PDA

View Full Version : Iranian Commanders assassinated...



MIKEMUN
18 Oct 09,, 10:21
Iranian commanders assassinated

Gen Shooshtari was deputy commander of the ground force
Several top commanders in Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards have been killed in a suicide bombing in the volatile south-east of the country.

Iranian state media say at least 20 people have died in the attack, in the province of Sistan-Baluchistan, and dozens more injured.

The commanders were in Pishin region for a meeting with tribal leaders.

No group has claimed responsibility for the attack, which was condemned by Iran's Parliamentary Speaker.

Iran has previously accused a Sunni resistance group, Jundallah, of terrorist activities in the province.

Sistan-Baluchistan is mainly made up of the Baluchi ethnic group, who belong to the Sunni Muslim minority of Shia-ruled Iran.

'Terrorist' attack

The deputy commander of the Guards' ground force, General Noor Ali Shooshtari, and the Guards' chief provincial commander, Rajab Ali Mohammadzadeh, were among the dead, Irna state news agency reported.

Parliamentary speaker Ali Larijani, speaking at an open session of parliament which was broadcast live of state radio, said: "We express our condolences for their martyrdom.

SISTAN-BALUCHISTAN ATTACKS
May 2009 A bomb explodes at a mosque in the provincial capital Zahedan, killing 19 and injuring 60.
February 2007 Suspected militants killed 11, including Iranian Revolutionary Guards, in a bomb attack in the provincial capital Zahedan.
March 2006 Gunmen posing as police kill 22 people, many government employees, after closing the Zabol-Zahedan road.
"The intention of the terrorists was definitely to disrupt security in Sistan-Baluchistan Province."

Within hours of the attack, the Guards accused "foreign elements" - usually used to refer to the US - for the attack.

"Surely foreign elements, particularly those linked to the global arrogance, were involved in this attack," a Guards statement quoted by state television said.

Sistan-Baluchistan province, which borders both Pakistan and Afghanistan, has long been affected by smuggling, drug trafficking, banditry and kidnapping.

Jundallah, also known as the Popular Resistance Movement of Iran, says it is fighting against the political and religious oppression of the country's Sunni minority.

In May, three men were executed for their role in a bombing of a mosque during evening prayers which killed at least 19 people in the south-east city of Zahedan in Sistan-Baluchistan.

The hangings came two days after the attack and the men were in custody on other charges at the time of the bombing.

Revolutionary Guards were among 11 people killed in an attack in 2007 in Zahedan.


BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iranian commanders assassinated (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8312964.stm)

Parihaka
18 Oct 09,, 11:00
Iranian commanders assassinated
.........................

The hangings came two days after the attack and the men were in custody on other charges at the time of the bombing.
:rolleyes:
Revolutionary Guards were among 11 people killed in an attack in 2007 in Zahedan.


BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iranian commanders assassinated (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8312964.stm)

I guess the Pasdaran really want control of the drug trade and the Baloch really don't want them to....

Bigfella
18 Oct 09,, 11:38
Oh the irony.

Kermanshahi
18 Oct 09,, 13:01
These wahabi terrorists have killed more than 300 Iranians in the last 5 years. They are building a concrete wall now past the border with Pakistan, when this is finished, hopefully this will keep them out, like the Israeli wall kept out Palestinian suicide bombers.

And Parihaka, Pasdaran are not involved in the drug trade, onder contrary the Iranian government has been doing a lot of effort in the last 20 years to stop drug trafficing. But the drugs mostly comes from Afghanistan, Jundullah is based in Pakistan, this is not a drug war but an ideological war. Al-Qaeda and their allies hate the Shi'a, Jundullah is based in Baluchistan only because the Baloch are Sunni, further they are not Baluchi nationalists and this is not an ethnic conflict.

MIKEMUN
19 Oct 09,, 03:12
Iran seems to be blaming Pakistan for the bombing...

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iran accuses Pakistan over attack (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8313625.stm)



Iran's president has accused Pakistani agents of involvement in a suicide bombing in south-east Iran targeting a group of elite Revolutionary Guards.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called on Pakistan to apprehend the attackers, whom Iranian officials suggested had arrived from Pakistan.

At least 35 people died in the attack, in south-eastern Sistan-Baluchistan.

A Pakistani spokesman condemned the attack, which has been blamed on the Sunni resistance group, Jundullah.

The foreign office spokesman, Abdul Basit, also dismissed Iranian claims that Jundullah's leader was in Pakistan.

Kernow
19 Oct 09,, 03:15
First they blamed the US, then the UK for an active part in the act, now Pakistan. Who next I wonder!

Kernow
19 Oct 09,, 04:11
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iranian commanders assassinated (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8312964.stm)

Tronic
19 Oct 09,, 06:27
First they blamed the US, then the UK for an active part in the act, now Pakistan. Who next I wonder!

Jundullah operates from Pakistan and the Iranians have been blaming the ISI for providing support to this group for years. They believe the Americans actively endorse the ISI for such activity, along with the Saudis.

Bigfella
19 Oct 09,, 10:12
First they blamed the US, then the UK for an active part in the act, now Pakistan. Who next I wonder!

I think we all know the answer to that CA. At some point it always comes down to 'the jews'.

Kermanshahi
19 Oct 09,, 11:37
I think we all know the answer to that CA. At some point it always comes down to 'the jews'.

The Jews have no involvement in this, these are Sunni terrorist out to kill Shi'a but they hate the Jews as much as they hate Shi'a. The only ones who really can be blamed are Pakistanis for their poor security, it is because of that, that this group is able to operate.

Dreadnought
19 Oct 09,, 14:16
The Jews have no involvement in this, these are Sunni terrorist out to kill Shi'a but they hate the Jews as much as they hate Shi'a. The only ones who really can be blamed are Pakistanis for their poor security, it is because of that, that this group is able to operate.

*Ironic huh? Especially when you openly support terror groups in other countries. Reap what you sow.;)

Parihaka
20 Oct 09,, 02:56
And Parihaka, Pasdaran are not involved in the drug trade, onder contrary the Iranian government has been doing a lot of effort in the last 20 years to stop drug trafficing. But the drugs mostly comes from Afghanistan, Jundullah is based in Pakistan, this is not a drug war but an ideological war. Al-Qaeda and their allies hate the Shi'a, Jundullah is based in Baluchistan only because the Baloch are Sunni, further they are not Baluchi nationalists and this is not an ethnic conflict.

An article on the Baloch including their drug and weapons smuggling (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KB20Ak02.html)

An article about the Pasdaran control of Iran, including all forms of smuggling (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/world/middleeast/21guards.html)

if you wish to go hard-copy I recommend this (http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG821/)

FluffyThoughts
20 Oct 09,, 08:53
*Ironic huh? Especially when you openly support terror groups in other countries. Reap what you sow.;)

Oh dear, that's a sticky argument. NORAID and Bin-Laden were US-funded...! :(

Bigfella
20 Oct 09,, 09:01
The Jews have no involvement in this, these are Sunni terrorist out to kill Shi'a but they hate the Jews as much as they hate Shi'a. The only ones who really can be blamed are Pakistanis for their poor security, it is because of that, that this group is able to operate.


I think you are missing my point.

Kermanshahi
20 Oct 09,, 10:38
*Ironic huh? Especially when you openly support terror groups in other countries. Reap what you sow.;)

It depends what you classify as a terror group. I don't support any groups I consider terrorist. And I haven't expressed support here for any group the Americans or Israelis consider terrorist because it's against the forum rules.


An article on the Baloch including their drug and weapons smuggling (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KB20Ak02.html)

I couldn't find anything in it about drug-trafficing. Could you quote the part you are referring to?



An article about the Pasdaran control of Iran, including all forms of smuggling (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/world/middleeast/21guards.html)

Most of what is said in the Western media about the IRGC is untrue. But even then, all this article sais is this:

"What is less quantifiable is the corpsís black-market smuggling activity, which has helped feed the nationís appetite for products banned by sanctions, while also enriching the corps. The Rand report quoted one member of Iranís Parliament who estimated that the Revolutionary Guards might do as much as $12 billion in black-market business annually."

It doesn't mention drug trade.
However, hundreds of Iranian security force personel have lost their lives in the last 3 decades fighting the drug trafficers from Afghanistan.



if you wish to go hard-copy I recommend this (http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG821/)

Again, nothing about drug trafficing.

Parihaka
20 Oct 09,, 12:21
I couldn't find anything in it about drug-trafficing. Could you quote the part you are referring to?


Oops, sorry, had several articles open at the same time
Insurrection in Iranian Balochistan - The Jamestown Foundation (http://www.jamestown.org/programs/gta/single/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=4648&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=167&no_cache=1)

Parihaka
20 Oct 09,, 12:25
Most of what is said in the Western media about the IRGC is untrue. But even then, all this article sais is this:

"What is less quantifiable is the corpsís black-market smuggling activity, which has helped feed the nationís appetite for products banned by sanctions, while also enriching the corps. The Rand report quoted one member of Iranís Parliament who estimated that the Revolutionary Guards might do as much as $12 billion in black-market business annually."

I can link to plenty more that discuss the Pasdaran control of smuggling. Do you dispute they do this? If not, are they likely to control all the other smuggled goods, but not the drugs?

Kermanshahi
20 Oct 09,, 12:38
the Revolutionary Guards are very religious, they won't smugle drugs. Also inside Iran they have been doing a lot of effort in the war on drugs, most of the arrests, ect. have been done the IRGC and it's branches they've taken much of the casualties in the East.
The heroin comes from Afghanistan, the main problem is with the Afghan drug trafficers which are armed to the teath and fight the troops guardng the border to bring in drugs. Now Nimruz province of Afghanistan has a Baloch majority, so yes there might be a Balochi involvement, but it's not related to the Jundullah conflict.

Jundullah is a Sunni Islamist group, they have alliances with al-Qaeda an dthe Taliban but are shunned by all real Baluchi nationalist groups like the BLA (all of wich are fighting Pakistan, not Iran), the Jundullah is only a small organisation of some 200-300 men and their main weapon is suicide bombings.

