowd of (mainly Iranian...) protestors? I've seen no 'frenzy' of any other sort. I think the Beeb have a decent pattern of impartial objectivity in their coverage compared to some news agencies based in Moscow... :)

fenrir
15-06-2009, 00:22
How was it different? Were they saying to the Russians something like "Sorry, you are a nice chap, but, oh, well, I really hate the Jews, I am killing you cause I just have to, nothing personal, ok?".
Even if it was different in any way (it is hard for me to see in which way), it is the final result, or the death toll in this case, that counts. Everything else is just Zionist rhetorics.

Did the Germans kill or try to kill EVERY Russian they came across?

Qdos
15-06-2009, 01:05
Did the Germans kill or try to kill EVERY Russian they came across?

They tried to kill many many more nationals, other than Russians and Jews, during the course of two World Wars Fenrir; there's absolutely no point in arguing numbers of victims for any side as Germany killed as many of these third party nationals during the wars as were the losses in strictly Jewish terms.

It's too late to get, or expect, any retribution now. You wouldn't advise me that it would be prudent to sue the present German Government over losing my grandparents prematurely as a result of what Hitler attempted - so why perpetually pursue the issue of the holocaust?!?

I notice you don't answer posts which you don't much like stomaching, and you don't have to, but for heavens sake throw away the blinkers...

I'd like to see the Jews move on from decades of bickering and wars :)

Adamodeus
15-06-2009, 01:38
Your lot wasn't hunted down and massacred in the same way (though that was the eventual intention).
"Eventual"?! That's not what Mine Kampf says and methinks it was written long before Hitler attacked the Soviet Union.

Scrat335
15-06-2009, 02:06
Fenrir.

Israel doesn't have nukes? Why do they need nuclear capable submarines? Make no mistake, if there isn't a sub already lurking off the Iranian coast with 3 or 4 nuclear missiles aboard it won't be long before there is. Israel is an agressive, racist, terrorist nation that would in all likelyhood kill millions of innocents because of percieved threats.

Israel Buys 2 Nuclear-Capable Submarines (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/24/AR2006082401050.html)

Qdos
15-06-2009, 02:57
Further to what Scrat correctly says I'd refer anyone with an interest in the subject of Israels defences and nuclear capability to the following document which credibly demonstrates where Israel stood up until 2004 in regards of a nuclear capability.

http://www.issi.org.pk/journal/2004_files/no_1/article/5a.htm (http://www.issi.org.pk/journal/2004_files/no_1/article/5a.htm)

Bearing in mind there are five years of further development, it can only mean that Tel Avivs capabilities are even greater than when this document was created of course - and with the submarine aspect of matters they could even deliver a strike way beyond the middle east alone.

Scrat335
15-06-2009, 05:22
They could park one of those subs off of the coast of Britain and even New York. That would be a stretch of capability but not impossible.

Considering the nature of the Israeli lobby in the US that's something I would worry about.

Qdos
15-06-2009, 05:32
They could park one of those subs off of the coast of Britain and even New York. That would be a stretch of capability but not impossible...

More likely still might be a peculiar desire to avenge themselves against the latest generation of Germans with a strike against Berlin, given the sometimes warped thinking in Tel Aviv and their 'larger than life' capacity for vengeful tactics.

Park a submarine close to Kaliningrad, perform a launch, and make Berlin think Russia has launched the birds. Israel has actually said that 'when they go down' they will ensure 'the world goes with them...' :suspect:

Russian Lad
15-06-2009, 07:02
Are you referring to the huge issue of the two arrests which were made at the Iranian Embassy in London amongst a small crowd of (mainly Iranian...) protestors? I've seen no 'frenzy' of any other sort. I think the Beeb have a decent pattern of impartial objectivity in their coverage compared to some news agencies based in Moscow...

No, not the arrests, the general tone of the reports about the Iranian elections - I was smiling from ear to ear. They are partial as hell (no wonder many Westerners are so brainwashed!) - well, if you listen for the factual content and the hidden message being delivered, not to what is actually said, that is...
Just a reminder: they screwed up with 9-11 reporting (big time with the building #7 demolition!), they were silent as a week long dead corpse about Georgia attacking SO and went all screaming bloody murder when the Russians intervened. They are just a tool, make no mistake.

vladimir_seroff
15-06-2009, 08:26
They are partial as hell (no wonder many Westerners are so brainwashed!) - well, if you listen for the factual content and the hidden message being delivered, not to what is actually said, that is...


I would not single out Westerners, as being brainwashed. But let me stick to the subject.

You may be curious to know that some of the same journalists, who may irritate you by the methods they use, when spouting propaganda against Russia or any other geopolitical competitor, use exactly the same methods against their own politicians, when covering internal affairs in the USA.

You should watch some debates that occur daily on MSNBC or Fox News in the USA about President Obama and Rush Limbaugh, and other significant political figures and/or ideas. Coverage of the Georgian events of last year or the Iranian elections, which you have referred to in your post, are nothing compared to that in the amount of propaganda they use.

You are right that the journalists are mere tools - this is what they are paid for. Some may actually believe in what they say to us at times, but this is not a requirement. I would prefer for them to use tricks that are less obvious for the money that I pay for their services to their employers (networks, newspapers, magazines, etc.) This ("the quality of acting") is a bigger concern to me than "what the play is about."

For the people in the West, or anywhere in the world not to get brainwashed this way, education needs to be tackled, first. Journalists will have no choice but to have to adapt to the level of critical thinking of the information consumers. In other words, someone will always have the money to pay for manipulation of public perception, if the public is so susceptible to manipulations. It is too easy not to try.

The bottom line is - I do not know whether Iranian elections were a farce, but the worldwide coverage of the same definitely is a farce.

captaincaveman
15-06-2009, 09:56
Sorry to be a rebel but you may all be missing the point and not seeing the dangerous link between NK and Iran!? Of course NK is not a muslim state but think about it!

I found some Q & A's on Iran that maybe interesting to you?



What evidence is there of polling fraud?

The evidence so far is circumstantial but persuasive. The authorities behaved in an unusual way, shortcutting the normal three-day verification and declaration process, announcing an Ahmadinejad victory only two hours after polls closed. The Mousavi camp says the interior ministry told him earlier in the evening that he had won convincingly.

In the results published so far there are few of the geographical peaks and troughs that normally characterise fair elections. Ahmadinejad is even said to have won easily in his opponents' home towns. Tabriz, Mousavi's home base, normally has a strong bias for local ethnic Azeri candidates such as Mousavi, and he appeared to have particularly strong support there. Yet the official results gave 57% of the Tabriz vote to Ahmadinejad.

What can be done about it?

Not a lot, officially. Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, has issued a statement congratulating Ahmadinejad, apparently closing the door to an appeal or further official investigation. Other establishment figures, like Ali Larijani, the parliamentary speaker, have also closed ranks. However, Mousavi has so far shown no signs of publicly conceding and has called on the guardian council, the top legislative body in the Islamic republic, to annul the result.

Can Khamenei be challenged?

Under Iran's unique form of government, known as velayat-e-faqih – rule of the Islamic jurist – the supreme leader has far-reaching powers over the machinery of state. In theory, he can be dismissed by the assembly of experts, an elected body of Islamic scholars, currently chaired by Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former president, bitter enemy of Ahmadinejad, and a pivotal figure. However, the assembly has never before questioned the authority of the supreme leader, Ruhollah Khomeini, who created the system, or, since 1989, Ali Khamenei.

What are the authorities afraid of?

The election was initially seen as posing little threat to Khamenei and the top clerics. The guardian council, a conservative body of clerics, approved only four candidates out of more than 470 who registered. Mousavi had the reputation of an uncharismatic technocrat before the vote, but he became the focus of a pent-up desire for change. The raucousness of the Mousavi supporters and the profusion of green, his campaign colour, across the country, appears to have made the regime nervous about the possibility of an upheaval like the "colour revolutions" in eastern Europe. Hardliners saw the hand of Washington and the west behind such movements. They were unconvinced by the Obama administration's protestations that it was not continuing the Bush White House's strategy of regime change.

Is the idea of a reformist Iran just wishful thinking by the west?

The presidency of Mohammad Khatami, from 1997 to 2005 showed that it was possible for a reformist to be elected to high office, but it also showed that it was extremely hard – even for a president elected by a landslide – to bring about real change in the face of resistance from the supreme leader, the intelligence services and the revolutionary guard.

What happens next?

The next few days will reveal how far Mousavi supporters are willing to go to challenge the regime. They will also show how far the authorities are willing to go in suppressing dissent, whether they will clamp down on former safety valves for dissent like the internet. Either way, the events of the past few days have the makings of a turning point. It seems unlikely that Iran can carry on as before. It will be more repressive and quite possibly more turbulent.

fenrir
15-06-2009, 10:04
Fenrir.

Israel doesn't have nukes? Why do they need nuclear capable submarines? Make no mistake, if there isn't a sub already lurking off the Iranian coast with 3 or 4 nuclear missiles aboard it won't be long before there is. Israel is an agressive, racist, terrorist nation that would in all likelyhood kill millions of innocents because of percieved threats.

Israel Buys 2 Nuclear-Capable Submarines (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/24/AR2006082401050.html)

Look, I believe that Israel has nukes but no one can actually PROVE it. Just like the years of threads on this site about WMD in Iraq. Many people (me included) thought Iraq had them but in the end, there was no court-level evidence. The same case applies here.

captaincaveman
15-06-2009, 10:24
some nice cartoons and images that make the point !

The image upload does not seem to work. Sorry can't show you them after all.

Qdos
15-06-2009, 12:49
Look, I believe that Israel has nukes but no one can actually PROVE it... there was no court-level evidence...

Who has an obligation to prove anything to you Fenrir?

Why should anyone have to prove a known fact? How many documents and pages do you require - or are you afraid to Google for yourself?

For what reason do you require 'court-level evidence' anyway?

If these accusations of having such nuclear facilities in place were being made against The Lebanon you'd be screaming your lungs dry... :rolleyes:

You're beginning to sound like an old zionist record...

moscow77
15-06-2009, 14:04
i was worried about u.s elections that bush would win, and he did. because of that how many people got killed? does anybody know the number? on the other side for years if islamic state does this or that, might do might not, all scary news nothing solid. but all the iraqi's,american soldiers,brit soldiers who got killed is the fact. we worry about the wrong things. leave them alone, that is how they wanna live and happy, why do we care about that? lets compare iran and usa: execution (both have) nuclear facility (both have),nuclear weapons (usa has, iran might develope), freedom (both have on their own terms), elections rigged ( us has 3, iran might have 1) lets clean our own house first. and than we can complain about how dirty our neighbour is..

Qdos
15-06-2009, 17:03
The Iranian police have been issued with live ammunition to use against any further protestors, alleging a 'fixed ballot' has happened, in Tehran :mad:

This evening there could be widespread bloodshed...

Russian Lad
15-06-2009, 17:26
Vladimir, I agree with everything you said.

Qdos, you see what watching BBC does to you...:)
Mark my words, it will be astonishingly peaceful and quiet in Teheran.
No bloodshed, nothing.

Qdos
15-06-2009, 17:29
Qdos, you see what watching BBC does to you...:)

I'm tuned into CBS news at the moment LOL! ;)

captaincaveman
15-06-2009, 17:45
The Iranian police have been issued with live ammunition to use against any further protestors, alleging a 'fixed ballot' has happened, in Tehran :mad:

This evening there could be widespread bloodshed...

I agree it makes you sick to hear what an iron grip they have on the people. I hope know ones dies but I also hope the people rebel and crush the dictatorship asap. It has to end now.

BTW, Mr. Ahmadinejad is due to visit Moscow for vodka and wild parties !!

I quote: "In Moscow, meanwhile, an official at the Iranian Embassy said that Mr. Ahmadinejad had delayed a visit to Russia that was to have started Monday. The meeting, in Yekaterinburg, is of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization that includes Russia, China and four Central Asian countries. He now plans to travel on Tuesday, the official said."

fenrir
15-06-2009, 21:14
Vladimir, I agree with everything you said.

Qdos, you see what watching BBC does to you...:)
Mark my words, it will be astonishingly peaceful and quiet in Teheran.
No bloodshed, nothing.

Check the news, dude. They have just reported a militia opening fire on the protesters leaving at least one dead.

Qdos
15-06-2009, 21:47
Check the news, dude. They have just reported a militia opening fire on the protesters leaving at least one dead.

RL is probably watching Al Jazeera, and they may not mention it... :whisper:

Russian Lad
16-06-2009, 11:26
One dead is hardly a bloodshed. Let's agree, for the sake of this discussion, that, say, 100 and up is bloodshed.


but I also hope the people rebel and crush the dictatorship asap.

You overestimate the attractions of democracy, me thinks:).

fenrir
16-06-2009, 11:47
One dead is hardly a bloodshed. Let's agree, for the sake of this discussion, that, say, 100 and up is bloodshed.



You overestimate the attractions of democracy, me thinks:).

It is up to 7 now, which breaks your prediction.

Russian Lad
16-06-2009, 11:53
It is up to 7 now, which breaks your prediction.

About 100 dead and up doubtful scenario? Actually, I am indeed quite surprised there is any violence at all - well, BBC earned their keep, I guess, after all. The West is instigating this turmoil, but I think it will be over within a week.

DDT
16-06-2009, 12:15
Does it really matter who is the Iranian president? The mullahs still run Iran either way!

Carbo
16-06-2009, 12:50
Does it really matter who is the Iranian president? The mullahs still run Iran either way!
I think you're right, DDT.

Now just wait while I recover from having written that sentence.

So, now th;sdlfm dlbn adsogn bja[dgkbj

Still..... not..... recovered.....

Seriously, though, as I'm sure DDT and Astro will be able to point out, Iran is a Republic, and while that has a democratic element, the Ayatollahs aren't likely to relinquish any kind of control any time soon.

