Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Iran Election June 09

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • So he wants to be the next Kim Il Sung?

    Good luck with that. Even if he manages to get the undivided support of the Guards, the other clerics won't stand for it and they can go to the Artesh (the Army, which outnumbers the Guards several times over) and also call a general strike.

    Comment


    • Bullet Fee

      This takes the cake.

      Mourning Iranians
      Charged 'Bullet Fee'
      Updated: Tuesday, 23 Jun 2009, 10:16 AM EDT
      Published : Tuesday, 23 Jun 2009, 10:15 AM EDT

      By FRANK CARNEVALE
      (MYFOX NATIONAL) - Amidst the demonstrations over the recent Iranian presidential election, one family in Tehran is mourning the loss of their 19-year-old son. Details remain unclear, but the family believes that Kaveh Alipour was caught in gun crossfire. The family was struck with another blow, though, when they were told that they would have to pay a "bullet fee" to claim their son.

      The Wall Street Journal writes that "Upon learning of his son's death, the elder Mr. Alipour was told the family had to pay an equivalent of $3,000 as a "bullet fee"— a fee for the bullet used by security forces—before taking the body back, relatives said."

      The family says that he was not part of the demonstrations and was not politically active.

      The family did not have the $3,000 to pay the officials, but were able to talk morgue officials into waiving the fee provided they did not hold a funeral or burial in Tehran. Kaveh Alipour's body was taken to another city where there is family.

      At least 17 have been killed in the protests in the last week. On Monday riot police attacked hundreds of demonstrators with tear gas and fired live bullets in the air to disperse a rally in central Tehran.

      The news of one woman's death , now identified as Neda Agha Soltan , has has spread worldwide and become a symbol and icon for the demonstrators.


      Mourning Iranians Charged 'Bullet Fee'


      Son's Death Has Iranian Family Asking Why - WSJ.com
      To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
        Tronic, Nuclear arms have been in the region for some time. Although the ones that have them do not call for the destruction of others based upon race or any other matter. Iran may one day get this power but in all hopes by then will not be ruled by some insane religious theocracy that is bent on the destruction of another due to religious beliefs. It is unhuman to imagine such a regime with that kind of power to wield over some made up relious edict. If Iran does aquire that power there are many that would call for Iraq to be armed as well to protect herself.

        These men in power in Iran are dam sure not worthy of wielding such power as they act like spoiled children with a chip on their shoulders and could never be trusted. Not now not ever. If the people overthrew them and formed a more stable government with more sound thought and vision then perhaps in time. But I dont forsee that so long as that regime and anyone that could fill the vaccum if they were overthrown but yet still maintained that way of thinking was still alive. These are evil men that cannot wait to be able to project their religious edicts across their borders and at their neighbors including Israel. Destroy the regime, Basij, Hezbollah, Hamas and all other factions and now we are making progress. Until then deny them nuclear weapons at all costs because if we dont they will bring about the destruction of those weaker then themselves with some kind of twisted religious reasoning. All in the name of pride. Evil men.
        I agree with your point that this regime should certainly not be allowed to wield nuclear weapons, but I disagree that they would actually be stupid enough to use them. Using nuclear weapons will be like pressing the self-destruct button, and despite the fiery speeches, I really doubt Irani regime is that stupid. What nuclear weapons can do for Iran are greatly increase its stature in the Middle East and make it a much bigger player giving it far more leverage in Mid-Eastern affairs. And here, I agree that this current regime has shown great immaturity and doesn't deserve that extra say in regional matters.

        And as for Iraq making a case for nuclear weapons, well, its a dominos affect which started from 1945. Following the threat perceptions, the chips fell from US>Soviets>Chinese>Indians>Pakistanis>Israelis>pos sibly Iranis, each going nuclear due to their rival. Its a continuous chain, and everytime a new country goes nuclear, another one can make a case to go nuclear aswell.
        Last edited by Tronic; 24 Jun 09,, 09:30.
        Cow is the only animal that not only inhales oxygen, but also exhales it.
        -Rekha Arya, Former Minister of Animal Husbandry

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Castellano View Post
          It is entirely logical that you cannot find any "evidence he'll use them" because future events cannot be proved. It is impossible by definition.