Dreadnought
20 Oct 09,, 13:20
It depends what you classify as a terror group. I don't support any groups I consider terrorist. And I haven't expressed support here for any group the Americans or Israelis consider terrorist because it's against the forum rules.

*As it stands the theocratic regime running Iran and some of the Rev gaurds have quite a colorful past with the US. Does the hostages from years back and the bombing of the US Marine barraks in Lebanon ring a bell? Do you actually believe the US has forgotten this? It hasnt.;)

Dreadnought
20 Oct 09,, 13:21
Oh dear, that's a sticky argument. NORAID and Bin-Laden were US-funded...! :(

Not a sticky argument at all I would say when one looks at all sides. Bin Laden and 911 didnt come about until long after the Marine barraks explosion in the 80's. Funded by none other then Iran. Clinton made a mistake in not getting Bin Laden when it was known he was becoming a more radical figure. He had the chance and passsed it up. So what kind of sticky argument are you reffering to?

Kermanshahi
20 Oct 09,, 14:22
*As it stands the theocratic regime running Iran and some of the Rev gaurds have quite a colorful past with the US. Does the hostages from years back and the bombing of the US Marine barraks in Lebanon ring a bell? Do you actually believe the US has forgotten this? It hasnt.;)

Those embassy staff were captured because arranging another coup and those marines were attacked by Lebanese, because they were occupying Lebanon. Keep your troops home if you don't want them attacked.

highsea
20 Oct 09,, 17:04
Oh dear, that's a sticky argument. NORAID and Bin-Laden were US-funded...! :(NORAID recevied no gov't funding.

Neither did the Arab Mujahadeen in Afghanistan.

So wrong on both counts.

Try again.

Dreadnought
20 Oct 09,, 17:12
Those embassy staff were captured because arranging another coup and those marines were attacked by Lebanese, because they were occupying Lebanon. Keep your troops home if you don't want them attacked.

Yep, by students and thats about the extent of what you know. Perhaps the US should just start shooting all the Quds forces they find in Iraq instead of just arresting them judging by your last statement. Wouldnt bother me in the least.:rolleyes:

*And for your information those Marines were there as peace keepers. But then again what would your countries regime know about the word peace when you specialize in terror.:rolleyes:

*Make no mistake my friend, there are debts to be settled with that regime.:))

Aryajet
20 Oct 09,, 18:36
Those embassy staff were captured because arranging another coup and those marines were attacked by Lebanese, because they were occupying Lebanon. Keep your troops home if you don't want them attacked.
Mate!! Looking at above comment makes me feel either you're misinformed or not informed at all.
U.S embassy staff were captured (against all global diplomatic rules & regulations BTW) just for one and only reason. To make over popular interim government of Bazargan to collapse and it did. That was the first coupe action conducted by fanatics to consolidate power and they succeeded, I'm sorry to say.

BTW: If a host government think any guest embassy staff are involved in malicious activities they must move to deport them and might even cut diplomatic relation with that nation. You don't swarm the compound and take them as hostages, they are considered your guests and you are liable for their safety.

And if you believe US Embassy staff were involved in covert coupe operation, then how come none were tried and punished. Instead they were immediately released as soon as Carter received the boot out of the office?

You claim you don't support Barbaric Republic but the more I read your posts the more I move to question that stance.

sumob
21 Oct 09,, 05:53
the Revolutionary Guards are very religious, they won't smugle drugs. Also inside Iran they have been doing a lot of effort in the war on drugs, most of the arrests, ect. have been done the IRGC and it's branches they've taken much of the casualties in the East.
.

Money rules the world. Border Guards at the remote outposts have been known to be on the take with the smugglers. The Revolutionary Guards may be religious but it does not stop someone from being corrupt.


Those embassy staff were captured because arranging another coup and those marines were attacked by Lebanese, because they were occupying Lebanon. Keep your troops home if you don't want them attacked.

I hope this is not the history being taught in Iran.

Bigfella
21 Oct 09,, 08:48
the Revolutionary Guards are very religious, they won't smugle drugs. Also inside Iran they have been doing a lot of effort in the war on drugs, most of the arrests, ect. have been done the IRGC and it's branches they've taken much of the casualties in the East.
The heroin comes from Afghanistan, the main problem is with the Afghan drug trafficers which are armed to the teath and fight the troops guardng the border to bring in drugs. Now Nimruz province of Afghanistan has a Baloch majority, so yes there might be a Balochi involvement, but it's not related to the Jundullah conflict.



I'm not addressing the facts here, but your presumptions. I don't know if the Revolutionary Guards are smuggling drugs, but you are not just arguing on facts here, you are saying 'they wouldn't'. I beg to differ.

Being 'very religious' means noting in this context. The Afghan Mujhadeen & their successors in the Taliban were 'very religious', yet they were happy to trade in heroin for decades. Many of the figures in the Pakistan military who aided & abetted these forces were 'very religious', as were senior figures in US administrations that funnelled money & arms to these groups via Pakistan. Money and/or expediency allow even the religious to do the irreligious.

Your point about fighting drug traffiking within Iran is also not a reason why the Revolutionary Guards might not be involved in the heroin trade. The vast majority of profits to be made from drugs are in the West - that heroin is meant for export. Once again, it is not hard to find 'very religious' people who opposed the use of drugs in their own societies while cheerfully assisting it its trade elsewhere.

Kermanshahi
21 Oct 09,, 11:02
Yep, by students and thats about the extent of what you know. Perhaps the US should just start shooting all the Quds forces they find in Iraq instead of just arresting them judging by your last statement. Wouldnt bother me in the least.:rolleyes:

They didn't capture any Quds Forces, they only captured some diplomats, in Iraq, which were there with permission from the Iraqi government cooperating with them. Americans kidnapped them to try get information.
But the US was using it's embassy to organise another coup, yes, they'd done it before. Last time the Shah had fled too, than Iranians let their guard down and the CIA overthrew the governmetn and brought the Shah back. This time we made sure that didn't happen.


*And for your information those Marines were there as peace keepers. But then again what would your countries regime know about the word peace when you specialize in terror.:rolleyes:

They were there to support the Israeli Occupation. These "peace-keepers" are always there to support one side in the conflict. If you want to do "peace-keeping" in hostile regeons than expect your troops to be attacked.


*Make no mistake my friend, there are debts to be settled with that regime.:))

Oh, there are also debts to be settled with America...


Money rules the world. Border Guards at the remote outposts have been known to be on the take with the smugglers. The Revolutionary Guards may be religious but it does not stop someone from being corrupt.

Sure there is corruption among Iranian borderguards, police and IRGC. But as organisation the IRGC doesn't do drug smuggling, the conflict with Jundullah is not a conflict over controlling the drug flow. The IRGC is not fighting for that, however, there might be some individuals in the IRGC who try to make some extra cash...


I hope this is not the history being taught in Iran.

Most people in the West are to affected by Western propaganda so hearing the truth is for their ideas to far fetched to be true.

Kermanshahi
22 Oct 09,, 19:00
Iranians are preparing a major offensive in Pakistan now to whipe up Jundullah. The IRGC in their special forces, for years Jundullah has been allowed to operate because Iran respected Pakistan's territorial sovereignity but just now they have gone to far and the IRGC is out to take revenge.

Dreadnought
27 Oct 09,, 16:32
They didn't capture any Quds Forces, they only captured some diplomats, in Iraq, which were there with permission from the Iraqi government cooperating with them. Americans kidnapped them to try get information.
But the US was using it's embassy to organise another coup, yes, they'd done it before. Last time the Shah had fled too, than Iranians let their guard down and the CIA overthrew the governmetn and brought the Shah back. This time we made sure that didn't happen.

Umm, yes they have.;) and no, they werent there by permission.:tongue:

General Bergner discussing the confession of Ali Musa Duqduq on July 2 (AFP)

July 4, 2007 (RFE/RL) -- The U.S. military announced on July 2 that it had arrested a senior Hizbollah operative in the southern city of Al-Basrah on March 20 and that he had admitted to working with the Quds Force, a secret military wing linked to Iran's Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC).

The operative, Ali Musa Duqduq, also reportedly indicated that he had assisted in planning and carrying out an attack on a military base in Karbala on January 20 that killed five U.S. soldiers.

U.S. Brigadier-General Kevin Bergner said Duqduq was the liaison between the Quds Force and a breakaway Shi'ite group that actually carried out the Karbala attack. This group was supposedly headed by Qays al-Khaz'ali, a former spokesman for radical Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

Bergner noted that given the sophistication of the Karbala attack, where fighters dressed in U.S. security uniforms to bypass several checkpoints; the fighters "could not have conducted this complex operation without the support and direction of the Quds Force." And by extension, singling out the Quds Force means that Bergner is strongly implying the Iranian leadership must have had prior knowledge to the operation.

In addition, Duquq reportedly acknowledged that the Quds Force and Hizbollah operated camps near Tehran to train Iraqi fighters that were later sent back to Iraq to carry out attacks. He apparently claimed that approximately 20 to 60 fighters were being trained at any given time.

A Long Litany Of Accusations

The charges are not the first time the United States has accused Iranian-linked agents of operating in Iraq. On January 11, U.S. forces arrested five Iranians in the northern city of Irbil, accusing them of having links to the Quds Force. Not only does Tehran deny these accusations, it denies the existence of the Quds Force.

However, the recent revelations paint the most detailed picture publicly released of Iran's alleged indirect military involvement in Iraq.

Duqduq's reported confession would seem to support the notion that the Iraq conflict is being turned into a proxy war between Shi'ite-dominated Iran and Sunni-dominated Saudi Arabia, with U.S. forces caught in the middle.

If enough Sunnis lose faith in the political process and accept the notion that change can only be brought about at gunpoint, then all hope for national reconciliation will vanish.

U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker expressed concerns about alleged Quds Force involvement in Iraq during a May 28 press conference in Baghdad, after a meeting with his Iranian counterpart, Hasan Kazemi.