However, this situation, in my view, can have two benefits. First, if Mousavi had been elected, it would have been far easier for Obama to negotiate, first, because the new president would be more moderate, and also because Obama would have more political capital to negotiate with a fresh start in Iran than the same old loon as before.

The second major benefit is that by stealing the election, and by people coming out in protest, the Ayatollahs have a chance of losing it all. While I think they’ll eventually crush the dissidents, there is a small chance of revolution. And that would probably be a good thing. We don’t need a western style democracy there – they can follow conservative muslim rules if they want. But what we in the west would rather like is for them to act like responsible members of the international community and stop developing weapons of mass destruction, stop sending special forces into Iraq, and stop sponsoring terrorist organizations. That way, we could start trading with them, which would benefit everyone: Iran would have cr@p loads of extra cash sloshing around their economy, and we would have a nice alternative to Russian gas, and the oil price would drop as the threat to the Straight of Hormuz subsided and a new source of oil came on stream.

Russian Lad
16-06-2009, 13:09
the Ayatollahs aren't likely to relinquish any kind of control any time soon.

Exactly true.


stop sending special forces into Iraq

Can hardly blame them for that. What would the US do if, say, the North Korea occupied Canada, the US neighbor, killing hundreds of thousands of its citizens along the way? Watch?


and we would have a nice alternative to Russian gas, and the oil price would drop as the threat to the Straight of Hormuz subsided and a new source of oil came on stream.
__________________

:9451::gay::evilgrin:

Qdos
16-06-2009, 13:09
I think you're right, DDT.

Now just wait while I recover from having written that sentence.

So, now th;sdlfm dlbn adsogn bja[dgkbj

Still..... not..... recovered.....

You be careful you don't end up in DDT's 'Quote of the Day' thread... :D

Carbo
16-06-2009, 13:11
Follow The Developments In Iran Like A CIA Analyst

I've overdone this metaphor, but I really do see the panoply of sources we have about Iran as an intelligence service to the masses.

We've got reliable Humint -- on the ground sources. We've got open-source reports from broadcast and newspaper media. We've got analysis, in the form of great aggregation by smart observers. We lack, um, signals intelligence, but Twitter is really a form of SIGINT, isn't it? There's plenty of misinformation out there, like rumors that Ahmadinejad is going to stage an assassination attempt, so we need to be careful about how we judge the information. If we're a savvy analyst, we need to be careful about the weight we attach to photographs and video accounts. They're the most immediate and emotionally powerful, but they can distort our understanding of the situation, particularly of about the importance of specific developments.

To start with, here's the raw data stream from Twitter, with the hashtag of the Iranian election. Remember, this data is unfiltered. There are some nuggets surrounded by garbage. Follow the debates: "(I hear that NPR is claiming that it is false news that Mousavi is in crowd now. IT'S NOT! Tell them pp, we have pics!)" -- that's a real tweet. How would you evaluate it if you were on the Iran desk?

Watch for disinformation. There's a temptation to equate the size of one's twitter follower universe with authority, but that's not logical. This source seems to have good information about Tehran's universities. I'd judge it as reliable because none of the other twitterers are arguing with its conclusions, and there is some independent corroboration for some of what it has to say.

Look for patterns in geography. But don't assume that everything that has the qualities of a pattern is actually a pattern.

Don't assume. Everyone assumes that Mousavi really won. But there is reason to think that the election was very close -- and that Ahmadinejad might have actually prevailed (although the evidence appears solid that his totals were significantly inflated.) Don't assume that Ayatollahs who appear at protests necessarily support the protesters. Don't assume that the Khamenei speaks for the rest of the council of guardians. Don't assume that Iran's government had a plan to contain the protests -- or has a plan for tomorrow, ten days from now, or next month.

Look for sources that disprove your thesis. Go outside the country and outside your comfort zone. See what, say, China's news agency reports about the protests. ("Iran's defeated presidential candidates Mir-Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi on Monday appeared in a car at a mass rally in Tehran that has been declared "illegal" by authorities, local Press TV reported.'")

Wodin
16-06-2009, 14:18
No, not the arrests, the general tone of the reports about the Iranian elections - I was smiling from ear to ear. They are partial as hell (no wonder many Westerners are so brainwashed!) - well, if you listen for the factual content and the hidden message being delivered, not to what is actually said, that is...
Just a reminder: they screwed up with 9-11 reporting (big time with the building #7 demolition!), they were silent as a week long dead corpse about Georgia attacking SO and went all screaming bloody murder when the Russians intervened. They are just a tool, make no mistake.

Well RL, the BBC is seen to be a relatively left leaning editorial organisation that regularly gets called up by sections of the British community who feel that it would not have been totally impartial (and that is a big thing in the UK). This means that, to a large extent, the BBC does stay impartial.

Having said that, since the BBC is staffed, led and financed by Brits, it would obviously reflect mainstream British cultural influences in its editorial policies. Much the same as France 24 is francophile, CNN US centric, Al Jazeera Islamcentric, CCTV Chinese and Russia Today Russophile (or maybe better...Russian establishment phile). The one thing I would say for the BBC is that it's Anglo bias is a lot more subtle, toned down and careful than the sometimes hysterical stuff RT broadcasts. This is simply because it is much more subject to public opinion pressures and freere of the political masters than perhaps RT might be.

The answer is, of course, to those of us who want a more balanced picture of world events, to watch them all and then use your head to judge.

Mainstream British opinion is that Iran is dangerous, Ahmadinejad is extreme and that a new head honcho there would be better for the world, even though it would appear that there isn't much to choose from between the candidates' views on the West, Israel, nuclear capabilities and the Islamic revolution.

Hence your reaction, perfectly understandable though it might be given your particular philosophy, to the BBC reporting.

captaincaveman
16-06-2009, 14:26
Stop press:


********* Iran to hold election recount in wake of protests

Iran's Council of Guardians has said it is ready to recount votes from last week's disputed election in the wake of clashes at mass protests which have led to the deaths of at least seven people.

Yeh right, the clerics met over black tea and figs and decided to make it look like, a "re-count" so instead of cheating the count by too much as in the first time round, cheat it a bit less the second time- then when their man wins again, it can be seen as "official" and real as the second count will show he has still won and the people of Iran will accept it!! wrong!! Who are they kidding !!

Why is there even a "supreme leader" and is he elected??!!! he has all the power so why have a presidential puppet if the pres has no power???? It's a joke.

BigSpaseeba
16-06-2009, 14:41
[QUOTE=Carbo;540726]

However, this situation, in my view, can have two benefits. First, if Mousavi had been elected, it would have been far easier for Obama to negotiate, first, because the new president would be more moderate, and also because Obama would have more political capital to negotiate with a fresh start in Iran than the same old loon as before.

Mousavi, as Iran's prime minister in the 1980s, helped build militant groups into international terrorist forces, sending money, weapons and manpower to Lebanon to beef up Hezbollah and telegraphing their targets, including that string of American and European hostages Hezbollah held for most of the decade---and Mousavi traded for, haggling over anti-tank missiles and money with Oliver North and Bud McFarlane, in the infamous Iran-contra affairs.

Carbo
16-06-2009, 14:44
[QUOTE=Carbo;540726]

However, this situation, in my view, can have two benefits. First, if Mousavi had been elected, it would have been far easier for Obama to negotiate, first, because the new president would be more moderate, and also because Obama would have more political capital to negotiate with a fresh start in Iran than the same old loon as before.

Mousavi, as Iran's prime minister in the 1980s, helped build militant groups into international terrorist forces, sending money, weapons and manpower to Lebanon to beef up Hezbollah and telegraphing their targets, including that string of American and European hostages Hezbollah held for most of the decade---and Mousavi traded for, haggling over anti-tank missiles and money with Oliver North and Bud McFarlane, in the infamous Iran-contra affairs.
Of course, but it would be a fresh start. At least it would give Obama the pretext to be able to openly negotiate, which is what the world needs, as opposed to Bush's "la-la-la I can't hear you" ignoring the situation.

Qdos
16-06-2009, 14:45
If it weren't for the oil who'd give a $hit about Iran anyway? :rolleyes:

Matthews
16-06-2009, 15:26
It’s good if Israel is preparing itself for an attack on Iran. Iran’s undeterred progress in their nuclear program is an obvious threat to Israel, who I think is doing the right thing by gearing up for a military attack. Israel cannot ignore Iran’s call for complete destruction of Israel.

Qdos
16-06-2009, 15:38
It’s good if Israel is preparing itself for an attack on Iran. Iran’s undeterred progress in their nuclear program is an obvious threat to Israel, who I think is doing the right thing by gearing up for a military attack. Israel cannot ignore Iran’s call for complete destruction of Israel.

Good, you mean, if you don't have to pay for the hike in world oil prices as a result of such a military action? How is Irans nuclear program a threat to Israel when Isrrael is armed to the back teeth with nukes herself?

There's already a more appropriate thread for that particular issue in current affairs, just have a careful look around and you'll spot it...

I thought this thread was about the Iranian elections... :)

captaincaveman
16-06-2009, 23:27
Why in gods name are the Russians inviting that grinning Iranian fraud to Moscow??? the press says Russia backs and supports him???!!! sorry to be stupid but I don't understand why!? Russia has its own oil!! or is it about bullet sales and bomb sales??? i.e business as usual, sorry to seem as if I was born yesterday, but I'm wet behind the ears when it comes to cloak and dagger politics. He (the Iranian guy) was on TV tonight grinning from ear to ear shaking hands with the Russian pres.

I can, however, see a pattern here! NK, Iran and perhaps Russia are not big fans of the USA, in many ways I feel sorry for the American pres he seems a good guy but has so much ***t to cope with right now and seems alone in his ***t!! no one else seems to have the *lls to go public.

:jawdrop:

Qdos
16-06-2009, 23:35
Why in gods name are the Russians inviting that grinning Iranian fraud to Moscow??? the press says Russia backs and supports him??? sorry to be stupid but I don't understand why!?:jawdrop:

It's called antagonising the rest of the international community... :whisper:

Judge
16-06-2009, 23:35
Why in gods name are the Russians inviting that grinning Iranian fraud to Moscow??? the press says Russia backs and supports him??? sorry to be stupid but I don't understand why!?

:jawdrop:

A few reasons come to mind.
1, Iran sits on huge amounts oil.
2, Russia and Iran have billions of $ in contracts,like building nuclear power stations.
3, Weapons.

Judge
16-06-2009, 23:44
and 4, like Qdos said, to p*ss off America.

captaincaveman
16-06-2009, 23:46
A few reasons come to mind.
1, Iran sits on huge amounts oil.
2, Russia and Iran have billions of $ in contracts,like building nuclear power stations.
3, Weapons.

Thanks if this is true, its sad and dangerous and all in the name of money, get rid of the black stuff and find new energy technologies and problem solved !! or is this too simplistic a solution??? :question:

I do hope the Iranian people can take it to the limit and make the changes that are needed because they are on their own as far as the international community is concerned. We can only all hope! watch the papers tomorrow!

Qdos
16-06-2009, 23:52
Thanks if this is true, its sad and dangerous and all in the name of money, get rid of the black stuff and find new energy technologies...

They'll find alternatives to oil when it runs out... :devil:

captaincaveman
17-06-2009, 00:00
They'll find alternatives to oil when it runs out... :devil:

such as??? desert sand, rape oil, H20, mushroom juice, etc? lets hope so soon but then again oil has made many rich but I think I'm going off onto another topic!

Judge
17-06-2009, 00:03
Thanks if this is true, its sad and dangerous and all in the name of money, get rid of the black stuff and find new energy technologies and problem solved !! or is this too simplistic a solution??? :question:

The technology is already there.We can get everything from the sun and wind, also from the green stuff that is cheap and easy to grow.:thumbsup::thumbsup:
http://www.ridelust.com/hemp_powered_vehicles/
''Ironically, Hemp powered cars was the dream of both Henry Ford and Rudolf Diesel. However, gasoline powered engines became so cheap to manufacturer and were easy to maintain so they caught on in the automotive industry even though the pioneers had other dreams.''


I do hope the Iranian people can take it to the limit and make the changes that are needed because they are on their own as far as the international community is concerned. We can only all hope! watch the papers tomorrow!


It's like DDT said.
''Does it really matter who is the Iranian president? The mullahs still run Iran either way!''

BigSpaseeba
17-06-2009, 01:05
Are You Ready For War With Demonized Iran?

By Paul Craig Roberts

June 16, 2009 - How much attention do elections in Japan, India, Argentina, or any other country, get from the US media? How many Americans and American journalists even know who is in political office in other countries besides England, France, and Germany? Who can name the political leaders of Switzerland, Holland, Brazil, Japan, or even China?

Yet, many know of Iran’s President Ahmadinejad. The reason is obvious. He is daily demonized in the US media.

The US media’s demonization of Ahmadinejad itself demonstrates American ignorance. The President of Iran is not the ruler. He is not the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. He cannot set policies outside the boundaries set by Iran’s rulers, the ayatollahs who are not willing for the Iranian Revolution to be overturned by American money in some color-coded “revolution.”

Iranians have a bitter experience with the United States government. Their first democratic election, after emerging from occupied and colonized status, in the 1950s was overturned by the US government. The US government installed in place of the elected candidate a dictator who tortured and murdered dissidents who thought Iran should be an independent country and not ruled by an American puppet.

The US “superpower” has never forgiven the Iranian Islamic ayatollahs for the Iranian Revolution in the late 1970s, which overthrew the US puppet government and held hostage US embassy personnel, regarded as “a den of spies,” while Iranian students pieced together shredded embassy documents that proved America’s complicity in the destruction of Iranian democracy.