          The observation that no nation has ever committed suicide is somewhat valid and relevant, but it is also arguable, and most significantly, it is explicitly denied by different figures of the regime, who have stated in so many words that MAD doesn't concern them - History has provided plenty of "evidence" about the the folly of not taking people at their own words.
          Likewise history has shown the folly of misjudging people's intentions & overreacting. The 'history teaches' game cuts both ways.

          There is a similar negligence in your characterization of A-jad. Not only is he nasty, loudmouthed, deeply offensive & embarrasing. He is also positively insane. He thinks that when he talks to the UN assembly people can't blink for 30 minutes. And if he has doubts, he goes to a well to listen to a voice for consultation.
          We have fascinating ways of judging 'sanity'.

          What if I told you that powerful people in this world took their advice from an invisible being, believed they were living in the last days of mankind, believed that they would live to see the 'chosen' magically dissappear from the earth (to heaven) and that the existence of the state of Israel fulfils a thousands year old prophecy that will usher in this apocalypse. Personally I would judge them as babbling lunatics, yet I'm betting more than one has occupied a senior government or military position in America during the past 30 years.

          We pick and choose our 'sanities' for convenience.

          That said, I think it is unlikely that Iran would attack Israel with nuclear weapons. But I'm absolutely sure that it would be foolish to discard the possibility.
          It would likewise be foolish to act on the assumption that it is inevitable, which is what the 'threat to world peace' assumption is all about.

          Because there is an additional, even more troublesome point: the regime's policy on this issue is driven by the belief that once and for all a Persian, Shiite strain of Islam can recapture age old honor and prestige long denied by the Arabs and Sunnites, by being the people and the sect that are finally willing to end the Zionist entity.
          So taking an action that will wipe out the religious & demographic centre of Persian Shiism is the way to propel it to leadership? Yeah, sure. Wipe out the Persian Shia clergy & the power of Iran and Persian Shiism becomes a perhperal sect. Any momentary boost provided by martyrdom will be lost once the dust settles (literally) and the actual power base of the religion is gone.

          And some within the Iranian leadership would be willing as they themselves have pointed out, to lose several million people which they feel they could afford with the assurance that Israel would be gone.
          Would they? I suspect they will fight Israel to the last Lebanese or Palestinian.

          Any Israeli attack on Iran that is not a response to a clear & present threat from Iran will not only kill any chance of change in Iran for a generation, it will as good as guarantee that no matter who governs iran they will continue to seek nuclear weapons.

          You are completely wrong. If the brave Iranian people don't save the day, there is going to be a crisis as predictable and grave as 1938, and you don't even suspect it.

          I am amazed. Really.
          Yes yes yes Castellano. It is always Munich somewhere. I am amazed that supposedly intelligent people still think this tired cliche still means something.

          If you want to see the true worth of trying to apply this sort of kindergarten level understanding of history to policy, take it from someone who was actually there - Anthony Eden. He was as obsessed with Munich as modern conservatives, and when his moment to stand firm came he took it - resulting in the stupidity of the Suez crisis.

          Given that the protests in Iran seem to be on the wane we will find out shortly who is correct. Stay around for 18 months Castellano, if we don't have a World War (or at least a continent wide conventional one involving Iran) then perhaps we can finally bury these absurd histrionics.
          Last edited by Bigfella; 24 Jun 09,, 09:55.
          sigpic

          Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Castellano View Post
            My English is far from perfect. Did I understand you correctly and you just stated that Israel has attacked anybody in the last 30 years or in its entire History for that matter?

            Because if that is the case it is completely false. A lie that you should retract immediately, lest your knowledge of History be totally discredited.

            Amazing. Now the US and Israel "definitely" support terrorists.

            And yes, is true the regime uses proxies to attack its neighbors. Like in Lebanon 2006. I suppose that saves their face, since it is a method of waging War but is not "directly attacking or invading its neighbours", no?
            There is no point debating notions as absurd as this, and I don't want to pull this thread off course yet again.