"I laid out before the Iranians a number of our direct specific concerns about their behavior in Iraq, their support for militias that are fighting both the Iraqi security forces and coalition forces," Crocker said. "The fact that a lot of the explosives and ammunition that are used by these groups are coming in from Iran, that such activities led by the IRGC Quds Force needed to cease, and that we will be watching.

Further:

Pace Stands By Remarks on Iran, Says US Has No Intention of Attacking (http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2007-02/CR-PESSIN-HONOLOULU-14Feb07.cfm?CFID=310077082&CFTOKEN=55819301&jsessionid=88309e604cfeb193510c5775584344657b1e)

Top general casts doubt on Tehran's link to Iraq militias - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/13/pace.iran/index.html)

Iran: Expert Discusses Iran's Quds Force And U.S. Charges Concerning Iraq - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty 2009 (http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1074751.html)

ThreatsWatch.Org: RapidRecon: Ceasefires In Iraq Go Through Iran's Quds Force (http://threatswatch.org/rapidrecon/2008/04/ceasefires-in-iraq-go-through/)

Thats only a few of many articles. There is no doubt, all of these people cant could not fabricate lies that all point in one direction. Now please do tell us we are lying so we can all see how much of a bullshit artist you really are.:))

There is no doubt your country supplies arms, money and explosives to terrorists. It has been proven time and time again..


They were there to support the Israeli Occupation. These "peace-keepers" are always there to support one side in the conflict. If you want to do "peace-keeping" in hostile regeons than expect your troops to be attacked.

Really? so in your views Peace Keepers are always biast?:rolleyes:

*Really? I think your pals the Russians might disagree with you. Thats is ofcoarse their explanation over what happened in Georgia a year ago. Their peace keepers were attacked and killed so by your methods we should be starting a war with Iran.

Most people in the West are to affected by Western propaganda so hearing the truth is for their ideas to far fetched to be true.

*Hilliarious, the vast majority of our info comes from Intelligence sources all over the world,several different countries so we are all wrong once again huh?

Yours comes from some crackpot idiot that believes that he is gods gift to religion and denies his own people rights, elections etc.

Do us a favor, get your head out of your ass because it stinks like kaka.

Now who is fooling who?:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Dreadnought
27 Oct 09,, 18:54
Iranians are preparing a major offensive in Pakistan now to whipe up Jundullah. The IRGC in their special forces, for years Jundullah has been allowed to operate because Iran respected Pakistan's territorial sovereignity but just now they have gone to far and the IRGC is out to take revenge.

How Ironic, terrorsists hunting terrorists. And Iran dont respect its neighbors soverignty, namely Iraqs,Lebannons,Gaza's,Syria's etc. If the did respect these countries then she would not be funding,training and arming terrorists in these countries. So the use of the word respect in this sense is a complete fallacy. I bet this major offensive dont happen and by the way they might want to be real careful when they step over that border.

zraver
27 Oct 09,, 23:31
I can link to plenty more that discuss the Pasdaran control of smuggling. Do you dispute they do this? If not, are they likely to control all the other smuggled goods, but not the drugs?

A couple of problems Pari. First the Guards control the smuggling of items into Iran for Iranian consumption. Items are smuggling in, filtered to the bazaars and from there sold and thus passing into general circulation. This form of smuggling is pretty much an open secret in Iran and politicians/clerics not aligned with the guards have railed against it in Iranian newspapers.

Secondly, Iran's primary smuggled export is arms to Hamas and even more so arms for Hezzbollah. Iranians with official positions in the government or tied to those who do getting caught moving heroin would endanger those arms shipments by exposing them to more risk of detection as other nations cracked down.


Thirdly, Iran is drowning under an ocean of tears shed by the families of addicts. The government takes a very hard line with drug traffickers- it hangs them. Over 200 so far this year. A guards commander getting exposed would by a public relations nightmare inside Iran.

This is not to say there are not corrupt officials who do engage in it given the money involved. But I don't think drugs play any role in official policy. There is simply too much to lose for the Guards.

diablo49
28 Oct 09,, 00:22
Iranians are preparing a major offensive in Pakistan now to whipe up Jundullah. The IRGC in their special forces, for years Jundullah has been allowed to operate because Iran respected Pakistan's territorial sovereignity but just now they have gone to far and the IRGC is out to take revenge.

Would these happen to be the "border guards" who didn't understand where the border was? :biggrin:

Officer of Engineers
28 Oct 09,, 07:20
Iranians are preparing a major offensive in Pakistan now to whipe up Jundullah. The IRGC in their special forces, for years Jundullah has been allowed to operate because Iran respected Pakistan's territorial sovereignity but just now they have gone to far and the IRGC is out to take revenge.I would love to see this.

Parihaka
28 Oct 09,, 07:38
I would love to see this.

We have popcorn and deckchairs available

zraver
28 Oct 09,, 13:24
Would these happen to be the "border guards" who didn't understand where the border was? :biggrin:

At least some of them were, since the Iranian-Pakistan border is under direct IIRGC control.

Dreadnought
28 Oct 09,, 13:51
Yemen seizes boat off coast, arrests 5 Iranians

Oct 28, 7:21 AM (ET)

By AHMED AL-HAJ

SAN'A, Yemen (AP) - Yemeni coast guards have seized a boat they say illegally entered the country's territorial waters and arrested five Iranians on board, the Interior Ministry said Wednesday.

Local media have reported the boat captured on Monday was Iranian and suspected of smuggling arms to Shiite rebels battling government troops in Yemen's northern Saada province.

But the ministry statement only said the boat was intercepted after illegally entering Yemeni territorial waters off the western coast. It was escorted to a naval base on a nearby island and the sailors who were on board - five Iranians and one Indian - were being questioned, the statement said.

Iran's state media denied an Iranian boat had been seized in Yemen.

Yemen has been embroiled in a sporadic five-year conflict with Saada's Shiite rebels, who accuse authorities of neglecting their needs and of allying with hard-line Sunni fundamentalists. Fighting has intensified since August, displacing tens of thousands of people and limited their access to humanitarian aid.

Some Yemeni officials recently stepped up accusations that Iran and Shiite communities across the Mideast are supporting the Shiite rebels fighting the military in Saada, which borders Saudi Arabia. The rebels belong to the Zaydi branch of Islam's Shiite sect.

Tehran denies supporting the rebels and the Yemeni government has not provided any evidence to support the accusation.

The ministry gave no details about when the boat was seized but local media reported Tuesday that an Iranian boat smuggling weapons was captured and its Iranian crew arrested. Government spokesman Hassan al-Lawzi confirmed the arrests but did not give details or say if weapons were seized.

*Seems as though a few more have lost their way, This time on the water instead of land.:eek:

*Lesson for today..... Maps are for cars, Charts are for Seafaring.:P

Let me guess, We are all still lying right and this never happened?:eek::))

oliveryty
28 Oct 09,, 13:55
Ballot or Bullet!!!

Kermanshahi
29 Oct 09,, 15:22
They didn't capture any Quds Forces, they only captured some diplomats, in Iraq, which were there with permission from the Iraqi government cooperating with them. Americans kidnapped them to try get information.
But the US was using it's embassy to organise another coup, yes, they'd done it before. Last time the Shah had fled too, than Iranians let their guard down and the CIA overthrew the governmetn and brought the Shah back. This time we made sure that didn't happen.

Umm, yes they have.;) and no, they werent there by permission.:tongue:

General Bergner discussing the confession of Ali Musa Duqduq on July 2 (AFP)

July 4, 2007 (RFE/RL) -- The U.S. military announced on July 2 that it had arrested a senior Hizbollah operative in the southern city of Al-Basrah on March 20 and that he had admitted to working with the Quds Force, a secret military wing linked to Iran's Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC).

The operative, Ali Musa Duqduq, also reportedly indicated that he had assisted in planning and carrying out an attack on a military base in Karbala on January 20 that killed five U.S. soldiers.

U.S. Brigadier-General Kevin Bergner said Duqduq was the liaison between the Quds Force and a breakaway Shi'ite group that actually carried out the Karbala attack. This group was supposedly headed by Qays al-Khaz'ali, a former spokesman for radical Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

Bergner noted that given the sophistication of the Karbala attack, where fighters dressed in U.S. security uniforms to bypass several checkpoints; the fighters "could not have conducted this complex operation without the support and direction of the Quds Force." And by extension, singling out the Quds Force means that Bergner is strongly implying the Iranian leadership must have had prior knowledge to the operation.

In addition, Duquq reportedly acknowledged that the Quds Force and Hizbollah operated camps near Tehran to train Iraqi fighters that were later sent back to Iraq to carry out attacks. He apparently claimed that approximately 20 to 60 fighters were being trained at any given time.

A Long Litany Of Accusations

The charges are not the first time the United States has accused Iranian-linked agents of operating in Iraq. On January 11, U.S. forces arrested five Iranians in the northern city of Irbil, accusing them of having links to the Quds Force. Not only does Tehran deny these accusations, it denies the existence of the Quds Force.

However, the recent revelations paint the most detailed picture publicly released of Iran's alleged indirect military involvement in Iraq.

Duqduq's reported confession would seem to support the notion that the Iraq conflict is being turned into a proxy war between Shi'ite-dominated Iran and Sunni-dominated Saudi Arabia, with U.S. forces caught in the middle.

If enough Sunnis lose faith in the political process and accept the notion that change can only be brought about at gunpoint, then all hope for national reconciliation will vanish.

U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker expressed concerns about alleged Quds Force involvement in Iraq during a May 28 press conference in Baghdad, after a meeting with his Iranian counterpart, Hasan Kazemi.

"I laid out before the Iranians a number of our direct specific concerns about their behavior in Iraq, their support for militias that are fighting both the Iraqi security forces and coalition forces," Crocker said. "The fact that a lot of the explosives and ammunition that are used by these groups are coming in from Iran, that such activities led by the IRGC Quds Force needed to cease, and that we will be watching.