The government-controlled US corporate media, a Ministry of Propaganda, has responded to the re-election of Ahmadinejad with non-stop reports of violent Iranians protests to a stolen election. A stolen election is presented as a fact, even thought there is no evidence whatsoever. The US media’s response to the documented stolen elections during the George W. Bush/Karl Rove era was to ignore the massive documented evidence of real stolen elections.

Leaders of the American puppet states of Great Britain and Germany have fallen in line with the American psychological warfare operation. The discredited British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, expressed his “serious doubt” about Ahmadinejad’s victory to a meeting of European Union ministers in Luxembourg. Miliband, of course, has no source of independent information. He is simply following Washington’s instructions and relying on unsupported claims by the defeated candidate preferred by the US Government.

Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany, had her arm twisted, too. She called in the Iranian ambassador to demand “more transparency” on the elections.

Even the American left-wing has endorsed the US government’s propaganda. Writing in The Nation, Robert Dreyfuss presents the hysterical views of one Iranian dissident as if they are the definitive truth about “the illegitimate election,” terming it “a coup d’etat.”

What is the source of the information for the US media and the American puppet states?

Nothing but the assertions of the defeated candidate, the one America prefers.

However, there is hard evidence to the contrary. An independent, objective poll was conducted in Iran by American pollsters prior to the election. The pollsters, Ken Ballen of the nonprofit Center for Public Opinion and Patrick Doherty of the nonprofit New America Foundation, describe their poll results in the June 15 Washington Post. The polling was funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and was conducted in Farsi “by a polling company whose work in the region for ABC News and the BBC has received an Emmy award.” - You can find their report here

The poll results, the only real information we have at this time, indicate that the election results reflect the will of the Iranian voters. Among the extremely interesting information revealed by the poll is the following:

“Many experts are claiming that the margin of victory of incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the result of fraud or manipulation, but our nationwide public opinion survey of Iranians three weeks before the vote showed Ahmadinejad leading by a more than 2 to 1 margin -- greater than his actual apparent margin of victory in Friday's election.

“While Western news reports from Tehran in the days leading up to the voting portrayed an Iranian public enthusiastic about Ahmadinejad's principal opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi, our scientific sampling from across all 30 of Iran's provinces showed Ahmadinejad well ahead.

“The breadth of Ahmadinejad's support was apparent in our pre-election survey. During the campaign, for instance, Mousavi emphasized his identity as an Azeri, the second-largest ethnic group in Iran after Persians, to woo Azeri voters. Our survey indicated, though, that Azeris favored Ahmadinejad by 2 to 1 over Mousavi

“Much commentary has portrayed Iranian youth and the Internet as harbingers of change in this election. But our poll found that only a third of Iranians even have access to the Internet, while 18-to-24-year-olds comprised the strongest voting bloc for Ahmadinejad of all age groups.

“The only demographic groups in which our survey found Mousavi leading or competitive with Ahmadinejad were university students and graduates, and the highest-income Iranians. When our poll was taken, almost a third of Iranians were also still undecided. Yet the baseline distributions we found then mirror the results reported by the Iranian authorities, indicating the possibility that the vote is not the product of widespread fraud.”

There have been numerous news reports that the US government has implemented a program to destabilize Iran. There have been reports that the US government has financed bombings and assassinations within Iran. The US media treats these reports in a braggadocio manner as illustrations of the American Superpower’s ability to bring dissenting countries to heel, while some foreign media see these reports as evidence of the US government’s inherent immorality.

Pakistan’s former military chief, General Mirza Aslam Beig, said on Pashto Radio on Monday, June 15, that undisputed intelligence proves the US interfered in the Iranian election. “The documents prove that the CIA spent 400 million dollars inside Iran to prop up a colorful but hollow revolution following the election.”

The success of the US government in financing color revolutions in former Soviet Georgia and Ukraine and in other parts of the former Soviet empire have been widely reported and discussed, with the US media treating it as an indication of US omnipotence and natural right and some foreign media as a sign of US interference in the internal affairs of other countries. It is certainly within the realm of possibility that Mir Hossein Mousavi is a bought and paid for operative of the US government.

We know for a fact that the US government has psychological warfare operations that target both Americans and foreigners through the US and foreign media. Many articles have been published on this subject.

Think about the Iranian election from a common sense standpoint. Neither myself nor the vast majority of readers are Iranian experts. But from a common sense standpoint, if your country was under constant threat of attack, even nuclear attack, from two countries with much more powerful military establishments, as is Iran from the US and Israel, would you desert your country’s best defender and elect the preferred candidate of the US and Israel?

Do you believe that the Iranian people would have voted to become an American puppet state?

Iran is an ancient and sophisticated society. Much of the intellectual class is secularized. A significant, but small, percentage of the youth has fallen in thrall to Western sexual promiscuity, to personal pleasure, and to self-absorption. These people are easily organized with American money to give their government and Islamic constraints on personal behavior the bird.

The US government is taking advantage of these westernized Iranians to create a basis for discrediting the Iranian election and the Iranian government.

On June 14, the McClatchy Washington Bureau, which sometimes attempts to report the real news, acquiesced to Washington’s psychological warfare and declared: “Iran election result makes Obama’s outreach efforts harder.” What we see here is the raising of the ugly head of the excuse for “diplomatic failure,” leaving only a military solution.

As a person who has seen it all from inside the US government, I believe that the purpose of the US government’s manipulation of the American and puppet government media is to discredit the Iranian government by portraying the Iranian government as an oppressor of the Iranian people and a frustrater of the Iranian people’s will. This is how the US government is setting up Iran for military attack.

With the help of Mousavi, the US government is creating another “oppressed people,” like Iraqis under Saddam Hussein, who require American blood and treasure to liberate. Has Mousavi, the American candidate in the Iranian election who was roundly trounced, been chosen by Washington to become the American puppet ruler of Iran?

The great macho superpower is eager to restore its hegemony over the Iranian people, thus settling the score with the ayatollahs who overthrew American rule of Iran in 1978.

That is the script. You are watching it every minute on US television.

There is no end of “experts” to support the script. For one example among hundreds, we have Gary Sick, appropriately named, who formerly served on the National Security Council and currently teaches at Columbia University:

"If they'd been a little more modest and said Ahmadinejad had won by 51 percent," Sick said, Iranians might have been dubious but more accepting. But the government's assertion that Ahmadinejad won with 62.6 percent of the vote, "is not credible."

"I think,” continued Sick, “it does mark a real transition point in the Iranian Revolution, from a position of claiming to have its legitimacy based on the support of the population, to a position that has increasingly relied on repression. The voice of the people is ignored."

The only hard information available is the poll referenced above. The poll found that Ahmadinejad was the favored candidate by a margin of two to one.

But as in everything else having to do with American hegemony over other peoples, facts and truth play no part. Lies and propaganda rule.

Consumed by its passion for hegemony, America is driven to prevail over others, morality and justice be damned. This world-threatening script will play until America bankrupts itself and has so alienated the rest of the world that it is isolated and universally despised.

BigSpaseeba
17-06-2009, 01:15
Hypocrisy and Hope: Western Coverage, Iranian Courage
WRITTEN BY CHRIS FLOYD

Events are unfolding in Iran rapidly and chaotically, with no clear indication yet where they may lead. (In the short term, that is. One is always mindful of Zhou Enlai's response when he was asked for his opinion on the historical impact of the French Revolution: "It's too early to tell.") Solid information is still scanty and piecemeal, so it is difficult to offer any telling insights on the developments and their possible implications. So the following are just a few tentative observations.

It does seem clear, by all the evidence so far -- particularly studies of past voting patterns -- that the final vote totals were rigged and padded rather clumsily (much as they are in Russia, for example), although that doesn't necessarily mean that Ahmadinajad actually lost. Again, we just don't have enough information on this point yet. It would be good if he did lose and had to step down -- but I think it's highly unlikely that the powerful elites who back him will allow this to happen.

Then again, the Iranians are in general a braver, bolder people than some other peoples we might mention, who in recent memory sat slack-jawed and supine when their franchise was stripped from them in broad daylight by powerful elites. The Iranian people have already overthrown one seemingly powerful and permanently entrenched regime in the last 30 years, and could well do so again -- or at least force the current regime to become more open and humane. In any case, the hundreds of thousands of ordinary Iranians who have taken to the streets, risking -- and in some cases, losing -- life and limb to demand their rights shame the bloated, bored, distracted masses of the American empire (and its British satrapy), who have watched numbly and dumbly as their liberties have been systematically dismantled, their public treasuries looted by plutocrats and war profiteers, and their own children thrown into murderous wars of aggression and occupation.

But while the Iranians continue to work out their own destiny, coverage of the events in the Western press has largely fallen into the expected -- indeed, predestined -- patterns. Western media have swiftly fitted the Iranian unrest into the now-standard "color revolution" template -- seen in Serbia, Georgia, Lebanon, and other -- where plucky, pro-Western (i.e., reliably pliable to American interests) forces rise up against their oppressors. The leaders of these forces are invariably depicted as "moderates" committed to installing Western-style governments and liberal, Western-style social orders, etc. For example, the recent election in Lebanon was presented as a great triumph for the "pro-Western March 14 Faction" led by the son of slain tycoon Rafik Hariri -- even though this "pro-Western" faction includes Sunni extremists aligned with Osama bin Laden.

Similarly, the Iranian opposition leader Mir Hussein Moussavi is universally depicted as a "moderate." Yet, as Professor As'ad AbuKhalil points out, when Moussavi was Iran's prime minister under Ayatollah Khomeini, he "presided over a regime far more oppressive than Ahmadinajad's." AbuKhalil's take on the hypocrisy of the Western media coverage on Iran is worth quoting more fully:


...there is so much hypocrisy in the Western coverage and official reactions to the developments. Most glaring for me was the statement by the secretary-general of the UN who insisted on the respect of the will of the Iranian people. Would that US designate utter such words, say, about Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Morocco and other dictatorships that are approved by the US? ...I am in no way sympathetic to Moussavi. He is a man who suddenly discovered the virtues of democracy. When he was prime minister back in the 1980s, he presided over a regime far more oppressive than Ahmadinajad's. And why has no Western media really commented on his rhetoric during his own campaign: the man kept saying that he wants a "return" to the teachings of Khomeini. I in no way support a man who wants a "return" to the teachings of Khomeini.

Of course, Moussavi -- like some other politicians we could mention -- has now become, for millions of people, an emblem for genuine changes and reforms that he probably has no desire or intention to enact, even if given the chance. Like Barack Obama, he is of the power structure, and would, in end, no doubt act for the power structure. (Albeit with minor mitigations which, as we've often noted in regard to American politics, can also mean real differences in the lives of many individuals, and thus are not to be airily dismissed -- although such an acknowledgement in no way requires an endorsement or acceptance of the overall power structure in which these mitigations occur, or of any particular mitigator in that system.)

But as we noted above, the Iranian people have already demonstrated the courage to stand up for their rights. Unlike the acquiescent Americans, seemingly content with cosmetic makeovers of the imperial management, the Iranians may yet force their emblem to more fully inhabit the role that the times -- and their own ardent desires for change -- have created for him.

BigSpaseeba
17-06-2009, 01:35
June 16, 2009

Revolutionary Guard in charge

Massive protests as Revolutionary Guard consolidates power, likely to expand economic control


The Real News Network - Revolutionary Guard in charge (http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=3875&updaterx=2009-06-16+12:50:32)

BigSpaseeba
17-06-2009, 01:39
Struggle within Iranian elite

Pepe Escobar: Two camps locked in fierce struggle, as Revolutionary Guard stages an election "coup"


The Real News Network - Struggle within Iranian elite (http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=3869)

BigSpaseeba
17-06-2009, 05:00
Robert Fisk: Fear has gone in a land that has tasted freedom
In defiance of the ban on foreign reporters, The Independent's Middle East correspondent ventures out to witness an extraordinary stand-off on the streets of Tehran

Wednesday, 17 June 2009
Supporters of Mirhossein Mousavi protest on the streets of Tehran yesterday

The fate of Iran rested last night in a grubby north Tehran highway interchange called Vanak Square where – after days of violence – supporters of the official President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at last confronted the screaming, angry Iranians who have decided that Mirhossein Mousavi should be the president of their country. Unbelievably – and I am a witness because I stood beside them – just 400 Iranian special forces police were keeping these two armies apart. There were stones and tear gas but for the first time in this epic crisis the cops promised to protect both sides.

"Please, please, keep the Basiji from us," one middle-aged lady pleaded with a special forces officer in flak jacket and helmet as the Islamic Republic's thug-like militia appeared in their camouflage trousers and purity-white shirts only a few metres away. The cop smiled at her. "With God's help," he said. Two other policemen were lifted shoulder-high. "Tashakor, tashakor," – "thank you, thank you" – the crowd roared at them.

This was phenomenal. The armed special forces of the Islamic Republic, hitherto always allies of the Basiji, were prepared for once, it seemed, to protect all Iranians, not just Ahmadinejad's henchmen. The precedent for this sudden neutrality is known to everyone – it was when the Shah's army refused to fire on the millions of demonstrators demanding his overthrow in 1979.

Related articles
Leading article: A complex and uncertain contest for Iran's future
Adrian Hamilton: Power in Iran - a labyrinthine system
Johann Hari: Will the looming war between Iran and Israel now be averted?
Mary Dejevsky: Critics of Barack Obama's foreign policy need to get real
Twitter does its bit to beat the censors and get the word out
Ahmadinejad defies unrest with escape to Russian talks
Give us more clout at IMF, say BRIC nations
Yet this is not a revolution to overthrow the Islamic Republic. Both sets of demonstrators were shouting "Allahu Akbar" – "God is Great" – at Vanak Square last night. But if the Iranian security forces are now taking the middle ground, then Ahmadinejad is truly in trouble.