Further:

Pace Stands By Remarks on Iran, Says US Has No Intention of Attacking (http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2007-02/CR-PESSIN-HONOLOULU-14Feb07.cfm?CFID=310077082&CFTOKEN=55819301&jsessionid=88309e604cfeb193510c5775584344657b1e)

Top general casts doubt on Tehran's link to Iraq militias - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/13/pace.iran/index.html)

Iran: Expert Discusses Iran's Quds Force And U.S. Charges Concerning Iraq - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty 2009 (http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1074751.html)

ThreatsWatch.Org: RapidRecon: Ceasefires In Iraq Go Through Iran's Quds Force (http://threatswatch.org/rapidrecon/2008/04/ceasefires-in-iraq-go-through/)

Thats only a few of many articles. There is no doubt, all of these people cant could not fabricate lies that all point in one direction. Now please do tell us we are lying so we can all see how much of a bullshit artist you really are.:))

There is no doubt your country supplies arms, money and explosives to terrorists. It has been proven time and time again..


They were there to support the Israeli Occupation. These "peace-keepers" are always there to support one side in the conflict. If you want to do "peace-keeping" in hostile regeons than expect your troops to be attacked.

Really? so in your views Peace Keepers are always biast?:rolleyes:

*Really? I think your pals the Russians might disagree with you. Thats is ofcoarse their explanation over what happened in Georgia a year ago. Their peace keepers were attacked and killed so by your methods we should be starting a war with Iran.

Most people in the West are to affected by Western propaganda so hearing the truth is for their ideas to far fetched to be true.

*Hilliarious, the vast majority of our info comes from Intelligence sources all over the world,several different countries so we are all wrong once again huh?

Yours comes from some crackpot idiot that believes that he is gods gift to religion and denies his own people rights, elections etc.

Do us a favor, get your head out of your ass because it stinks like kaka.

Now who is fooling who?:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Kata'ib Hezbollah and the Special Groups are not the same as the Quds Force. These are Iraqi Insurgents, not Iranian Security Forces operating in Iraq.

The only Iranians captured were 5 diplomats in a consulate in the North of the country which were there completely legally and the KRG was quite angry at their abduction.


How Ironic, terrorsists hunting terrorists. And Iran dont respect its neighbors soverignty, namely Iraqs,Lebannons,Gaza's,Syria's etc. If the did respect these countries then she would not be funding,training and arming terrorists in these countries. So the use of the word respect in this sense is a complete fallacy. I bet this major offensive dont happen and by the way they might want to be real careful when they step over that border.

Iraq is not sovereign, it is under occupation. As for Gaza, Hamas is the government, Iran funds them. Iran doesn't fund any militants active against the Syrian government and as for Lebanon, let's first see 1-man 1-vote being allowed in elections and than we'll talk further about disarming HEzbollah.

Kermanshahi
29 Oct 09,, 15:28
Would these happen to be the "border guards" who didn't understand where the border was? :biggrin:

Not the border Guards, the IRGC.


I would love to see this.

Recently 11 Revolutionary Guards were arrested inside Pakistan, operations have already started, Iranian forces are now operating on the other side of the border.


At least some of them were, since the Iranian-Pakistan border is under direct IIRGC control.

It's only recently been placed under IRGC control (after the bombings), but I think there are still border guards, police and regular military stationed there.


Yemen seizes boat off coast, arrests 5 Iranians

Oct 28, 7:21 AM (ET)

By AHMED AL-HAJ

SAN'A, Yemen (AP) - Yemeni coast guards have seized a boat they say illegally entered the country's territorial waters and arrested five Iranians on board, the Interior Ministry said Wednesday.

Local media have reported the boat captured on Monday was Iranian and suspected of smuggling arms to Shiite rebels battling government troops in Yemen's northern Saada province.

But the ministry statement only said the boat was intercepted after illegally entering Yemeni territorial waters off the western coast. It was escorted to a naval base on a nearby island and the sailors who were on board - five Iranians and one Indian - were being questioned, the statement said.

Iran's state media denied an Iranian boat had been seized in Yemen.

Yemen has been embroiled in a sporadic five-year conflict with Saada's Shiite rebels, who accuse authorities of neglecting their needs and of allying with hard-line Sunni fundamentalists. Fighting has intensified since August, displacing tens of thousands of people and limited their access to humanitarian aid.

Some Yemeni officials recently stepped up accusations that Iran and Shiite communities across the Mideast are supporting the Shiite rebels fighting the military in Saada, which borders Saudi Arabia. The rebels belong to the Zaydi branch of Islam's Shiite sect.

Tehran denies supporting the rebels and the Yemeni government has not provided any evidence to support the accusation.

The ministry gave no details about when the boat was seized but local media reported Tuesday that an Iranian boat smuggling weapons was captured and its Iranian crew arrested. Government spokesman Hassan al-Lawzi confirmed the arrests but did not give details or say if weapons were seized.

*Seems as though a few more have lost their way, This time on the water instead of land.:eek:

*Lesson for today..... Maps are for cars, Charts are for Seafaring.:P

Let me guess, We are all still lying right and this never happened?:eek::))

Oh, this definetly did happen, Iranians are bringing weapons to Houthi Rebels in Sa'adah.

But I assure you, if you were a Shi'a living in Saudi Arabia or Yemen, or even if you mereley went there to see how they're being treated, than you would seriously reconsider your opinion about them...

Officer of Engineers
29 Oct 09,, 16:16
Recently 11 Revolutionary Guards were arrested inside Pakistan, operations have already started, Iranian forces are now operating on the other side of the border.The official story was that they were lost and surrendered to border police. Even if what you say is true, 11 lost idiots who don't know the first thing about recce, hardly constitute a major offensive into Pakistan.

Again, don't pretend you know things that you don't. The military people can read signs that you don't know a thing about. For even a brigade level penetration, we would have seen movement of artillery pieces to jump off points.

I have not come down on you in the past just to see your passion ... but your ignorance is really playing on my nerves.

Kermanshahi
29 Oct 09,, 16:24
The official story was that they were lost and surrendered to border police. Even if what you say is true, 11 lost idiots who don't know the first thing about recce, hardly constitute a major offensive into Pakistan.

Again, don't pretend you know things that you don't. The military people can read signs that you don't know a thing about. For even a brigade level penetration, we would have seen movement of artillery pieces to jump off points.

I have not come down on you in the past just to see your passion ... but your ignorance is really playing on my nerves.

They might have calimed to be lost, but the real reason is they infiltrated for anti-terror operations.

Officer of Engineers
29 Oct 09,, 16:38
They might have calimed to be lost, but the real reason is they infiltrated for anti-terror operations.So, in other words, they don't enough to stay hidden. Yeah, some real good elite forces you have there.

Dreadnought
29 Oct 09,, 16:48
Kata'ib Hezbollah and the Special Groups are not the same as the Quds Force. These are Iraqi Insurgents, not Iranian Security Forces operating in Iraq.

They are trained,armed and funded by the Quds force and the Revolutionary Guard.

The only Iranians captured were 5 diplomats in a consulate in the North of the country which were there completely legally and the KRG was quite angry at their abduction

*I think you better start reading because what you state and what official reports state from Iraq are very very far apart. And YES there have been Iranians captured in Iraq many times over.:rolleyes:

Dreadnought
29 Oct 09,, 16:52
Oh, this definetly did happen, Iranians are bringing weapons to Houthi Rebels in Sa'adah.

But I assure you, if you were a Shi'a living in Saudi Arabia or Yemen, or even if you mereley went there to see how they're being treated, than you would seriously reconsider your opinion about them...


In other words your funding terror in both. How is it that you can be sooooo concerned about people in other countries while the people in your country get murdered,beaten and thrown in jail just because they protest a sham election and have a different opinion then those you call "leaders". How is it that your not concerned over the way those people were treated?:rolleyes:

Dreadnought
29 Oct 09,, 17:07
Iraq is not sovereign, it is under occupation. As for Gaza, Hamas is the government, Iran funds them. Iran doesn't fund any militants active against the Syrian government and as for Lebanon, let's first see 1-man 1-vote being allowed in elections and than we'll talk further about disarming HEzbollah.

Umm NO, Iraq is soverign, She has her own forces enforcing Iraqi law in her provinces creates her own oil marketing and sales and has her own elceted leaders. US forces are only backing their patrols. Thats not occupation, that assistance. Hamas is a terror group not a legitimate government (but ofcoarse you would state that it is) and never will be. Iran funds terror in Gaza a duely noted and undisputable fact.

Syria and Iran BOTH have nuclear weapons ambitions and it is well known and that is exactly why Israel took out the reactor that no one wnats to talk about. It sent a message to Iran.

let's first see 1-man 1-vote being allowed in elections and than we'll talk further about disarming HEzbollah.

BETTER YET LETS SEE THAT IN IRAN, 1 MAN, 1 VOTE :rolleyes::rolleyes:

MAYBE JUST MAYBE THEY ARE MORE THEN FAMILIAR WITH YOU LEADERS TYPE OF VOTING, HENSE KEEPING YOUR INFLUENCE OUT.:))

Dreadnought
29 Oct 09,, 19:16
[QUOTE=Dreadnought;687625]Iraq is not sovereign, it is under occupation. As for Gaza, Hamas is the government, Iran funds them. Iran doesn't fund any militants active against the Syrian government and as for Lebanon, let's first see 1-man 1-vote being allowed in elections and than we'll talk further about disarming HEzbollah.

Umm NO, Iraq is soverign, She has her own forces enforcing Iraqi law in her provinces creates her own oil marketing and sales and has her own elected leaders. US forces are only backing their patrols. Thats not occupation, thats called assistance. Hamas is a terror group and not a legitimate government (but ofcoarse you would state that it is) and never will be. Iran funds terror in Gaza and that is an undisputable fact.