As the fume-filled dusk fell over the north Tehran streets, the crowds grew wilder. I listened to a heavily bearded Basiji officer exorting his men to assault the 10,000 Mousavi men and women on the other side of the police line. "We must defend our country now, just as we did in the Iran-Iraq war," he shouted above the uproar. But the Ahmadinejad man trying to calm him down, shouted back: "We are all fellow citizens! Let's not have a tragedy. We must have unity."

Clearly the decision of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to instruct the Council of Guardians to recount Friday's election vote had done nothing to dispel the suspicion and anger of the reformist opposition in Iran.

First it appeared that the council would examine every election result. Then only a few. Then Iranians were told that it might take 10 days to learn their decision. It was as well, perhaps, that Ahmadinejad had flown to Yekaterinburg for the Shanghai summit to bore conference delegates with his speeches instead of the Iranian people whom he believes he represents. But on Vanak Square last night, all this meant nothing.

Plain-clothes cops – perhaps at last realising the gravity of a situation which their own obedience to Ahmadinejad's men had brought about – persuaded middle-aged men from both sides to meet in the centre of the road in the middle of Vanak Square's narrow no-man's-land. The Mousavi man, in a brown shirt, placed his hands around the arms of the bearded Iranian official from the Ahmadinejad side. "We cannot allow this to happen," he told him. And he tried, as any Muslim does when he wants to show his desire for trust and peace, to kiss the side of his opponent's face. The bearded man physically shook him off, screaming abuse at him.

The two rows of police were now standing shoulder to shoulder, their linked arms holding both mobs back, as they stared at their own comrades opposite with ever increasing concern. An American-Iranian a few metres away, shouted at me in English that "we've got to prove they can't do this anymore. They can't rule us. We need a new president. Either they get their way or we get ours".

It was frightening, the absolute conviction of these men, the total refusal to accept any compromise, one side demanding obedience to the words of Ayatollah Khomeini and loyalty to the ghosts of the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, the other – emboldened by their million-strong march on Monday – demanding freedoms, albeit within an Islamic Republic, which they had never had before. Maybe they now have the police on their side; if last night's example was anything to go by, either some senior officer – or perhaps the cops themselves, appalled at their behaviour over the past four days – decided that the special forces would no longer be patsies to the frightening power of Ahmadinejad's ever-loyal bullies.

Only hours earlier, seven men killed by the Basiji at the end of Monday's march, were secretly buried by police in Cemetery 257, a large graveyard close to the Khomeini shrine, where the founder of the Islamic Revolution lies beneath a mosque of golden cupolas and blue-tiled walls. No such honours for the seven victims of the Basiji. They lay beneath a covering of earth, no markers on their graves, no word sent to their families of their fate.

But the pro-government newspapers in Tehran did report their deaths and one even gave its front page to the outraged condemnation of Tehran University's Chancellor at the Basiji intrusion onto the campus on Sunday night, when the security forces killed seven young men, wounded several others and smashed and looted the university dormitories. Farhad Rabar said he would pursue the killers through the courts, adding that "the invasion of the University of Tehran, which is the symbol of higher education... has caused a wave of sorrow and anger in me".

Is it too late to end this fratricidal violence now? For each side, the integrity of their cause is fast becoming more powerful than rational dialogue. The freedom which Mousavi's supporters have tasted – to ignore and disregard and despise the clerical autocracy which has so humiliated them – is now so intoxicating that they are confronting their political enemies in the street with a strange, unnerving, but genuine humour.

At one point last night, men and women wearing the green ribbons of Mousavi's election stood on the pavement beside that chilling 100 metres of no-man's-land next to chadored ladies clutching the Iranian flag – Ahmadinejad's patriotic symbol. They even chatted about the outcome of this fearful confrontation between their two sides.

It was a different narrative three hours earlier when Ahmadinejad's men and women held their own demonstration in Val-y-Asr Square. No word was said of Monday's opposition mass rally, nor of the street demonstrations in the cities of Shiraz, Mashad, Babol and Tabriz. Indeed, most Iranians have no knowledge of these events; Ahmadinejad's censors have seen to that. The banners were predictable. "Death to the Traitor" – Mousavi, of course, was the "betrayer" of the Republic. "Death to anyone who is against the Supreme Leader" – which was a bit odd because neither Mousavi nor his millions of supporters are against Ayatollah Khamenei (albeit that the two men dislike each other); it is Ahmadinejad for whom they have a visceral hatred and whom they are trying to depose.

The former parliamentary speaker, Gholamali Haddadadel, spotted Mousavi's weakest argument when he addressed a crowd that could not have been more than 5,000 strong. "Does Mousavi know how many people voted for Ahmadinejad in the rural areas and in the villages?" he asked. "Iran is not just Tehran. We know that Mr Mousavi got 13 million votes, but Mr Ahmadinejad got 24 million." But of course, those are the very statistics which Mousavi and his allies dispute. Preachers and Sayads lectured the little multitude, their bodyguards – even paramedics – keeping careful watch over them. There was a famous Iranian religious singer to preach to this banner-shrouded audience.

It was on my way out of Val-y-Asr that I noticed a truckload of men, all dressed in camouflage trousers and white shirts, many carrying police clubs, setting off to north Tehran. They were followed by the newly energised Islamist demonstrators, off on the four-mile trek up to Vanak. Two conscript soldiers were standing amid the Mousavi supporters there when an old man asked their advice. Should he stay if the Basijis break through the cordon? "The Basijis beat people hard – very hard," one of the soldiers said. And he patted the old man on the shoulder and shook his head.

DDT
17-06-2009, 06:03
Dear Iranians: Don't Count on America (or Any Country Led by Left) By: Dennis Prager


"The administration has remained as quiet as possible during the Iranian election season and in the days of street protests since Friday's vote."
-- The Washington Post, Monday June 15, 2009

"We're going to withhold comment...mean we're just waiting to see."
-- Vice-President Joe Biden

"We are monitoring the situation as it unfolds in Iran but we, like the rest of the world, are waiting and watching to see what the Iranian people decide."
-- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
Yeah good one Hillary you stupid cow. Do you really think that 'the people are deciding"? ...Airhead!!

"Most countries appeared to be taking a wait-and-see approach, including the European Union and China, Germany, Italy and Japan -- nations with strong economic ties to Iran. France said it was closely following the situation."
-- Associated Press, June 13, 2009

For those who look to "world opinion," "the opinion of mankind," or to the United Nations for moral guidance or for coming to the aid of victims of oppression, the past few days and presumably the next few days in Iran, provide yet another example of their uselessness.

A million or more Iranians are demonstrating against last Friday's obviously stolen election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the world -- except for the lowlifes who rule places like Venezuela and Syria and who immediately sent their effusive congratulations to Ahmadinejad -- is quiet. The world is "closely following the situation," just as it followed the situations of the Jews during the Holocaust, the Ukrainians, the Chinese under Mao, the Rwandans, the Cambodians, Tibetans, and so many others.

I have long believed that the citizens of most free countries do not deserve the gift of freedom that they have. Few have any interest in promoting freedom, only in having it for themselves. Insofar as other countries are concerned what matters to most free countries, as to dictatorships, is power.

That is what America and Europe are watching -- where the power in Iran will go. Whoever wins will get free America and free Europe's respect.

Now it may be argued that if the American president speaks out in support of those demonstrating for free elections in Iran, it will be counterproductive.

How exactly? What will the unelected President Ahmadinejad and the unelected Supreme Ruler, Grand Ayatollah, the pre-medieval Ali Khamenei do? Get angry at America? Threaten to annihilate another country? Start building nuclear arms? Stone women who commit sexual sins? Hey, wait, haven't they done all that already?

As bad as most of the world's countries are, those led by left-wing governments are even worse when it comes to defending democracy.

A primary reason America is "waiting" and "watching" and "monitoring" while Iranians are beaten in the streets of Tehran is that the country is led by the Left.

Compare the Canadian reaction, now that it has a conservative government:

On the very next day after the Iranian elections, according to CNN, "Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon told reporters in Niagara Falls, Ontario, Saturday, that Canada was 'deeply concerned' about allegations of voting irregularities. 'We're troubled by reports of intimidation of opposition candidates' offices by security forces.'"

Even usually appeasing Germany, now led by a more conservative government, had a sharper response than America:

As reported by CNN, "German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told ARD Sunday that the Iranian ambassador in Berlin would be summoned to explain the treatment of protesters against the result. 'I have already prompted Iran, together with European colleagues today, to quickly shed light on what has happened there -- if one can take the announced election results there seriously or not," he added.

And Germany's Deutsche Welle reported on Monday, June 15:

"German Chancellor Angela Merkel says she is very concerned and condemns the wave of arrests following the Iranian election."

Now compare Labor-led Britain's response:

As reported by CNN: "U.K. Foreign Secretary David Miliband said Saturday that the U.K. government had 'followed carefully, and admired, the passion and debate during the Iranian election campaign. We have also heard the concerns about the counting of ballots expressed by two of the candidates. This is a matter for the Iranian authorities to address. We will continue to follow developments.'"

"This is a matter for the Iranian authorities to address." Surely a proud moment for Britain.

The best example comes, as it often does, from that quintessential man of the left, former President of the United States Jimmy Carter, speaking from -- where else? -- the Palestinian City of Ramallah: "I think this election has brought out a lot of opposition to (Ahmadinejad's} policies in Iran, and I'm sure he'll listen to those opinions and hopefully moderate his position."

Not everyone on the left is "sure" that Ahmadinejad will "listen" to his opponents' opinions. But that level of naivete regarding evil is almost exclusive to the Left.

Scrat335
17-06-2009, 07:48
I'm seeing a lot of contradictions in this. Thanx for the inofo everyone. Good work.

Russian Lad
17-06-2009, 13:22
Why in gods name are the Russians inviting that grinning Iranian fraud to Moscow??? the press says Russia backs and supports him???!!! sorry to be stupid but I don't understand why!? Russia has its own oil!! or is it about bullet sales and bomb sales??? i.e business as usual, sorry to seem as if I was born yesterday, but I'm wet behind the ears when it comes to cloak and dagger politics. He (the Iranian guy) was on TV tonight grinning from ear to ear shaking hands with the Russian pres.

Besides what Judge has mentioned: why does the US play along with the thuggish president of Georgia Saaka? We do not want to be the kindest kids in the sandbox when others are not minding their own business:).

Qdos
17-06-2009, 13:28
YouTube - Iranians use internet to overcome news curbs - 16 Jun 09 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bwXG65PFjI&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fenglish%2Ealjazeera%2Enet%2Fnews%2Fmiddleeast%2F2009%2F06%2F2009616163321747120%2Ehtml&feature=player_embedded)

captaincaveman
17-06-2009, 14:45
YouTube - Iranians use internet to overcome news curbs - 16 Jun 09 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bwXG65PFjI&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fenglish%2Ealjazeera%2Enet%2Fnews%2Fmiddleeast%2F2009%2F06%2F2009616163321747120%2Ehtml&feature=player_embedded)

The web in Iran- In days it'll be blocked !!! did you see this profile? interesting reading if not depressing! BTW: Ayatollah Ali Khamenei would die first before give in, he is hard old ***** !!!! see below:




Profile: Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the man who has the final word in Iran

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Islamic Republic's Supreme Leader, has a limp and useless right arm thanks to that attempt to kill him with a hidden bomb in 1981.

The physical ordeals have given Ayatollah Khamenei, who turns 70 next month, immense reserves of stubborn resilience. Meanwhile, his religious convictions make him certain of his own righteousness.

As he weighs his response to the protests over last week's election, Ayatollah Khamenei will be viscerally unwilling to compromise. As the spiritual leader of a theocratic state, he believes that he benefits from divine guidance.

Typically, he invoked God in the election dispute, urging Iranians to support President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a "divine test which could attract God's blessing if passed successfully".

Any retreat would, he believes, amount to a violation of God's will. This particular brand of obduracy is woven into the fabric of the Iranian state. While Mr Ahmadinejad has a higher public profile, Ayatollah Khamenei sits at the apex of Iran's labyrinthine power structure.

He makes the biggest decisions and his tentacles extend to every branch of the state. Iran's armed forces and the Revolutionary Guards - a parallel army, navy and air force, explicitly loyal to the revolutionary regime - answer directly to Ayatollah Khamenei. The most significant alliance in Iranian politics is between the Supreme Leader and the Revolutionary Guards. Their commanders are key military figures and Ayatollah Khamenei has given them control over the strategic heights of Iran's economy, allowing them to run everything from oil pipelines to construction projects and Tehran's main airport.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Leader has representatives in every ministry and province, reporting directly to him.

The man at the centre of this web was born in July 1939, the son of a religious scholar. As a young man, Ayatollah Khamenei studied in the Islamic seminaries of his home area of Mashhad and later moved to the Shia holy city of Qom.

There, he encountered Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the radical religious leader who would later inspire the Islamic Revolution. The young Khamenei became the Ayatollah's devoted follower. By his own account, everything he believes today is derived from Khomeini's austere vision of Islam.

The Shah drove the Ayatollah into exile in 1963, but the youthful Khamenei continued to spread the older man's ideas. He fell foul of the Shah's secret police, the SAVAK, was arrested, spent three years in jail and another three in internal exile.

After the Revolution of 1979, he joined Khomeini's inner circle, serving as defence minister and then, from 1981, as president. Shortly before his election, he was severely wounded in the assassination attempt organised by the People's Mujaheddin of Iran, an armed opposition group.

When Khomeini died in 1989, he lacked a natural successor as Supreme Leader. The then President Khamenei was an unlikely choice – he was not an ayatollah and lacked credibility as a religious scholar. More important figures, notably Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who later became president, manoeuvred the Assembly of Experts, Iran's most senior body, into choosing Ayatollah Khamenei as Supreme Leader.

The power-brokers who installed him – and hastily promoted him to become an ayatollah – probably thought he could be controlled. But Ayatollah Khamenei soon established his own authority. He did so by allying with the Revolutionary Guards and the hard-liners, now the dominant force in Iranian politics.

Hence Ayatollah Khamenei is devoted to keeping Mr Ahmadinejad as president – and deeply reluctant ever to compromise.

Carbo
17-06-2009, 14:46
DDT, the best thing America can do is stay out of it. Don't come out in big support of the dissidents. That increases their chances of success.

BigSpaseeba
17-06-2009, 15:02
June 17, 2009

Struggle within Iranian elite Pt.2

Pepe Escobar: Aggressive US and Israeli policy strengthens hand of Iran's Revolutionary Guard


The Real News Network - Struggle within Iranian elite Pt.2 (http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=3876)

Judge
17-06-2009, 15:09
This is interesting..
''The man who leaked the real election results from the Interior Ministry - the ones showing Ahmadinejad coming third - was killed in a suspicious car accident, according to unconfirmed reports, writes Saeed Kamali Dehghan in Tehran.

Mohammad Asgari, who was responsible for the security of the IT network in Iran's interior ministry, was killed yesterday in Tehran.

Asgari had reportedly leaked results that showed the elections were rigged by government use of new software to alter the votes from the provinces.

Asgari was said to have leaked information that showed Mousavi had won almost 19 million votes, and should therefore be president.''

Iran protests: live | From the Guardian | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2009/jun/17/iran-protests-live)

Qdos
17-06-2009, 15:09
Pepe Escobar: Aggressive US and Israeli policy strengthens hand of Iran's Revolutionary Guard

He could also feature in an advertisement for Gillette or Wilkinson Sword, you'd think he could at least have bothered to have had a shave before going on camera... :rolleyes:

I'm going to be more interested in what Omid Djalili eventually has to say... ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUAxxQH9Hjw

DDT
17-06-2009, 21:49
DDT, the best thing America can do is stay out of it.
And why is that? Because of the lies spread about the USA, her Constitution and every conservative president since Reagan, by the morons in the Left-Wing Progressive Movement, and the stupid sheep that believe them. You would be included in that! Yes, the fools now have their wish. A toothless USA headed by a pro-Marxist president. Well, good luck with dealing with the mess in the Middle East. Store yourself some provisions!

DDT
17-06-2009, 21:54
June 17, 2009

Struggle within Iranian elite Pt.2

Pepe Escobar: Aggressive US and Israeli policy strengthens hand of Iran's Revolutionary Guard


The Real News Network - Struggle within Iranian elite Pt.2 (http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=3876)

Get real! Why would Israel want war with Iran? There is no reason that Israel wants or needs anything more than her own traditional homeland. You have bought into the lies of the warlord Mohamed! You give conspiracy theory a bad name.

robertmf
17-06-2009, 22:07
Get real! Why would Israel want war with Iran? There is no reason that Israel wants or needs anything more than her own traditional homeland. You have bought into the lies of the warlord Mohamed! You give conspiracy theory a bad name.

Mossad head: Iran will have bomb by 2014 - UPI.com (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/06/17/Mossad-head-Iran-will-have-bomb-by-2014/UPI-87651245237586/)

DDT
17-06-2009, 22:16
Mossad head: Iran will have bomb by 2014 - UPI.com (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/06/17/Mossad-head-Iran-will-have-bomb-by-2014/UPI-87651245237586/)

Get real!

captaincaveman
17-06-2009, 22:24
How will it play out? what will happen in the next few days or weeks?

Any thoughts or bets? how about these options?!? I maybe way off mark on the possibilities!?

1 The Police and "Guard" will dress in casual clothing and mix with the supporters of the "winner" they will then beat and attack and maybe arrest protestors on the other side. This may already be happening?

2 Israel will attack Iran in the next 6 months ?

3 It will blow over and be forgotten and life will go on as before ?

4 A revolution by force will happen in the next 6 months ?

5 The www will be blocked etc ?

Carbo
17-06-2009, 22:29
And why is that? Because of the lies spread about the USA, her Constitution and every conservative president since Reagan, by the morons in the Left-Wing Progressive Movement, and the stupid sheep that believe them. You would be included in that! Yes, the fools now have their wish. A toothless USA headed by a pro-Marxist president. Well, good luck with dealing with the mess in the Middle East. Store yourself some provisions!
OK, DDT, calm down and let's discuss this sensibly before you charge off and draw angry conclusions based on the first thing that comes into your head. You should know me enough to know I'm not with the loonies who think we should "just leave Iran and North Korea alone, already."

We both want the same goal: a free, genuinely democratic, sensible Iran which plays a mature role in the international community.

Or, even if you want more, I think you can agree that the above isn't a bad thing.

But how do we achieve that? Storming in all guns blazing?

Well, let's imagine what might happen if Obama came out in support of the protesters:

(1) We know without a doubt that it would give the regime an excuse to crack down harder. That's not even a debate, that's fact.

(2) It would probably harm the protesters' case. America, despite Obama's popularity, is still vastly unpopular in the Middle East. The US, like it or not, is used as the Great Enemy which regimes use to whip up nationalistic fervour. IF Obama allied the US with the protesters overtly, he would almost certainly reduce the numbers of protester and put off the rest of the country form the cause. Ahmadinejad was already saying during the election that Mousavi was a American stooge. This course of action would make him, in the eyes of many Iranians, correct.

(3) Iran has been one of the great winners from the Iraq war. Its regional influence was multiplied, and its belligerence was popular among nationalist groups. Now, if the regime wins and cracks down and silences them and America came out with a strong endorsement of the protesters, Iran can make it look like a victory against the imperialists. Staying quiet deprives them of this, and its power to influence the region will be diminished. A Good Thing, I think we can all agree.

So, that's just off the top of my head.

Of course there are under the table things going on.

America already supports Iranian ethnic minority groups, which I assume is continuing. The Obama administration contacted Twitter -- which has been vital to this Green 'revolution' -- and asked to delay their planned maintenance shutdown, and I'm sure much more is going on in the background.

Now, you and I fling insults all the time, but in this we both want a similar result, and I'm sure you can see the sense of not rushing in where angels fear to tread.

BigSpaseeba
18-06-2009, 02:04
Get real! Why would Israel want war with Iran? There is no reason that Israel wants or needs anything more than her own traditional homeland. You have bought into the lies of the warlord Mohamed! You give conspiracy theory a bad name.

Then why does Israel talk about attacking Iran all the time?

If they keep talking and talking and dont' do anything then nobody will believe them anymore. They will just be a paper tiger. Israel is looking for the right opportunity to do it.

No conspiracy theory either. That's just more of your hysterical BS.

DDT
18-06-2009, 07:11
But how do we achieve that? Storming in all guns blazing?

Well, let's imagine what might happen if Obama came out in support of the protesters:



Nobody said the charge in with guns blazing at all!

Fear of what the protesters would do if USA says anything is not USA's problem. The USA should not be afraid to speak the truth. It is not our problem if Iranians "cant handle the truth"!!!!!!!!!!! Or the UN is biased against the US. Or if the rest of the world doesn't like USA. The US has always been a
stand up" country and if the rest of the world doesn't like it when the US stands up and speaks then they can go to hell. It is completely hideous that Europe and the Iranian people actually agree with the USA on this one but the US is expected play this hush-hush game of, "You know people don't like you Mr. America, we know you want to help but you had better hide in the car in case you upset them, until we say it is alright for you to come out, that is."

If protesters have a problem with the USA then protesters deserve whatever fate the Mullahs have in store for them. Furthermore, if protesters and Axmedinajad have a problem with the USA then they deserve each others fate and hopefully that fate would be ballistic missiles coming from Israel, aimed at Iranian nuclear program. With the attitude of the general iranians, it is likely that anyone elected as president of Iran will just be another thorn in the side of the world anyway.

Either way to say that truth should not be spoken is the most cowardly thing imaginable. You know the saying, "When good men do nothing, evil men rise."

DDT
18-06-2009, 07:40
Then why does Israel talk about attacking Iran all the time?

Duhhh! Why do you think?........:10479:

Because the Iranian Mullahs and president are always talking of the annihilation of Israel and they will be capable of doing it themselves once they get nukes. They support terrorism against Israel. They recruit suicide bombers for murdering Israelis. They fund Arab terrorists who have been attacking israel.
Israel is not talking about wiping Arabs off any map. They just want to make sure Iran doesn't have nukes, and since Obama is either a gutless piece of dog bog or a Muslim himself and is sucking up to Axmadinajad, israel will have to act alone.

BigSpaseeba
19-06-2009, 05:12
Duhhh! Why do you think?........:10479:

Because the Iranian Mullahs and president are always talking of the annihilation of Israel and they will be capable of doing it themselves once they get nukes. They support terrorism against Israel. They recruit suicide bombers for murdering Israelis. They fund Arab terrorists who have been attacking israel.
Israel is not talking about wiping Arabs off any map. They just want to make sure Iran doesn't have nukes, and since Obama is either a gutless piece of dog bog or a Muslim himself and is sucking up to Axmadinajad, israel will have to act alone.

Can you give me the website where Ahmadinejad and Khameni say they want to destroy Israel and kill all jews? And not that ridiculous lie about him wanting to "wipe Israel from the map". If you belief that then there is no hope for you. The translation of what he said was discredited a long time ago. If they want to kill jews so much then why does Iran have the largest amount of jews of any country in the middle east outside of Israel? Why is there a jewish member of the Iranian government? Duh...maybe they don't want to kill all jews after all.

And you've got to be kidding about Obama sucking up to Ahmadinejad? Ha ha ha. Look at these photos:

DDT
19-06-2009, 05:51
Are you talking about the same Iran that funds Hezbollah and was caught sending a shipment of arms to the Palestinians? The Iran whose "moderate" candidate for president, Rafsanjani, fantasized that a nuclear strike against Israel would be cost-effective since the "world of Islam" would only suffer some damage while Israel would be wiped off the map?

I suppose if you are actually fooled by The Filth wearing a yamika in a photo op, you are just as fooled by Iran and therefore just simply easily fooled.

DDT
19-06-2009, 06:17
Our illustrious but gutless Kenyan King Obama in Chief should be standing up and barking at ALL the leadership in Iran but instead, he cowers like a Chow-chow that peed on the carpet!



Iranian student leader: Ayatollahs will run if Iran attacked

After years in jail, solitary confinement, torture and finally escape to US, Iranian student revolutionary leader Amir-Abbas Fakhr-Avar tells Ynet: Now is time for revolution, world must support Iranian people against regime

Yitzhak Benhorin

WASHINGTON - While United States Minister of Defense Robert Gates, along with many specialists on the matter, warn against a military attack on Iran, which in their view will entrap the Iranian people behind the Ayatollah regime, Iranian student leader Amir Abbas Fakhr-Avar believes an attack will have the reverse result.


In an exclusive interview with Ynet, Fakhr-Avar describes his blueprint for how to topple the regime. If the West launches a military attack on Iran, “The top brass will flee immediately. People will come out onto the streets protesting, why are we being bombed? Many of the regime’s mid-level officials will shave their beards, don ties and join the (civilians) on the streets.”


Fakhr-Avar exudes experience and wisdom far beyond his 31 years, after serving years of jail time, solitary confinement, torture and broken bones.


Fakhr-Avar, one of Iran’s student leaders, heads an organization numbering 12,000 students. According to a deal reached between Iran’s students and its regime, he was temporarily released from prison for academic testing, after serving half of an eight year sentence. He did not return. In May 2006 Fakhr-Avar managed to escape Iran and reach the United States.


He testified before the US Senate, met with President George W. Bush and senior administrators in the State Department and the Pentagon, as well as with experts and analysts on Iran, like Professor Bernard Lewis and others.


His message to the West is: Stop supporting the reformists in Iran. Help us topple the Ayatollah regime. He claims the time is right; all that is needed is a push from the West.



Fakhr-Avar believes the revolution can be accomplished within ten months to a year. He does not ask for much from the Americans: “What we really need is the tools,” he says. “Cell phones, computers, cameras, publication ability. This is the funding we need for our (revolutionary) activities, to coordinate within Iran and outside.”



Why are you convinced the Ayatollah regime can be overthrown?


There is a big difference between Shiite and Sunni mullahs. Foreigners may not know this. Many of the Sunni mullahs would pick up arms and fight, but the Shiite mullahs are not like that. Their hands, if you touch them, are softer than any woman’s hand. They’ve never fought.


They don’t know how to fight. They never get close to danger. When they feel a true threat, they escape. Look at the Shiite mullahs in Iraq during Saddam’s regime. None of them fought. When the US paved the way for them, now they’re barking."



Robert Gates in the senate portrayed a different outcome of an attack: That it would be a great danger to the world, that Iran would make terror in Europe, the US, close the Persian Gulf, stop oil, world crisis?


Our main purpose and help we can give the administration is to help them to decide better. They don’t know that society that well, they really don’t know the regime or the people. We need to help them – we being the opposition outside Iran.


In my testimony to the senate I told them a few things: Mainly that sanctions will help to make the regime weak, and that they need to put down the regime.



The outside world does not know much about Iran, maybe they know at best 10 percent of what is going on in Iran, what the people’s sentiments are. Seventy percent of the population is under the age of 30, but they’ve had grand experiences. They’ve been through post-revolution, war, robbery during (Akbar Hashemi) Rafsanjani’s era, so-called reform.


The Iranians inside Iran…They were led to believe that the Islamic regime is the best and all of that by the propaganda of the regime.



They have survived such conditions, under pressure, such as the covering of the girls. The head scarf, the way they dress is a protest, the way the talk is in a protest manner, even if they run a red a red light they are protesting the regime. You can see that in Iran – you aren’t supposed to wear tight fitting clothing, but the people do in protest. Even in London you see more women with their hair covered than in Tehran.


Fakhr-Avar admits that he and his friends, like the American administration, were wrong to believe former President Mohammad Khatami would promote reforms. "They did trust him the first time around in his first election. Aside from this, there was no other alternative."