Syria and Iran BOTH have nuclear weapons ambitions and it is well known and that is exactly why Israel took out the reactor that no one wants to talk about. It sent a message to Iran.

let's first see 1-man 1-vote being allowed in elections and than we'll talk further about disarming HEzbollah.

BETTER YET LETS SEE THAT IN IRAN, 1 MAN, 1 VOTE, INSTEAD OF 1 MAN 1,OOO VOTES :rolleyes::rolleyes:

MAYBE JUST MAYBE THEY ARE MORE THEN FAMILIAR WITH YOU LEADERS TYPE OF VOTING, HENSE KEEPING YOUR INFLUENCE OUT OF THEIR GOVERNMENT!:))

HillTribe
30 Oct 09,, 17:09
Iran could be the nation that triggers an Islamic renaissance in the Middle East. Its people are young, generally pro-western, liberal, and many even atheist! I actually came across many Iranians who professed atheism and a weird combination of mysticism! The Wahabbis who the international community is trying to fight from Morocco to Pakistan hate the Shia of Iran and fear their dominance.

It is the regime in Iran that is dangerous (The guardian council and all). Actually the regime seems disconnected with the pulse of the nation. Case in point the recently disputed elections. Give the civil society in Iran encouragement and the Islamic Republic will be overthrown and a more liberal government will take effect. The people of Iran are just itching for a change. Iran ought to be a natural ally of the democratically predisposed nations. Too bad the CIA overthrew the Mossadekh government in the 1950's. Hope the west will take a more long term perspective on Iran when the regime topples.

However, the more the international community pushes Iran into the corner, the more the Iranians will galvanize around the banner of the Islamic Republic.

Dreadnought
30 Oct 09,, 17:33
And that may very well be the future because the International community is not going to allow that regime a nuclear weapon any time soon no matter what happens. IMO, we dont have any problems with the Iranain people, its the regime, If the people see us as bad due to sanctions because of that regime then theres not much that can be done about it. But they can do alot about the regime that rules the country.

HillTribe
30 Oct 09,, 17:43
As an Iran observer I feel that the majority of the people hate the regime. But the regime is simply too brutal to acquiesce to the people's wishes. There could be a way to deny the Iranians the bomb and boot out the regime without hurting the ordinary Iranians.

I am new to the board... therefore I have a really stupid question... What does IMO mean? :redface:

Dreadnought
30 Oct 09,, 17:50
As an Iran observer I feel that the majority of the people hate the regime. But the regime is simply too brutal to acquiesce to the people's wishes. There could be a way to deny the Iranians the bomb and boot out the regime without hurting the ordinary Iranians.

I am new to the board... therefore I have a really stupid question... What does IMO mean? :redface:

Welcome to the thread. IMO= In My Opinion.:) (PS, There really isint any stupid questions here)

If theres a way to do all that without any harm to those people I think you would have made many ears stand up no doubt.;).

HillTribe
30 Oct 09,, 18:15
Thank you for clearing that...I dont feel so stupid anymore. :)

Dreadnought
30 Oct 09,, 20:59
Thank you for clearing that...I dont feel so stupid anymore. :)

:);)

zraver
30 Oct 09,, 21:24
As an Iran observer I feel that the majority of the people hate the regime. But the regime is simply too brutal to acquiesce to the people's wishes.

Your belief is mistaken, while large parts of the people do hate the regime they are not the majority. A-jad might very well have won the election honestly for the simple fact he controls the Basiji some 9 million men on paper. This is a signifigant slice of the Iranian electorate. The rural poor also tend to favor the regime as long as it keeps its social supports in place. The faction the west wants to be working with is a very large group- urban middle class, college kids, moderate clerics but its by no way clear this is a majority.

Kermanshahi
31 Oct 09,, 12:20
Umm NO, Iraq is soverign, She has her own forces enforcing Iraqi law in her provinces creates her own oil marketing and sales and has her own elceted leaders. US forces are only backing their patrols. Thats not occupation, that assistance.

They are powerless, Americans call the shots in Iraq and until they leave and leave Iraq to the Iraqis it will be occupation. Ofcourse the US always finds loopholes to make that they are officialy not occupiers but assisting a gov't or on a "peace mission", but in reality they are occcupying powers.

Iran has been helping Iraqis against their opressors for decades, first the Ba'athists and now the Americans and will continue to do so until our brothers are free.


Hamas is a terror group not a legitimate government (but ofcoarse you would state that it is) and never will be. Iran funds terror in Gaza a duely noted and undisputable fact.

Hamas stood in the Palestinian elections and won it. They are the legitimate government.


Syria and Iran BOTH have nuclear weapons ambitions and it is well known and that is exactly why Israel took out the reactor that no one wnats to talk about. It sent a message to Iran.

Israel didn't take out a reactor. They went through Turkey and bombed some abandoned camel shed on the other side of the border, than some Zio-fanboys ridiculously claimed it was a reactor. It was merely an attempt by Israel to flex their muscles, show Syria what they can do. Iran isn't impressed at all and in our case the Turks won't cooperate.


BETTER YET LETS SEE THAT IN IRAN, 1 MAN, 1 VOTE :rolleyes::rolleyes:

MAYBE JUST MAYBE THEY ARE MORE THEN FAMILIAR WITH YOU LEADERS TYPE OF VOTING, HENSE KEEPING YOUR INFLUENCE OUT.:))

There is a 1-man 1-vote system in Iran. Unlike in Lebanon were the seats are unfairly divided per religious groups and the Muslims (65%) get only 45% of the seats while the Christians (30%) get 50% of the seats. And among the Muslims, although there are atleast 2x as many Shi'a as Sunni Muslims the seats are divided half-half. In Iran the MPs are elected per how many votes they get and the vote of some people isn't worth 3x the vote of other people because of their religion. Iran, there are however several religious groups who are far to smal to get a seat in parliament and thus there are 5 seats reserved for them.


Iran could be the nation that triggers an Islamic renaissance in the Middle East. Its people are young, generally pro-western, liberal, and many even atheist! I actually came across many Iranians who professed atheism and a weird combination of mysticism!

Well, not exactly. The people of Iran are generally secular and nationalistic. But do not confuse anti-regime with pro-Western. Most Iranians would want a government with similar foreign policies to this one, but different internal politics.


The Wahabbis who the international community is trying to fight from Morocco to Pakistan hate the Shia of Iran and fear their dominance.

The Americans and their allies have been supporting the Sunnis against the Shi'a throughout history. Whether in Saudi Arabia, in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, in Iraq, in Bahrain, in Lebanon, in Yemen, Shi'a have been opressed for centuries by Sunnis. Since the revolution Iran has been helping Shi'a to fight back, Americans call it "terrorism".
However it are the Sunnis who they actually need to be fighting. All terror attacks in non-Muslim countries, by Muslims, were by Sunnis. In Iraq and Afghanistan it are mainly the Sunnis who are fighting America and 100% of the suicide bombings in both countries were by Sunnis.
Iran has been supporting Shi'a militia in Iraq against Saddam and in Afghanistan against the Taliban for years. At the time they were all called terrorists by America, funded by evil Iran against legitimate governments. After America's split up with some of these goverments (such as Iraq) they are forced to cooperate with the Shi'a against the countries Sunnis and now they suddenly aren't terrorists anymore.:eek:


It is the regime in Iran that is dangerous (The guardian council and all). Actually the regime seems disconnected with the pulse of the nation. Case in point the recently disputed elections. Give the civil society in Iran encouragement and the Islamic Republic will be overthrown and a more liberal government will take effect. The people of Iran are just itching for a change. Iran ought to be a natural ally of the democratically predisposed nations. Too bad the CIA overthrew the Mossadekh government in the 1950's. Hope the west will take a more long term perspective on Iran when the regime topples.

American efforts to dominate Iran in the last 50-60 years have all been counterproductive. The situation can never become as good anymore as it would have been if Mossadeq had stayed in power, but it can be saved to some extend. Problem is that America is still making matters worse on themselfes.


However, the more the international community pushes Iran into the corner, the more the Iranians will galvanize around the banner of the Islamic Republic.

True, and infact the Islamic regime would have collapsed by end 1980 to mid 1981, it was the time were they were the weakest and other factions were strongest while Iran was least stable. Instead of letting this happen the Americans pushed Saddam to invade Iran, to overthrow the regime with force, this enabled the regime to put all of Iran behind it and crush any other factions. Specially those which alligned themselfes with Saddam such as the MKO (an organisation which used to enjoy large public support) lost all their sympathy among Iranian people and their members are hated nation wide.


As an Iran observer I feel that the majority of the people hate the regime. But the regime is simply too brutal to acquiesce to the people's wishes. There could be a way to deny the Iranians the bomb and boot out the regime without hurting the ordinary Iranians.

I am new to the board... therefore I have a really stupid question... What does IMO mean? :redface:

Well not exactly all of them hate the regime. But the majority are definetly unhappy about their policies. Those who demand a complete regime change are not in majority in Iran, however a vast majority of the population would want some serious changes in the regimes internal policies. More political freedom, more social and religious freedom and some federalism is what most Iranians would want rather than how the government is ruling now.
Only the very religious Shi'as, support this regime, about 15% of the population or so.

Personally I would have much preferred a Mossadeq government. Pitty the Americans thought he'd be to good for Iran and had to so desperatly destroy Iran democracy to get in power a puppet who ruined the country and America more powerfull.:(

zraver
31 Oct 09,, 16:45
They are powerless, Americans call the shots in Iraq and until they leave and leave Iraq to the Iraqis it will be occupation. Ofcourse the US always finds loopholes to make that they are officialy not occupiers but assisting a gov't or on a "peace mission", but in reality they are occcupying powers.

The Iraqi government was recognized as sovereign by the UN.


Iran has been helping Iraqis against their opressors for decades, first the Ba'athists and now the Americans and will continue to do so until our brothers are free.

Nice propaganda line, but Iranian help comes with puppet strings. Iraqis are not stupid, that is why the openly pro-Iran party got its butt handed to it during provincial elections.


Hamas stood in the Palestinian elections and won it. They are the legitimate government.