When you talk with your friends in Iran on the mobile phone or through the internet, do you not put them in danger?


Not the mobiles, not the cell phones. They don’t have the technology to stop it, and there are too many. Right now they’re busy controlling each other’s mobiles – the mullahs, so that’s why some of these guys are doing it freely. However, landlines, they do control. But mobiles there are problems.


What is interesting is that the rest of the world believes in the information network of the Islamic regime is very strong, but that is not the case. They are extremely weak. They have a very low IQ.


How can you say that about President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who seems to be doing whatever he wants, with total disregard for the international community?


Ahmadinejad is stupid. We’ve known him for the past 6-7 years from the political arena in Iran. When he was the mayor Tehran his plans were so stupid that people laughed at him. One of them was to pave the roadway that the 12th imam traveled on. He took all the intersections and removed the traffic signals so everyone can go where they want. A few months later they decided it was stupid and put them all back. It cost something like 2 billion dollars.


Ahmadinejad is the real face of the regime. Khatami was a lie. The Khatami government has us in jail while he was talking about civilization and reforms.


This is the opportune moment for us to have the population realize that the regime has taken them to neverland basically, they’re heading to annihilation, destruction. People are growing more informed. Khatami never said ‘we must wipe Israel off the face of the earth‘ – while he had that in mind, he never stated it. Now the Iranians know it.


Why do they care about Israel?


People in Iran react the opposite of what the regime says. If the regime says it’s day, they’ll close their eyes and say it’s night. Whatever the Islamic regime fights against- that becomes important to the Iranians. I don’t represent the entire population of course, but I can give you an idea of what are the sentiments. I was elected by the students and I speak for them. Remember, 70 percent are under age 30.


The older generation is stuck in the 70s, the youngsters speak a language the adults don’t understand


The majority of the population don’t care for Hizbullah or the Palestinian people, mostly because they see that their money is going to them.



Israel’s attack on Hizbullah was they best thing they’ve done in recent years. It helped to clean up the land from the terrorists, when they don’t have land they have no place to run troops, that’s why they drove Hizbullah crazy, regime in Iran wasn’t happy either. Right now UN is there so they can’t freely launch missiles towards Tel Aviv.



Israel should have taken over Lebanon. You have to be harsh and severe against terrorists. You can’t negotiate with them.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3354536,00.html

BigSpaseeba
19-06-2009, 15:55
Are you talking about the same Iran that funds Hezbollah and was caught sending a shipment of arms to the Palestinians? The Iran whose "moderate" candidate for president, Rafsanjani, fantasized that a nuclear strike against Israel would be cost-effective since the "world of Islam" would only suffer some damage while Israel would be wiped off the map?

I suppose if you are actually fooled by The Filth wearing a yamika in a photo op, you are just as fooled by Iran and therefore just simply easily fooled.

Come on DDT post some links to prove your point about Iran wanting to nuke Iran and kill all the jews.

If not then just shut your trap.

BTW, if you don't like Obama then who do you like? Enlighten us to who the "saviour" is DDT.

A friend told me once that his goal in life was to grow old and not be full of bitterness. I guess he was talking about people like you. You know all that poison in you isn't healthy.

BigSpaseeba
19-06-2009, 15:57
Are you talking about the same Iran that funds Hezbollah and was caught sending a shipment of arms to the Palestinians? The Iran whose "moderate" candidate for president, Rafsanjani, fantasized that a nuclear strike against Israel would be cost-effective since the "world of Islam" would only suffer some damage while Israel would be wiped off the map?

I suppose if you are actually fooled by The Filth wearing a yamika in a photo op, you are just as fooled by Iran and therefore just simply easily fooled.

Oh and BTW, I don't like Obama and I certainly wouldn't like the person you voted for. LOL.

Scrat335
19-06-2009, 19:22
So it looks as if the opposition is being warned off. It's really not anything any other government wouldn't do in order to preserve "public safety" and keep order. We all saw what happened in Tblisi a few years back for largely the same reasons and if I remember correctly after some half hearted criticism, all was forgiven. I would've liked to see what could've happened here in 2000 if the people had taken to the streets when Bush was sworn in. Too bad we couldn't see the future then.:duhhhh:

It looks to me like no country is above a political circus nor are they above a farce.


Breaking News Alert
The New York Times
Friday, June 19, 2009 -- 6:02 AM ET
-----

Iran's Supreme Leader Calls Election Fair

Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, angrily warned
opposition leaders Friday to stay off the streets and denied
opposition claims that last week's disputed election was
rigged.

In a stern and lengthy sermon at Friday prayers in Tehran, he
also called directly for an end to the protests that have
brought hundreds of thousands of protesters onto the streets
to back demands for a new election.

"Street challenge is not acceptable," he said. "This is
challenging democracy after the elections."

Scrat335
19-06-2009, 19:29
Israel’s attack on Hizbullah was they best thing they’ve done in recent years. It helped to clean up the land from the terrorists, when they don’t have land they have no place to run troops, that’s why they drove Hizbullah crazy, regime in Iran wasn’t happy either. Right now UN is there so they can’t freely launch missiles towards Tel Aviv.

This guy is crazy as a s**t house rat. Israel got their arses kicked in that war. More missiles landed in Israel on the last day of that war than the first. They can launch a world of hurt Israels way any time they want. :trampoline:


They have survived such conditions, under pressure, such as the covering of the girls. The head scarf, the way they dress is a protest, the way the talk is in a protest manner, even if they run a red a red light they are protesting the regime. You can see that in Iran – you aren’t supposed to wear tight fitting clothing, but the people do in protest. Even in London you see more women with their hair covered than in Tehran.

More women in London with their hair covered than in Tehran? Iranian fundies are escaping democratic Iran for a more "free" west? I smell a contradiction here. That guy is a real nutter.

DDT
19-06-2009, 23:25
This guy is crazy as a s**t house rat. Israel got their arses kicked in that war.

He testified before the US Senate, met with President George W. Bush and senior administrators in the State Department and the Pentagon, as well as with experts and analysts on Iran, like Professor Bernard Lewis and others.


I think you are nuttier! Did YOU testify before senate?

Funny how you anti-semites pressure israel Army to go easy on their adversaries and then afterwards say, "Israel got their arses kicked."!!!:ak:

MickeyTong
19-06-2009, 23:33
[QUOTE=DDT;542195....you anti-semites....[/QUOTE]


Being anti the Israeli government is not the same as being an anti-semite.

You have extreme objections to the US government - are you anti-American?

robertmf
19-06-2009, 23:51
Being anti the Israeli government is not the same as being an anti-semite.


Similarly, it is reasonable to be pro-Israel yet anti-Zionist.

DDT
20-06-2009, 00:00
Come on DDT post some links to prove your point about Iran wanting to nuke Iran and kill all the jews.


Do you speak farsi, I don't! If you are not smart enough to figure out which websites have accurate information and translation or use Google on this then there is no help for you. The threats have been repeated by Axmadinijad and others in Iran. If you don't take it seriously then that is your problem.....but Israel has a lot more at stake that you do in the comfort of your home! AS I HAVE ALREADY STATED, Iran funds and supports the interests of Hamas and Hezzbolla, who openly call for the destruction of Israel. That alone should be good enough for the reasonable person to assess that a nuclear Iran would be a threat! Now, like i said in the first place.....Get Real! Don't waste my time on this. People like you with closed minds simply collect like plaque in an artery!

BigSpaseeba
20-06-2009, 01:02
Do you speak farsi, I don't! If you are not smart enough to figure out which websites have accurate information and translation or use Google on this then there is no help for you. The threats have been repeated by Axmadinijad and others in Iran. If you don't take it seriously then that is your problem.....but Israel has a lot more at stake that you do in the comfort of your home! AS I HAVE ALREADY STATED, Iran funds and supports the interests of Hamas and Hezzbolla, who openly call for the destruction of Israel. That alone should be good enough for the reasonable person to assess that a nuclear Iran would be a threat! Now, like i said in the first place.....Get Real! Don't waste my time on this. People like you with closed minds simply collect like plaque in an artery!

Calm down ddt or you're going to have a heart attack.

Iran has not threatened to nuke Israel no matter what you say. You can't prove it because there is no proof even in Farsi.

I guess you just believe other people's translations of Farsi no matter what the truth is.

You think you're open minded and know the truth but in reality you're just an angry old man.

BigSpaseeba
20-06-2009, 02:54
He testified before the US Senate, met with President George W. Bush and senior administrators in the State Department and the Pentagon, as well as with experts and analysts on Iran, like Professor Bernard Lewis and others.


I think you are nuttier! Did YOU testify before senate?

Funny how you anti-semites pressure israel Army to go easy on their adversaries and then afterwards say, "Israel got their arses kicked."!!!:ak:

I don't believe you are pro-semite and you're definitely anti-arab or muslim. You rant and rave about Obama being a muslim iranian terrorist socialist communist pinko fag blah blah blah when in fact he's so close to the zionists, aipac etc. You should open your eyes ddt because you're completely brainwashed by god knows who. What political party do you vote for because your beliefs are WAY out there. BOO!!! there's a socialist!!! QUICK HIDE UNDER YOUR DESK!!

Kvartiraokhotnik
20-06-2009, 08:46
Similarly, it is reasonable to be pro-Israel yet anti-Zionist.



Personally, I consider all zionists to be anti-semites in the true sense of the word. And all anti zionists to be pro-semite.

The sooner the Jewish people get rid of these zionists, the sooner there will be peace in the middle east.

DDT
20-06-2009, 09:28
Personally, I consider all zionists to be anti-semites in the true sense of the word. And all anti zionists to be pro-semite.

The sooner the Jewish people get rid of these zionists, the sooner there will be peace in the middle east.

There will be no peace until the Arabs get rid of Islam. As long as Muslims believe that Mohamed flew on a winged horse to Jerusalem one night and landed on the mosque currently there now, there will be no peace for Israel. This Mosque was built on top of the Israeli Solomon's Temple ruins. A Holy site for Jews and Christians alike.
(By the way the ancient Muslin writers wrote that Mohamed actually landed on the Muslim Mosque. However, the Muslim mosque on the Jewish Temple Mount was not built until long after Mohamed's death, so even if Mo had a horse with wings he could not possibly have gone to the jerusalem mosque at all. This is a little sticking point that Muslims don't like to talk about.) Early Muslim writers weren't very smart and had their dates mixed up when they invented these stories. Now the world is in trouble because stupid Westerners go along Muslim B.S. and Muslim's belief that the site is sacred to Muslims because of an obvious fantasy about Mohamed. Islam has a heavy handed tradition of destroying or desecrating other people's temples and in this case it has caused a problem that can not be solved without Islam admitting that they are wrong......That will never happen!

This is the root of all Israeli/Muslim troubles. As you can see, there can be no peace!

Scrat335
20-06-2009, 10:33
He testified before the US Senate, met with President George W. Bush and senior administrators in the State Department and the Pentagon, as well as with experts and analysts on Iran, like Professor Bernard Lewis and others.

Experts are a dime a dozen. Experts got us into the situation we're in now in Iraq and Afghanistan. Experts are mere paid shills, tools of our corrupt sustem.

DDT
20-06-2009, 11:58
Well maybe experts are a dime a dozen but this guy is not. He was a leader of 12,000 students in revolt against the Mullahs. I think he knows what he is talking about when he talks about the situation....that's why the experts wanted to hear him!

Iranians in street gatherings right now, are holding up signs in plain English asking "Where is America?", while Obummer twiddles his thumbs and stutters about his US social policies instead. What a shmeg!

Scrat335
20-06-2009, 19:11
More accurately he pours sugar in your ears DDT. Lets not fool ourselves, this situation stinks at both ends.


Iranians in street gatherings right now, are holding up signs in plain English asking "Where is America?", while Obummer twiddles his thumbs and stutters about his US social policies instead. What a shmeg!

Send in the army? I'm really sure you'd be off the boat before anyone else.

DDT
21-06-2009, 23:29
More accurately he pours sugar in your ears DDT. Lets not fool ourselves, this situation stinks at both ends.



Why do you think that? Because this Iranian student leader who was harassed and imprisoned by the Iranian Mullahs has different opinions on the state of Iran from you. I dare say, you ignore anything that does not fit into your world view.

But on another note:
Our Scumbag in Chief, the stuttering Obama, has finally made a comment other than "no Comment" on the riots in Iran.

"If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion."

Now how hard was that Hussein? you gutless, slithering slug. Our Muslim in Chief has quite an aversion to offending Islamists, it seems!
Even GW Bush had more guts than Obama. GW had no problem speaking out about tyranny.

BigSpaseeba
22-06-2009, 04:10
Why do you think that? Because this Iranian student leader who was harassed and imprisoned by the Iranian Mullahs has different opinions on the state of Iran from you. I dare say, you ignore anything that does not fit into your world view.

But on another note:
Our Scumbag in Chief, the stuttering Obama, has finally made a comment other than "no Comment" on the riots in Iran.

"If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion."

Now how hard was that Hussein? you gutless, slithering slug. Our Muslim in Chief has quite an aversion to offending Islamists, it seems!
Even GW Bush had more guts than Obama. GW had no problem speaking out about tyranny.

Look DDT you hate Obama and didnt' vote for him and you definitely didn't vote for Ralph Nader. So who did you vote for then? Hmmmm that leaves only one other choice doesn't it. John McCain and Sarah Palin the dream ticket. LOL.

Come on DDT how can anyone take your ranting and raving seriously when you voted for mccain/palin??

Stop trying to act so smart and informed and holier than thou.

You're wrong about most things. Period. Full stop.

I don't know why you keep posting so much BS unless you're a shill for the CIA or something.