Your right, so what they attack Israel, its not a terror group making the attack, it is the people of Palestine. When one government attacks another its called war.




Israel didn't take out a reactor. They went through Turkey and bombed some abandoned camel shed on the other side of the border, than some Zio-fanboys ridiculously claimed it was a reactor. It was merely an attempt by Israel to flex their muscles, show Syria what they can do. Iran isn't impressed at all and in our case the Turks won't cooperate.

It was a nuclear site, and while you might not be impressed, I am sure your generals feel different. But the difference between them and you is their ability to see the details. When an entire nations communications grid goes dark and not 1 SAM fires as the return flights passes over Damascus you'd better believe your generals took notice.




There is a 1-man 1-vote system in Iran.

Not really, people can only vote for approved candidates, non-shia cannot hold high office, the incumbants can openly use state resources for re-election inclusing police asets to attack the opposistion.



Well, not exactly. The people of Iran are generally secular and nationalistic. But do not confuse anti-regime with pro-Western. Most Iranians would want a government with similar foreign policies to this one, but different internal politics.


The Americans and their allies have been supporting the Sunnis against the Shi'a throughout history.

Funny I thought the US standing for Iran vs the USSR/UK, and allowing the Shah to build a military bigger and better than any of his neighbors but the USSR were both historical events.


Whether in Saudi Arabia, in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, in Iraq, in Bahrain, in Lebanon, in Yemen, Shi'a have been opressed for centuries by Sunnis. Since the revolution Iran has been helping Shi'a to fight back, Americans call it "terrorism".

How is blowing up a Jewish ticket counter in Argentina fighting back?


However it are the Sunnis who they actually need to be fighting. All terror attacks in non-Muslim countries, by Muslims, were by Sunnis.

Actually about 98% are Sunni, but Shia are not blameless.


American efforts to dominate Iran in the last 50-60 years have all been counterproductive. The situation can never become as good anymore as it would have been if Mossadeq had stayed in power, but it can be saved to some extend. Problem is that America is still making matters worse on themselfes.

Iran is the one making it worse. It is making armaments it does not need to threaten a country it doe snot border. Its breaking international law as regards nuclear technology and engaging in brinkmanship.


True, and infact the Islamic regime would have collapsed by end 1980 to mid 1981, it was the time were they were the weakest and other factions were strongest while Iran was least stable. Instead of letting this happen the Americans pushed Saddam to invade Iran, to overthrow the regime with force, this enabled the regime to put all of Iran behind it and crush any other factions. Specially those which alligned themselfes with Saddam such as the MKO (an organisation which used to enjoy large public support) lost all their sympathy among Iranian people and their members are hated nation wide.

The IR had already corrupted the system and seized power after collapsing the populist government.

1980s
31 Oct 09,, 19:52
Your belief is mistaken, while large parts of the people do hate the regime they are not the majority. A-jad might very well have won the election honestly for the simple fact he controls the Basiji some 9 million men on paper. This is a signifigant slice of the Iranian electorate. The rural poor also tend to favor the regime as long as it keeps its social supports in place. The faction the west wants to be working with is a very large group- urban middle class, college kids, moderate clerics but its by no way clear this is a majority.

No im afraid it is you that is mistaken. Iranian society and the political-leanings of the people are not so easily lumped into non-descript categories like "rural poor", "urban middle-class", "college kids" and so on. Iran is a huge country with a lot of diversity where pro-government and anti-government feelings find their place among every walk and class in society. And contrary to popular belief among non-Iranians Ahmadinejad is not a legitimate 'populist' and his support-bas is certainly not something that is grounded solely in the working-classes or the 'rural poor'. His constituency is among the Basij and some of the hard-liners in Iranian political circle while his biggest backer is a fanatical cleric called Mesbah Yazdi. Really, this is all that matters because elections in the Islamic Republic have very little credibility and last June's Presidential election just further proved that.

zraver
31 Oct 09,, 20:42
No im afraid it is you that is mistaken. Iranian society and the political-leanings of the people are not so easily lumped into non-descript categories like "rural poor", "urban middle-class", "college kids" and so on. Iran is a huge country with a lot of diversity where pro-government and anti-government feelings find their place among every walk and class in society. And contrary to popular belief among non-Iranians Ahmadinejad is not a legitimate 'populist' and his support-bas is certainly not something that is grounded solely in the working-classes or the 'rural poor'. His constituency is among the Basij and some of the hard-liners in Iranian political circle while his biggest backer is a fanatical cleric called Mesbah Yazdi. Really, this is all that matters because elections in the Islamic Republic have very little credibility and last June's Presidential election just further proved that.

I was going by which way general group classifications vote. Most reformers are among the educated urbanites not the rural populations.

Kermanshahi
01 Nov 09,, 11:08
The Iraqi government was recognized as sovereign by the UN.

It all depends if you value the UN's judgement, I don't.


Nice propaganda line, but Iranian help comes with puppet strings. Iraqis are not stupid, that is why the openly pro-Iran party got its butt handed to it during provincial elections.

Wait until the parliamentary elections come, all Shi'a parties have gone into a coalition together and Dawa has been kicked out, they stand no chance at all.


Your right, so what they attack Israel, its not a terror group making the attack, it is the people of Palestine. When one government attacks another its called war.

Well it is war.


It was a nuclear site, and while you might not be impressed, I am sure your generals feel different. But the difference between them and you is their ability to see the details. When an entire nations communications grid goes dark and not 1 SAM fires as the return flights passes over Damascus you'd better believe your generals took notice.

The Syrian's hadn't recieved any of their important SAMs yet during that time. Also the Zionists came via Turkish airspace, the border there was only protected by AA guns, these guns fired but didn't have the range. The site which Israel bombed, was no reactor, it was not protected at all.


Not really, people can only vote for approved candidates, non-shia cannot hold high office, the incumbants can openly use state resources for re-election inclusing police asets to attack the opposistion.

Still, despite the fact that you can only vote for approved candidates, religion and ethnicity doesn't make someone's vote worth 2x or 3x more than someone else's, like in Lebanon.


Funny I thought the US standing for Iran vs the USSR/UK, and allowing the Shah to build a military bigger and better than any of his neighbors but the USSR were both historical events.

Yes, well, Iran is almost a completely Shi'a state, you could have hardly put a Sunni in charge there. And by the time the Americans got involved there was already a Shi'a king.
But in other states such as Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Afghanistan, ect. you always supported Sunnis over the Shi'a and never showed slightest interests in the vast human rights violations commited by the Sunni dictators against their Shi'a citizens.


How is blowing up a Jewish ticket counter in Argentina fighting back?

Iran had no responsibility for this.


Actually about 98% are Sunni, but Shia are not blameless.

Even if you wrongly want to blame that attack in Argentina on Hezbollah, it wouldn't account for 2%.
Besides, these kind of attacks on civilians are against Shi'a religion. The Wahabis however (Bin Laden's group) see it as their responsibility as good Muslims to kill all Shi'a, Christians, Jews and other "infidels" (including all Sunnis which don't think like them).


Iran is the one making it worse. It is making armaments it does not need to threaten a country it doe snot border. Its breaking international law as regards nuclear technology and engaging in brinkmanship.

There is no proof that Iran has done anything so far, in their nuclear program which is not within their international right to do.


The IR had already corrupted the system and seized power after collapsing the populist government.

Yes but their power then was very unstable, they were very unpopulair.


I was going by which way general group classifications vote. Most reformers are among the educated urbanites not the rural populations.

Well I voted for Ahmadinejad and I go against all steriotypes of Ahmadinejad supporters. Not religious, not old, not poor, not from a rural area.

Dreadnought
02 Nov 09,, 14:01
They are powerless, Americans call the shots in Iraq and until they leave and leave Iraq to the Iraqis it will be occupation. Ofcourse the US always finds loopholes to make that they are officialy not occupiers but assisting a gov't or on a "peace mission", but in reality they are occcupying powers.

Iran has been helping Iraqis against their opressors for decades, first the Ba'athists and now the Americans and will continue to do so until our brothers are free.



Hamas stood in the Palestinian elections and won it. They are the legitimate government.



Israel didn't take out a reactor. They went through Turkey and bombed some abandoned camel shed on the other side of the border, than some Zio-fanboys ridiculously claimed it was a reactor. It was merely an attempt by Israel to flex their muscles, show Syria what they can do. Iran isn't impressed at all and in our case the Turks won't cooperate.



There is a 1-man 1-vote system in Iran. Unlike in Lebanon were the seats are unfairly divided per religious groups and the Muslims (65%) get only 45% of the seats while the Christians (30%) get 50% of the seats. And among the Muslims, although there are atleast 2x as many Shi'a as Sunni Muslims the seats are divided half-half. In Iran the MPs are elected per how many votes they get and the vote of some people isn't worth 3x the vote of other people because of their religion. Iran, there are however several religious groups who are far to smal to get a seat in parliament and thus there are 5 seats reserved for them.



Well, not exactly. The people of Iran are generally secular and nationalistic. But do not confuse anti-regime with pro-Western. Most Iranians would want a government with similar foreign policies to this one, but different internal politics.



The Americans and their allies have been supporting the Sunnis against the Shi'a throughout history. Whether in Saudi Arabia, in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, in Iraq, in Bahrain, in Lebanon, in Yemen, Shi'a have been opressed for centuries by Sunnis. Since the revolution Iran has been helping Shi'a to fight back, Americans call it "terrorism".
However it are the Sunnis who they actually need to be fighting. All terror attacks in non-Muslim countries, by Muslims, were by Sunnis. In Iraq and Afghanistan it are mainly the Sunnis who are fighting America and 100% of the suicide bombings in both countries were by Sunnis.
Iran has been supporting Shi'a militia in Iraq against Saddam and in Afghanistan against the Taliban for years. At the time they were all called terrorists by America, funded by evil Iran against legitimate governments. After America's split up with some of these goverments (such as Iraq) they are forced to cooperate with the Shi'a against the countries Sunnis and now they suddenly aren't terrorists anymore.:eek:



American efforts to dominate Iran in the last 50-60 years have all been counterproductive. The situation can never become as good anymore as it would have been if Mossadeq had stayed in power, but it can be saved to some extend. Problem is that America is still making matters worse on themselfes.



True, and infact the Islamic regime would have collapsed by end 1980 to mid 1981, it was the time were they were the weakest and other factions were strongest while Iran was least stable. Instead of letting this happen the Americans pushed Saddam to invade Iran, to overthrow the regime with force, this enabled the regime to put all of Iran behind it and crush any other factions. Specially those which alligned themselfes with Saddam such as the MKO (an organisation which used to enjoy large public support) lost all their sympathy among Iranian people and their members are hated nation wide.



Well not exactly all of them hate the regime. But the majority are definetly unhappy about their policies. Those who demand a complete regime change are not in majority in Iran, however a vast majority of the population would want some serious changes in the regimes internal policies. More political freedom, more social and religious freedom and some federalism is what most Iranians would want rather than how the government is ruling now.
Only the very religious Shi'as, support this regime, about 15% of the population or so.

Personally I would have much preferred a Mossadeq government. Pitty the Americans thought he'd be to good for Iran and had to so desperatly destroy Iran democracy to get in power a puppet who ruined the country and America more powerfull.:(

*Utter nonsense. You should be writing fiction (in other words crap and lies for Iran as if enough dont come from it already):rolleyes:

It all depends if you value the UN's judgement, I don't.

We know, You only trust your own. And no doubt it distorts and exagerates truth and ignores plain facts backed by sound reasoning and hard fracts. Perhaps they should hide their nuclear program in your head because as it seems it is thicker then any concrete bunker, earth wall etc known to man.:rolleyes:

mikado
02 Nov 09,, 18:36
*Utter nonsense. You should be writing fiction (in other words crap and lies for Iran as if enough dont come from it already):rolleyes:

What an unhelpful contribution. If you disagree with Kermanshahi then counter his points.

Dreadnought
02 Nov 09,, 18:38
What an unhelpful contribution. If you disagree with Kermanshahi then counter his points.

If you really want to see unhelpfull comments check the rest of his posts on the Iranian threads. All of his points have been countered.;)

mikado
02 Nov 09,, 18:53
If you really want to see unhelpfull comments check the rest of his posts on the Iranian threads. All of his points have been countered.;)

Fair enough.

zraver
02 Nov 09,, 21:23
It all depends if you value the UN's judgement, I don't.

Great then we agree all the BS resolutions against Israel are not worth the paper they are printed on.




Wait until the parliamentary elections come, all Shi'a parties have gone into a coalition together and Dawa has been kicked out, they stand no chance at all.

we will see.


The Syrian's hadn't recieved any of their important SAMs yet during that time. Also the Zionists came via Turkish airspace, the border there was only protected by AA guns, these guns fired but didn't have the range. The site which Israel bombed, was no reactor, it was not protected at all.

1.The IAF flew home over the Syrian capitol, are you going to claim it was undefended? The Syrian ADA network was disabled, the reason only guns fired is because they were under manual direction and control.

2. The site was located behind Damascus vs a conventional attack it was protected by the thickest part of the Syrian ADA network. They just forgot to defend against an attack from the Turkish side. They probalby thought it couldn't be donw.

3. The IAEA found traces of uranium.

4. A year earlier during the 2006 Lebanon War the IAF overflew Damascus as well.




Still, despite the fact that you can only vote for approved candidates, religion and ethnicity doesn't make someone's vote worth 2x or 3x more than someone else's, like in Lebanon.

Iran uses weighted votes as well.

Armenian Christians 1 seat per 25,000 members, cannot hold high office
Jews 1 seat per 100,000 members, cannot hold high office
Zorostarians 1 seat per 22,000 members, cannot hold high office
Bahai- no reserved seats, cannot hold office.
Muslim- 1 seat per 234,000 members CAN hold high office.


Yes, well, Iran is almost a completely Shi'a state, you could have hardly put a Sunni in charge there. And by the time the Americans got involved there was already a Shi'a king.

Your ignoring the fact that the clerics created the US enemy that did not exist prior to the hostage taking.



But in other states such as Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Afghanistan, ect. you always supported Sunnis over the Shi'a and never showed slightest interests in the vast human rights violations commited by the Sunni dictators against their Shi'a citizens.

You work with what you have.


Iran had no responsibility for this.

Iranian money allowed it.




Even if you wrongly want to blame that attack in Argentina on Hezbollah, it wouldn't account for 2%.

There are other attacks, thats just the most famous.


Besides, these kind of attacks on civilians are against Shi'a religion. The Wahabis however (Bin Laden's group) see it as their responsibility as good Muslims to kill all Shi'a, Christians, Jews and other "infidels" (including all Sunnis which don't think like them).

Somebody better tell A-jad and the Supreme Leader because they don't think so.


There is no proof that Iran has done anything so far, in their nuclear program which is not within their international right to do.

secret facilities combined with a refusal to end enrichment while pursuing an aggressive ballistic missile policy. If it quacks, has feathers and likes water its probably a duck.

Kermanshahi
03 Nov 09,, 13:38
Great then we agree all the BS resolutions against Israel are not worth the paper they are printed on.

They certainly aren't.


1.The IAF flew home over the Syrian capitol, are you going to claim it was undefended? The Syrian ADA network was disabled, the reason only guns fired is because they were under manual direction and control.

They dropped their fuel tanks in Turkey on the way back.


2. The site was located behind Damascus vs a conventional attack it was protected by the thickest part of the Syrian ADA network. They just forgot to defend against an attack from the Turkish side. They probalby thought it couldn't be donw.

No it wasn't.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_TlX8EZcNmlk/ScSpByt77aI/AAAAAAAAAnY/-y27AqUafkI/s400/syria+nuclear++map.jpg


3. The IAEA found traces of uranium.

Which I heared, came from Israeli bombes


4. A year earlier during the 2006 Lebanon War the IAF overflew Damascus as well.

But they didn't make the same kind of claims as in 2007.


Iran uses weighted votes as well.

Armenian Christians 1 seat per 25,000 members, cannot hold high office
Jews 1 seat per 100,000 members, cannot hold high office
Zorostarians 1 seat per 22,000 members, cannot hold high office
Bahai- no reserved seats, cannot hold office.
Muslim- 1 seat per 234,000 members CAN hold high office.

In Iran seats are reserved for religious minorities which are to small to win a seat otherwise.
However in Lebanon Christians which are 30% at most get 50% of the seats and Sunnis (which are less than half of the Shi'a) get as many seats as the Shi'a.


Your ignoring the fact that the clerics created the US enemy that did not exist prior to the hostage taking.

The hostage taking was done because they were plotting another military coup.


You work with what you have.

You meen keeping Sunni dictators in power and letting them commit as many crimes against Shi'a as they want without complaint.


Iranian money allowed it.

This bombing was wrongly blamed on Iran, Iranians had no involvement.


There are other attacks, thats just the most famous.

Suicide bombings in the West? By Shi'as?


Somebody better tell A-jad and the Supreme Leader because they don't think so.

Well, they have always expressed this view.


secret facilities

You mean like those secret facilities which Iraq had, which have still not been found?


combined with a refusal to end enrichment

Which is within' Iran's rights to do as per NPT.


while pursuing an aggressive ballistic missile policy. If it quacks, has feathers and likes water its probably a duck.

America doesn't want us to build Ballistic Missiles because it makes the Iranian military stronger, but they built ballistic missiles themselfes and so do many of their allies like Israel, Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, ect.

Dreadnought
03 Nov 09,, 15:00
America doesn't want us to build Ballistic Missiles because it makes the Iranian military stronger, but they built ballistic missiles themselfes and so do many of their allies like Israel, Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, ect.

*No Bob, Its because NOBODY trusts the crackpot regime with the means to threaten its neighbors that dont bother Iran at all. Only Irans interests outside of Iran that are involved in terrorism. How Ironic! If they cant treat their own people descently (which the world has watched time and time again) then how should the world view Iran when it comes to her neighbors including the Israeli's. They cant be trusted and the world wont trust them period until they give up the rhetoric, funding and training of terrorists and the weapons program. Until then she can enjoy isolation just like North Korea does. The ball is on their court, we have nothing to prove to the world because we all see it day in day out (all countries). But Iran and North Korea have much to prove to the world before they will gain the smallest scrap of trust.

Bob, its no secret and it hasnt been for some time where that technology is coming from. Lets just say the country thats supplying it is far behind in ballistic missle technology herself and enjoys the propghanda boastfull lie routine as much as Iran does. Its not the ballistic missle technology that those aligned fear (trust me we have systems 1000x better) its the fact of what they can deliver, a nuclear warhead. Something Iran wont get for along time to come, if at all. And you can deny all you want but it wont change the outcome.

zraver
03 Nov 09,, 16:29
They dropped their fuel tanks in Turkey on the way back.

Thats kind of hard to do since they flew back over Damascus.




No it wasn't.

Yes it was, the most likely route to the site had to pass over the ADA sites defending Damscus, Syria however forgot to close the back door.


Which I heared, came from Israeli bombes

For what possible purpose? If its not a nuclear bomb uranium serves no puropose in explosvie devices.




But they didn't make the same kind of claims as in 2007.

Thats becuase the point of the excercise- to fly Jewish jets above a hostile Arab capitol with complete disrgard for the capitols air defense systems in order to send a message was delivered lound and clear.


In Iran seats are reserved for religious minorities which are to small to win a seat otherwise.

I have any idea- vote on the candidate and remove rleigious litmus tests. The religious minorites in America do just fine without reserved seats.


However in Lebanon Christians which are 30% at most get 50% of the seats and Sunnis (which are less than half of the Shi'a) get as many seats as the Shi'a.