BigSpaseeba
22-06-2009, 04:17
Do We Really Care About Democracy? #IranElection;

By Charting Stocks

June 20, 2009 "Charting Stocks" -- After being victims of multiple false and propagandistic media campaigns one would think that we would be able to read between the lines when our mainstream media sources act in lockstep with one another in marketing the agenda du jour.
Have we already forgotten the “flowers and candy” which the gracious Iraqi people were going to greet us with? You know, as “Liberators.” The weapons of mass destruction? The fear campaign waged against us to surrender our national treasure to a few Wall Street firms? When the mainstream media moves together in uniform, repeating the same talking points, it’s time to get suspicious, not complacent.

As soon as Ahmadinejad was declared the victor in Iran’s election EACH of our mainstream media sources were ready to cry foul and dismiss the results as an “obvious” fraud (see links below). One might think that a functioning media would produce ONE inquisitive reporter that was brave enough to even entertain the idea that Ahmadinejad, the incumbent with extremely high support in the country’s rural and poor areas, actually won. Unfortunately, we don’t have reporters like that in our mainstream media (which is why their readership continues to plummet).

If you doubt that the Iranian election media bombardment was deliberate, ask yourself - Do you know who won last months Panamanian election ? Did you even know there was an election? It’s not your fault if you don’t. Actually, I don’t see how you could know without a functioning media.

Have you heard much about the democratic elections in Saudi Arabia lately? Of course not. They don’t have elections. Any media outrage for the people of Saudi Arabia? A country ruled by one of the most repressive regimes on the planet. But hey, they’re our allies. We don’t talk about them (and certainly won’t tweet it).

What about the 2006 (monitored) democratic election in Gaza in which the people resisted western threats and bribes and elected Hamas as their leader? We responded by punishing the people of Gaza and cutting aid to the region. Well, they committed a supreme crime. They voted the wrong way and must be punished for it. I’m waiting for a sympathetic #GazaElection hashtag on Twitter, though I won’t hold my breathe.

Have you heard ANYTHING from the mainstream media of the democratically elected governments that we REMOVED? The fact is that we don’t care about democratic elections.

Dr. Michael Parenti, is one of the nations leading political scholars. In his book “Against Empire,” Parenti tells us that “The United States has overthrown democratically elected governments in Guatemala, Guyana, The Dominican Republic, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, Syria, Indonesia, Greece, Argentina, Bolivia, Haiti, and numerous other nations were overthrown by pro-capitalist militaries that were funded and aided by the US national security state.”

The #IranElection hype has nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with effecting US public opinion. Why are “Iranian’s” microblogging in English and on Twitter (which they do NOT use)? According to Mehdi Yahyanejad, manager of a Farsi-language news site based in Los Angeles, “Twitter’s impact inside Iran is zero..here, there is lots of buzz, but once you look . . . you see most of it are Americans tweeting among themselves.” The Alexa rankings confirm that Twitter’s penetration in Iran is nearly 0%.

The United States is the last country on earth that Iran wants attention from. They certainly don’t want us involved in their elections. We’ve already removed a democratically elected government in Iran during the 1953 coup d’etat of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq. I’d venture to guess that most of the people expressing sympathy for the “Iranian Students” on twitter would have a hard time finding Iran on a map. Those that could would quickly realize that on either side Iran’s borders lies 2 countries which we are very familiar with - Iraq and Afghanistan. Both of which are militarily occupied by our armies. Both ruled by our puppet governments.

Ask yourself - If Iran’s army invaded and occupied both Canada and Mexico, would we want their “Help”? Would we find popular Iranian websites and keep them informed of our nation’s vulnerabilities in their native Farsi?

The media campaign, however obvious it is to some of us, has probably been successful. I’ll bet that if you poll the American people today (and they probably will), you’d find that 40-50% would support military involvement in Iran to “Help” with their elections. I’d also assume that those 40-50% are the same people (more or less) who believed we invaded Iraq because of 9-11, another testament to the effectiveness of propaganda marketing.

The Instant “Analysis”:

Reuters Iran’s election result staggers analysts

Hard-liner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad defeated moderate challenger Mirhossein Mousavi by a surprisingly wide margin in Iran’s presidential election, official results showed on Saturday. Mousavi derided the tally as a “dangerous charade.’

Fox News: U.S. Monitoring Iran’s Election Results

U.S. officials are casting doubt over the results of Iran’s election, in which the government declared President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the winner Saturday…U.S. analysts find it “not credible [Notice the usual UN-NAMED "US Officials and Analysts]

MSNBC: Violence flares as Ahmadinejad wins Iran vote

Riot police battled with protesters Saturday as officials announced that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had won a landslide election victory. His opponent denounced the results as ‘treason’….Ahmadinejad had the apparent backing of the ruling theocracy.

CNN: Ahmadinejad wins landslide in disputed election

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been declared the big winner in the country’s election, but his chief rival and supporters in the Tehran streets are crying foul.

NY Times: Ahmadinejad Is Declared Victor in Iran

The Iranian government declared an outright election victory for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Saturday morning, and riot police officers fought with supporters of the opposition candidate, Mir Hussein Moussavi, who insisted that the election had been stolen.

Time Magazine: Protests Greet Ahmadinejad Win in Iran: ‘It’s Not Possible!

Iran’s Interior Minister announced Saturday that incumbent president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had won 63.29% of the vote in the nation’s closely watched presidential poll. The announcement, greeted with widespread skepticism by Iranian opposition supporters and by foreign analysts, has brought thousands of people onto the streets where they have encountered a strong police presence and the threat of violence.

DDT
22-06-2009, 04:55
Charting Stocks..........hmmm........ quite the imbecile isn't he!

BigSpaseeba
22-06-2009, 04:59
Charting Stocks..........hmmm........ quite the imbecile isn't he!

Want to see someone who voted for mccain and PALIN????

Look in the mirror. LOL.

BigSpaseeba
22-06-2009, 05:02
Iran is Completely Surrounded by US Military

This is a map of the middle east which plots countries that have a US military presence. You still think Iranians want the USA's “Help?”

BigSpaseeba
22-06-2009, 05:04
BBC Admits to Using Fake Photo in #IranElection Coverage

Friday, June 19, 2009 18:43

In their June 19th post entitled “Obama refuses to ‘meddle’ in Iran,” the BBC used a photo from a pro-Ahmadinejad rally in Iran and passed it off as a pro-Mousavi rally photo.

The website WhatReallyHappened.com, one of the most visited blogs in the United States, was the first to break the story which shows that the same group of supporters had been used in an LA Times article photo which is complete with the Iranian President waving to his supporters.

The BBC issued the following correction in response the the article on WhatReallyHappened.com:

The crisis over the Iranian election has been our lead story for most of the week. As with all our coverage, we have been careful to report what both Ahmadinejad and Mousavi supporters are saying. Similarly, we have taken care to label the pictures we use, explaining what they are of.

However, on Wednesday 17 June we made a mistake in a picture caption published on BBC News online. In the story Obama refuses to ‘meddle’ in Iran, we mistakenly stated that a Getty agency picture of a pro-Ahmadinejad rally was a pro-Mousavi rally.

Some blogs, including WhatReallyhappened.com, are pointing out that the LA Times used a similar photograph which showed President Ahmadinejad waving to supporters. The Getty pictures we received did not show Mr Ahmadinejad.

When a reader contacted us about it, we checked our caption and corrected it. We’re sorry for the mistake and have added a note explaining the correction to the story.

MickeyTong
22-06-2009, 14:47
Shouldn't the title of this thread be: Iranian Democracy or Farsi?

RRM
22-06-2009, 19:33
This is sad. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbVfs8N9-I4

RRM
22-06-2009, 19:36
I guess you just believe other people's translations of Farsi no matter what the truth is.


Hate to say it but that translation was provided to the west by Iran itself.

I've known a lot of people from Iran and they definitely do not seem to like the nutter who is in power.

captaincaveman
22-06-2009, 20:13
Hate to say it but that translation was provided to the west by Iran itself.

I've known a lot of people from Iran and they definitely do not seem to like the nutter who is in power.

Whats gona happen now?????????????? is that the last we will hear of it and the people will not fight the oppressive religious dictatorship??? now they have banned all media and will soon ban the web !!!!

:bomb: :ak:

captaincaveman
22-06-2009, 20:15
Iran is Completely Surrounded by US Military

This is a map of the middle east which plots countries that have a US military presence. You still think Iranians want the USA's “Help?”

Good point they certainly don't help the situation at all and will not be getting a birthday card from them !!! time to back off!? no ??

Russian Lad
22-06-2009, 20:32
Whats gona happen now?????????????? is that the last we will hear of it and the people will not fight the oppressive religious dictatorship???

Nothing. Did the Americans fight their government when they either allowed, due to murderous negligence, or directed on purpose a dozen of muslims to kill thousands of Americans? Did you so much as squeak when the Italian soldiers were sent to Iraq, together with the Americans? I am sure they killed many women and children there. Democracy or dictatorship - the same sh3t in this respect.

fenrir
22-06-2009, 21:38
Iran is Completely Surrounded by US Military

This is a map of the middle east which plots countries that have a US military presence. You still think Iranians want the USA's “Help?”

This map is a crock. List me all the significant American forces that are in Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan.

Russian Lad
22-06-2009, 21:46
This map is a crock. List me all the significant American forces that are in Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan.

Fenrir, my old sport, as if the proximity to the occupied Iraq is not sufficiently eloquent by and in itself. Or you just feel like bickering?:)

fenrir
22-06-2009, 22:48
Fenrir, my old sport, as if the proximity to the occupied Iraq is not sufficiently eloquent by and in itself. Or you just feel like bickering?:)

If he can't list the forces, then his claim that Iran is surrounded by American forces is disproved. You can't be surrounded on only two sides.

Judge
22-06-2009, 23:12
If he can't list the forces, then his claim that Iran is surrounded by American forces is disproved. You can't be surrounded on only two sides.

The map shows ''US military presence''

Russian Lad
22-06-2009, 23:19
Fenrir, my old sport, as if the proximity to the occupied Iraq is not sufficiently eloquent by and in itself. Or you just feel like bickering?

If he can't list the forces, then his claim that Iran is surrounded by American forces is disproved. You can't be surrounded on only two sides.

I guess the main idea was that Iran is threatened by the US militarily. And in the modern warfare being surrounded does not necessarily mean a circle of soldiers per se, I guess:). Again, what would the US do if the Northern Korea, for example, decides that Canada has WMDs and attacks it? Would the US feel threatened? Ever tried to wish the others what you wish yourself?:). Or is it asking for too much under democracy?:)

fenrir
23-06-2009, 00:35
I guess the main idea was that Iran is threatened by the US militarily. And in the modern warfare being surrounded does not necessarily mean a circle of soldiers per se, I guess:). Again, what would the US do if the Northern Korea, for example, decides that Canada has WMDs and attacks it? Would the US feel threatened? Ever tried to wish the others what you wish yourself?:). Or is it asking for too much under democracy?:)

Make all the smart comments you want. Post-election Iranian streets are still not peaceful and the death toll is rising.

BigSpaseeba
23-06-2009, 00:50
Hate to say it but that translation was provided to the west by Iran itself.

I've known a lot of people from Iran and they definitely do not seem to like the nutter who is in power.

I don't think so. Not from the many reliable sources that I've heard from. Maybe Fox news broadcasts it and DDT O'Reilly believes it but I don't.

Willy
23-06-2009, 00:55
Make all the smart comments you want. Post-election Iranian streets are still not peaceful and the death toll is rising.


So now it's just like America on a Saturday night.

Russian Lad
23-06-2009, 01:05
Iranian streets are still not peaceful and the death toll is rising.


Wonder if it is peaceful in the democratic Baghdad now. It could serve as a paragon of serene tranquility to its oppressive and dictatorship-prone neighbor, you know...

BigSpaseeba
23-06-2009, 02:09
This map is a crock. List me all the significant American forces that are in Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan.

So then all the other places must have significant american forces which is still a lot. Plus they have some forces in Pakistan etc too.

Either way Iran is surrounded by the american military.

USA doesn't care about democracy in Iran either. If you believe that then you are as blind as DDT O'Reilly. Congratulations you got a thank you from him. I would be embarrassed if I was you.

BigSpaseeba
23-06-2009, 02:13
Whats gona happen now?????????????? is that the last we will hear of it and the people will not fight the oppressive religious dictatorship??? now they have banned all media and will soon ban the web !!!!

:bomb: :ak:

If USA or Israel is stupid enough to attack Iran then all hell will break loose. Iran has had many years to prepare a response to an attack against them. Is that what you want?

Scrat335
23-06-2009, 05:19
That video is a crock. That girl was far away from the police line standing in a crowd. It's quite possible Neda was shot in the head by one of the people around her, supposedly one of the people on her side. Things like those need a symbol, something to rally around and if it's a bloody icon of a martyr it's all the better.

It's just as likely she was shot by one of her allies as by a sniper. Nothing is clear about it.

RRM
23-06-2009, 06:34
I don't think so. Not from the many reliable sources that I've heard from. Maybe Fox news broadcasts it and DDT O'Reilly believes it but I don't.

The translation although a controversy was provided by the right-wing media within Iran itself. Typically, such translations are provided by the president's office itself which later denied it. The other comments such as 'There are no Gays' and writing a letter to the German Chancellor saying that the Holocaust was a farce and the Allied forces made this up to embarrass Germany are undeniably something that can only come out of a retards mouth.

RRM
23-06-2009, 06:57
That video is a crock. That girl was far away from the police line standing in a crowd. It's quite possible Neda was shot in the head by one of the people around her, supposedly one of the people on her side. Things like those need a symbol, something to rally around and if it's a bloody icon of a martyr it's all the better.

It's just as likely she was shot by one of her allies as by a sniper. Nothing is clear about it.

Okay Scrat I never said anything about who shot her etc. All I am indicating is that on the streets of Iran at the moment there are some disturbing things happening.