Christians are about 40% of the population, Sunni and Shia are both about 25%. Thus Christianity remains the dominant faith if you count the 2 versions of Islam as seperate sects. More importantly none of the 3 major groups wants a new census in order to avoid sliding back into war.All threee major players agree to this power sharign arrangement.


The hostage taking was done because they were plotting another military coup.

Do you really think Jimmy Carter would plot a coup, or that US shreddign technology could be so easily pieced back together? I bet you own a lot of bridges. The documents were forgeries designed to topple the populatist government and gain the Islamist power and it worked.


This bombing was wrongly blamed on Iran, Iranians had no involvement.

Iran funded it.


Suicide bombings in the West? By Shi'as?

Bombings, rocket attacks- if Iran funds it and its done I ran gets the blame.


You mean like those secret facilities which Iraq had, which have still not been found?

No like the one Iran was compelled to reveal recently.




Which is within' Iran's rights to do as per NPT.

If Iran'
s program had been above board then yes, but it wasn't and so its rights were lost. Your arguing that a law breaker should be allowed to keep thier ill gotten gains. No legal system in the world would agree with you.

http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iran/irannptviolations.pdf


America doesn't want us to build Ballistic Missiles because it makes the Iranian military stronger, but they built ballistic missiles themselfes and so do many of their allies like Israel, Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, ect.

We don't want you building missiles becuase you use them to issue threats in bald faced attmepts to coerce your neighbors and the region.

mikado
03 Nov 09,, 19:00
Christians are about 40% of the population, Sunni and Shia are both about 25%. Thus Christianity remains the dominant faith if you count the 2 versions of Islam as seperate sects.

That's rather convenient, lumping all the Christian sects together but dividing the Muslim sects (and ignoring the Druze). Kermanshahi's point stands - the Christians in Lebanon are over-represented in Parliament compared to their numbers.

Dreadnought
03 Nov 09,, 19:18
That's rather convenient, lumping all the Christian sects together but dividing the Muslim sects (and ignoring the Druze). Kermanshahi's point stands - the Christians in Lebanon are over-represented in Parliament compared to their numbers.

*Are you stating that it would have absolutely nothing to do with keeping Iranian influence ergo Hizbollah the terrorist organization out of influencing a neighboring government. IMO, it most certainly does. Iran decrying foul over one of their terrorist offshoots being denied influence in a neighboring countries government should be just fine with anyone that recognizes the danger she presents and certainly is no supporter of transparent and free elections. Not even close.

Kind of Ironic when the cheater gets cheated at their own game wouldnt you say?:))

mikado
03 Nov 09,, 22:22
I think that Lebanon's political structure has more to do with Lebanese history and Lebanese sectarian politics than it has to do with keeping Iran at bay. Regardless of Iran's support for Hezb, it seems they do represent a large chunk of the Shi'ite population. And that's without getting into their alliance with a large chunk of the Christian population...

Hezb are clearly not any friends of democracy. Neither, to be fair, do many of the other Lebanese parties seem to be. However Kermanshahi's point still stands - the Lebanese Shi'ites are under-represented in Lebanese politics.

zraver
03 Nov 09,, 22:55
That's rather convenient, lumping all the Christian sects together but dividing the Muslim sects (and ignoring the Druze). Kermanshahi's point stands - the Christians in Lebanon are over-represented in Parliament compared to their numbers.

Kermanshah1 is the one who created the catagories. Now if you want to subdivide seats along sects fine Maronite 25% Shia and Sunni each 25% all other sects divide the rest.

This is the national pact

President- always Maronite, Prime Minister- always Sunni, President of the National Assembly- always Shia, deputy speaker of parliament always Greek Orthodox. Muslims agree to not unit with Syria and Christians agree to align with the Arab not western world.

Further to this was the agreement that ended the civil war that split parliament 50/50 between Christians and Muslims. Guess what it works thier economy was growing and human suffering was down. Unemployment has dipped by half since the end of the civil war.

Kermanshahi
04 Nov 09,, 15:04
Thats kind of hard to do since they flew back over Damascus.

Well, they didn't fly over Damascus.


Yes it was, the most likely route to the site had to pass over the ADA sites defending Damscus, Syria however forgot to close the back door.

I showed you the map.
They went in and out via Turkey.


For what possible purpose? If its not a nuclear bomb uranium serves no puropose in explosvie devices.

Well they could have dropped some down to make it seem like a reactor.


I have any idea- vote on the candidate and remove rleigious litmus tests. The religious minorites in America do just fine without reserved seats.

If reserved seats would be removed, no christians or jews would ever make it to parliament.


Christians are about 40% of the population, Sunni and Shia are both about 25%. Thus Christianity remains the dominant faith if you count the 2 versions of Islam as seperate sects. More importantly none of the 3 major groups wants a new census in order to avoid sliding back into war.All threee major players agree to this power sharign arrangement.

Shi'a are 45%, Sunnis 20%, Christians 30% and Druze about 5%. Some even would put Muslims as a whole as high as 85%. Though these figures can somewhat vary, every reasonable estimate would put Shi'a as the largest group with than Christians and than Sunnis. Parliament division gives Christians 50% and Muslims just over 40%.


Do you really think Jimmy Carter would plot a coup, or that US shreddign technology could be so easily pieced back together? I bet you own a lot of bridges. The documents were forgeries designed to topple the populatist government and gain the Islamist power and it worked.

They were no forguries, they were real. And the generals of the Shah even said themselfes that they were approached by Americans which asked them to sieze power.


Iran funded it.

They didn't, because Hezbollah was not responsable.


Bombings, rocket attacks- if Iran funds it and its done I ran gets the blame.

So which bombings and rocket attacks in the west were done by Shi'as?


No like the one Iran was compelled to reveal recently.

Which one?


If Iran's program had been above board then yes, but it wasn't and so its rights were lost. Your arguing that a law breaker should be allowed to keep thier ill gotten gains. No legal system in the world would agree with you.

http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iran/irannptviolations.pdf

The practises they were doing at the time in secret were not illegal and they will not stop now either.


We don't want you building missiles becuase you use them to issue threats in bald faced attmepts to coerce your neighbors and the region.

Iran is under threat of US and their puppet regimes, these missiles are built to protect against that threat.

Dreadnought
04 Nov 09,, 17:01
Well they could have dropped some down to make it seem like a reactor

*Wrong, Isotopes are as difinative as a fingerprint in nuclear programs. They no doubt will disclose exactly which reactor they came from. No reactor has the very same as the other. Its that definative.

They were no forguries, they were real. And the generals of the Shah even said themselfes that they were approached by Americans which asked them to sieze power.

Links and sources please?

Which one?

The one just disclosed by Iran before the West disclosed it to the UN. We among other countries intelligence agencies have know for awhile. Tough to hide from satellites and eyes on the ground no matter how much denial is offered.

The practises they were doing at the time in secret were not illegal and they will not stop now either.

Not according to the NPT signed by Iran, They broke the law and got caught.

And it makes no difference if they stop. They will get stopped one way or another, the writing is on the wall.

Iran is under threat of US and their puppet regimes, these missiles are built to protect against that threat.

And exactly which puppet regimes are you speaking of ?

Last time I checked Iraq and Israel held open elections.

And your missles wont protect Iran if it comes to that. You and your supplier aka NK are both far behind the technology that many other countries presently have.

Now, for your posts, lets see some clear neutral sources to support your claims made above.

zraver
04 Nov 09,, 20:48
Well, they didn't fly over Damascus. Yes they did.


I showed you the map.
They went in and out via Turkey.

They came in via turkey, out over Syria.


Well they could have dropped some down to make it seem like a reactor.

possibly, but only if they have access to the same uranium that North Korea does. radioactive material can by fingerprinted to the mine it came from.


If reserved seats would be removed, no christians or jews would ever make it to parliament.

You don't think actual talent could propell them to power? Religion before ability eh?


Shi'a are 45%, Sunnis 20%, Christians 30% and Druze about 5%. Some even would put Muslims as a whole as high as 85%. Though these figures can somewhat vary, every reasonable estimate would put Shi'a as the largest group with than Christians and than Sunnis. Parliament division gives Christians 50% and Muslims just over 40%.

Your figures rely on counting Palestinian refugess who are not citizens. Also the agreement that ended the civil war splits parliament 50/50 instead of the old 6:5 ratio.


They were no forguries, they were real.

here are at least some of the documents. Of particular importanace

A. no signs of shredding implying they are reconstructions
B. if reocnstructions- how did they match the signatures?
C. if the signatutes are added for effect (ie forgeries) why not the rest of them
D Just how many different forms and type writers (fonts) could one office (embassy telegraph/teleprinter) have?


Also note the timing- it was just what the Islamist needed, jsut when they needed it.


And the generals of the Shah even said themselfes that they were approached by Americans which asked them to sieze power.

Let me put a proverbial gun to your familes heads and you'll say what ever I want you to say. How many of them are still alive to recant?


They didn't, because Hezbollah was not responsable.

The majority of the world dissagrees.


So which bombings and rocket attacks in the west were done by Shi'as?

Islamic Jihad's attacks in Lebanon are the big ones, but smaller attacks exit as well. Denying that Shia have engaged in terrorist actions is not a good way to stick around here. Shia groups are generally not as active, as blood thirst as Sunni grous but they do eixst.


Which one?

Most recently, the seocnd enrichment plant. But Iran has never followed IAEA protocols for establishing any of its sites or programs.


The practises they were doing at the time in secret were not illegal and they will not stop now either.

yes they were illegal. Let me see if I can explain this. Lets say I want to drive 200mph. There are two ways I can do this. 1- I can build the car, join a racing league and follow its rules and restrictions and drive on its courses. Or 2. I can build the car and just do it. By signing the NPT Iran agreed to 1, but has been doing 2


Iran is under threat of US and their puppet regimes, these missiles are built to protect against that threat.

If Iran was really under threat the modern Iranian state would not exist right now. Its Iran sending weaposn into Iraq, it was Iran sending mines into the PG not the US. Despite a steady lsit of provocatiosn since 1979 the US has been remarkably restraiend in how it deals with Iran.