I mentioned this before that among the entire middle east, Iran probably has the most educated people. I am just not sure how this nut case got elected with statements like he makes regarding gays, holocaust etc.

Scrat335
23-06-2009, 07:40
Sorry RRM I didn't mean to attack you directly. My mistake. Sad that she died, what a waste. I'm not going to go blaming the security forces for her death because there were people on the opposition side with motive to do it also.

What we seem to have is 2 different groups of pigs fighting for a place at the trough. Even with a new power structure in Iran, and a new group of leaders the situation will change little.

DDT
23-06-2009, 08:56
I don't think it matters which guy won their election. The other guy would be just a different face of the same Mullahs.

fenrir
23-06-2009, 10:26
So then all the other places must have significant american forces which is still a lot. Plus they have some forces in Pakistan etc too.

Either way Iran is surrounded by the american military.

USA doesn't care about democracy in Iran either. If you believe that then you are as blind as DDT O'Reilly. Congratulations you got a thank you from him. I would be embarrassed if I was you.

What forces does America have in Pakistan? You reading Pravda again?

fenrir
23-06-2009, 10:27
Wonder if it is peaceful in the democratic Baghdad now. It could serve as a paragon of serene tranquility to its oppressive and dictatorship-prone neighbor, you know...

About as peaceful as Dagestan and Ingushetia are now.

DDT
23-06-2009, 11:53
Funny how Obumma boy has no trouble giving his opinion on what Israel should and should not do, but suddenly he now has no comment on Iran! ....Putz!

Russian Lad
23-06-2009, 15:08
About as peaceful as Dagestan and Ingushetia are now.

And what is your point, Fenrir? Just naming geographical locations? The current Russia was largely shaped by the US, at least at its inception stage, it is a democratic country of sorts, the US has a significant vested interest in many Russian companies. So you are entitled to expect all sorts of violence where the democracy, money-making and religion meet together.

fenrir
23-06-2009, 19:16
And what is your point, Fenrir? Just naming geographical locations? The current Russia was largely shaped by the US, at least at its inception stage, it is a democratic country of sorts, the US has a significant vested interest in many Russian companies. So you are entitled to expect all sorts of violence where the democracy, money-making and religion meet together.

Naming hotpoints as relevant as your naming of Bagdad.

Russian Lad
23-06-2009, 19:19
Bagdad is the capital of the country under the US occupation on the border with Iran, so it IS relevant. Fenrir, I adore your proclivity for disputing the obvious:). Are you sure you have no Estonian blood in your veins?

fenrir
23-06-2009, 19:24
Bagdad is the capital of the country under the US occupation on the border with Iran, so it IS relevant. Fenrir, I adore your proclivity for disputing the obvious:). Are you sure you have no Estonian blood in your veins?

Iraq is no longer an occupied country since it is run by its own government which WANTS AND HAS ASKED FOR the continued presence of US forces.

Btw, an interesting turn of events down south.

Chechen president vows to fight Ingushetia rebels - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090623/wl_nm/us_russia_ingushetia)

Russian Lad
23-06-2009, 19:27
Iraq is no longer an occupied country since it is run by its own government which WANTS AND HAS ASKED FOR the continued presence of US forces.


:Loco:

You are either very naive or in the US government. The quote of the day, anyways. I had to read it twice, did not believe my eyes after the first try.

Judge
23-06-2009, 19:53
Iraq is no longer an occupied country since it is run by its own government which WANTS AND HAS ASKED FOR the continued presence of US forces.



Whatever you are smoking, I want some ..

The US army is never going to leave Iraq.The US has invested too much money and is going to rape the country for what it's worth.

fenrir
23-06-2009, 22:11
Whatever you are smoking, I want some ..

The US army is never going to leave Iraq.The US has invested too much money and is going to rape the country for what it's worth.

We haven't left South Korea, Japan or Germany either but no one says we are still 'occupying' them.

Russian Lad
23-06-2009, 23:30
We haven't left South Korea, Japan or Germany either but no one says we are still 'occupying' them.

So, shall we compare the number of US soldiers, say, in Germany with the number of them in Iraq? You should probably know one thing - if I steal your wallet in Moscow many Russians will admire my ingenuity - you are a nobody to them and I am a local. But I still will be a thief. The same rules apply. If a murderer can buy his way to a better life it does not mean he ceases to be a murderer. I am referring to the occupation of Iraq.

Judge
23-06-2009, 23:48
We haven't left South Korea, Japan or Germany either but no one says we are still 'occupying' them.

Why not put England on your list.

The US set up its own government in Iraq.If the US every pulls out this puppet government is going to fall.I know this and so do you,this is the reason the US Army is never going to leave.
I'm sure down the years you will be saying that the US never really occupied Iraq,just helped them out to get rid of bad boy Saddam.

fenrir
24-06-2009, 00:25
Why not put England on your list.

The US set up its own government in Iraq.If the US every pulls out this puppet government is going to fall.I know this and so do you,this is the reason the US Army is never going to leave.
I'm sure down the years you will be saying that the US never really occupied Iraq,just helped them out to get rid of bad boy Saddam.

50 years ago people were saying the same thing about South Korea, Germany and Japan. It didn't work out that way, did it?

Russian Lad
24-06-2009, 01:17
It didn't work out that way, did it?

See my comment above. A rich murderer is still a murderer.
Besides: the problems with NK we are having now are happening because you messed with them in the first place.

DDT
24-06-2009, 02:48
I'm sure down the years you will be saying that the US never really occupied Iraq,just helped them out to get rid of bad boy Saddam.
That's exactly what they were doing all along! There were plenty of westernised iraqis and plenty of Christians living in Iraq who saw the good in the US getting rid of Hussein. Unfortunately the Left, worldwide, sided with and emboldened Muslims (so called insurgents) who wanted a Muslim Iraq, not a secular one. That's why we have a mess now! Not because US kicked out Hussein.

Sure, the US got rid of bad boy Saddam for the smart Iraqis.

But you Lefties and Muslim extremists saw to it that those same "smart" Iraqis, including 100s of 1,000s of Iraqi Christians were forced to leave Iraq in fear for their own safety. So, when the US Army does finally pull out (which would have been already if the Lefties had not turned on Bush) I really don't know who they will be leaving Iraq to.

Russian Lad
24-06-2009, 04:47
That's exactly what they were doing all along! There were plenty of westernised iraqis and plenty of Christians living in Iraq who saw the good in the US getting rid of Hussein. Unfortunately the Left, worldwide, sided with and emboldened Muslims (so called insurgents) who wanted a Muslim Iraq, not a secular one. That's why we have a mess now! Not because US kicked out Hussein.

Sure, the US got rid of bad boy Saddam for the smart Iraqis.

So, the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died during the invasion trying to defend their country from the gory American imperialism were all stupid?
I will move what I cited to the quotes of the day tomorrow, DDT, sort of busy now. But man, talking to people like you and Fenrir I start to realize how come Islam has some violent movements the members of which want to cut throats of the white trash with two legs and two arms. I mean, it is just self-defence on their part, I cannot possibly blame the dudes.

fenrir
24-06-2009, 09:58
See my comment above. A rich murderer is still a murderer.
Besides: the problems with NK we are having now are happening because you messed with them in the first place.

You mean messed with them by not paying more extortion money/goods?

fenrir
24-06-2009, 10:00
So, the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died during the invasion trying to defend their country from the gory American imperialism were all stupid?
I will move what I cited to the quotes of the day tomorrow, DDT, sort of busy now. But man, talking to people like you and Fenrir I start to realize how come Islam has some violent movements the members of which want to cut throats of the white trash with two legs and two arms. I mean, it is just self-defence on their part, I cannot possibly blame the dudes.

Where on earth do you get hundreds of thousands dying 'defending' their country? There was actual little fighting during the invasion stage.

Russian Lad
24-06-2009, 11:11
Where on earth do you get hundreds of thousands dying 'defending' their country? There was actual little fighting during the invasion stage.

Maybe it was as you are saying, but it is even worse, then - means that many civilians who were not even fighting were indiscriminately killed with bombs, etc. Genocide, anyone? A good way to free a person - by blowing his brains out or disembowelling the chap.
Fenrir, are you with a US government agency? Spill the beans, it will explain a lot to me/us.

BigSpaseeba
24-06-2009, 11:35
What forces does America have in Pakistan? You reading Pravda again?

Pakistan had already provided Jacobabad, Pasni and Dalbandin air bases to US marines for forward operational purposes. A large number of US B-52s, C-130s and helicopters are stationed at these bases. In addition, the US has installed an extended electronic and radar system covering most of the regional airspace at Dalbandin. The Dalbandin airport was constructed in the 1980s with the financial assistance of Saudi Arabia, as many royal family members visit this desert town for bird hunting.

Recently, the government also allowed the use of Karachi International Airport for the arrival of military personnel, logistics and for other operations. The American Federal Bureau of Information has installed monitoring centers at major airports to check passengers. Even Muslims leaving for pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia are being scrutinized on suspicion of being fleeing Al-Qaeda men.

fenrir
24-06-2009, 11:45
Pakistan had already provided Jacobabad, Pasni and Dalbandin air bases to US marines for forward operational purposes. A large number of US B-52s, C-130s and helicopters are stationed at these bases. In addition, the US has installed an extended electronic and radar system covering most of the regional airspace at Dalbandin. The Dalbandin airport was constructed in the 1980s with the financial assistance of Saudi Arabia, as many royal family members visit this desert town for bird hunting.

Recently, the government also allowed the use of Karachi International Airport for the arrival of military personnel, logistics and for other operations. The American Federal Bureau of Information has installed monitoring centers at major airports to check passengers. Even Muslims leaving for pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia are being scrutinized on suspicion of being fleeing Al-Qaeda men.

I am not saying what you posted is not true but what is your source? I only found information about drones and some special forces units being based in Pakistan.

DDT
27-06-2009, 12:24
Iranian Filmmaker Samira Makhmalbaf: Ahmadinejad Has Soiled the Streets of Iran with Blood and Wants to Lead the Region to War

Following are excerpts from an interview with Iranian filmmaker Samira Makhmalbaf, which aired on Al-Arabiya TV on June 17, 2009. The English translation is based on the Arabic voice-over.

To View This Clip, Click Here: Clip (http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2149.htm)

Samira Makhmalbaf: “Let me tell you what happened in Iran. On the night when the votes were counted, Mr. Mousavi was contacted and told that he had won the elections. He was preparing to issue his victory statement. But then the military commanders came to his office, and said that they do not accept this green, democratic revolution. They carried out a coup, placed the elected president under siege, cut off his communications with the outside world, and shut down his website. Then the official TV channel of the Islamic Republic of Iran announced that Ahmadinejad was the real president. They banned the gathering of more than four people, [and stated] that if more than four people gathered in the street, they would be arrested.”

“Our people cannot make their voice heard, because communications with all other countries have been cut off, and journalistic activity has been suspended. They do not let journalists carry out their work freely. They arrested all... The people wanted to tell the whole world that Ahmadinejad is not their legitimate president. They wanted to make the world know who their legitimate and democratically-elected president is. This is what happened.”

“The only thing that the Iranians have now is their souls, and they are sacrificing their souls in defense of Iran. Our people does not seek the nuclear bomb. The Iranian people seeks peace, democracy, and friendship. Ahmadinejad does not care about the Iranian people. He has soiled the streets of Iran with the blood of our people. So how can such a person possibly care about other peoples? I call upon the Lebanese people: Do not be deceived by Ahmadinejad. He does not care about your people. He wants war in Lebanon. He wants war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Lack of security works in his favor. He want to turn you into victims of his interests, and he commits inhuman acts, leading the region to war.”
MEMRI: Latest News (http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD241509)





Иранский режиссер Самира Махмальбаф: Ахмадинежад пролил кровь на улицах Ирана; Он стремится к войне в регионе

Ниже приводятся выдержки из интервью с иранским режиссером Самирой Махмальбаф, которое вышло в эфир на телеканале «Аль-Арабия» 17 июня 2009 года.

Чтобы посмотреть видеоролик с интервью Самиры Махмальбаф, нажмите здесь:
Clip (http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2149.htm) .

Самира Махмальбаф: «Позвольте вам рассказать, что произошло в Иране. В ночь, когда были подсчитаны голоса, господину Мусави позвонили и сообщили, что он победил на выборах. Он готовился опубликовать заявление о победе, но в его офис пришли военные командиры, которые заявили, что не согласны с зеленой, демократической революцией. Они совершили переворот, лишили избранного президента свободы передвижения и связи с внешним миром, а также закрыли его сайт. Позднее официальный телеканал Исламской Республики Иран объявил Ахмадинежада действительным президентом. Они запретили собираться больше четырех человек [и заявили], что будут арестовывать людей, собирающихся на улицах».

«Голос нашего народа не слышен, так как связь с другими странами была прервана, а журналистская деятельность приостановлена. Они не позволяют журналистам свободно работать. Они арестовали всех… Народ хотел рассказать миру, что Ахмадинежад не является их законным президентом. Они хотели, чтобы мир узнал, кто их законный и демократически избранный президент».

«Единственное, что осталось у иранцев – это их души, которыми они жертвуют ради защиты Ирана. Наш народ не стремится [создать] ядерную бомбу. Иранский народ стремится к миру, демократии и дружбе. Ахмадинежад не думает об иранском народе. Он пролил кровь нашего народа на улицах Ирана. Как такой человек может заботиться о других? Я призываю ливанский народ: Не [верьте] Ахмадинежаду и не поддавайтесь обману. Ему нет до вас дела. Он стремится к войне в Ливане. Он стремится к войне в Афганистане и Ираке. Отсутствие безопасности служит его интересам. Он хочет сделать из вас жертву своих интересов, совершает бесчеловечные поступки и стремится к войне в регионе».
MEMRI: Latest News (http://www.memri.org/bin/russian/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD241509)