            You appear to have a reflex that requires over the top outrage any time certain people say something you deem critical of Israel (I note your outrage seems to be inconsistently directed on this forum). The issue of Israel pops up in all sorts of threads that aren't specifically about Israel, so if you are going to be consistent you will be dragging a lot of threads of course.

            Rather than put us all through the tedium this will cause, I have an idea. Set up a thread. Call it something snappy like 'Castellano's Isreal Re-education Thread' or some such. Every time an evil heretic or deviationaist like myself sullies the whiter than white image of Israel you can hold us up to the public ridicule & shame we no doubt deserve. Then, you can just post a link to the thread. That way, those who really want to find out just how horrible people like me are can do so. The rest of us can get on with the discussion at hand undisturbed.

            How does that sound? You get to vent your outrage & we don't have to constantly pick our way around it. Everyone wins.
            sigpic

            Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

            Comment


            • Good analysis by the Assoc Press writer.

              Iran's Khamenei may be a casualty in vote crisis
              1 hr ago CAIRO (AP) — Just a few weeks ago, they would have been virtually unthinkable acts of defiance in Iran: standing up to the supreme leader, ignoring his warnings to stay off the streets — then chanting for his death.

              But the boisterous opposition protests thrusting Iran into its worst civil unrest since the 1979 Islamic Revolution have broken the taboo against direct criticism of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Now some are talking about him as a casualty of the crisis — and wondering if the aloof cleric's powerful office will survive after his eventual death.

              For two decades, Khamenei's word has been law in Iran, where the supreme leader is considered by some as God's representative on Earth. Today he is reviled, not revered, by thousands of supporters of opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi, who claims he was defrauded in the June 12 presidential elections.

              Unprecedented chants of "Death to Khamenei!" by some protesters underscore an astonishing blow to the 70-year-old cleric's standing. ....

              Khamenei, to be sure, has spent years meticulously cultivating support in the powerful military and judiciary, and that could mean he remains secure in the country's top job.

              Khamenei quickly endorsed the results of the disputed election, which gave a landslide victory to his ally, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Militiamen loyal to Khamenei used lethal violence to crush street protests, one day after he warned in a nationally televised Friday sermon of bloodshed if opposition demonstrations continued.

              His handling of the crisis and his support for the hard-line Ahmadinejad emboldened protesters to ignore his warning. And at the high echelons of the ruling elite, his actions have tempted two former presidents — reformist Mohammad Khatami and powerful insider Hashemi Rafsanjani — to come out in sympathy with the protesters, dealing another blow to Khamenei's standing.

              Questioning the judgment and actions of a leader is not at all unusual in democracies, but it is a very serious step in Iran, where the supreme leader traditionally is a revered patriarchal figure whose word should be gospel to his nation.

              But Khamenei has lost face. That has weakened him and is likely to prompt questions about his leadership for years to come.

              Removing him from office may be difficult — though by no means impossible — but he may never live down what is widely seen among Iranians as the divisive role he played in a crisis in which a father-of-the-nation role was expected from him.

              Additionally, there are no obvious successors at present to Khamenei. ....

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Castellano View Post
                That said, I think it is unlikely that Iran would attack Israel with nuclear weapons.
                That's a keeper Castellano, for future Iran-Israel related threads.;)
                Last edited by Oscar; 24 Jun 09,, 13:39.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by BenRoethig View Post
                  Pure of what? Those who want their voice to be heard and not follow a hitler wannabe loon and a bunch of power hungry charlatans who defame the word of God for their own end? They're not going to keep anything pure, they're going to end up starting a war you have no chance of winning and getting a lot of your countrymen killed.
                  Amen to that one Ben. Hopefully it wont come to that.
                  Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Tronic View Post
                    I agree with your point that this regime should certainly not be allowed to wield nuclear weapons, but I disagree that they would actually be stupid enough to use them. Using nuclear weapons will be like pressing the self-destruct button, and despite the fiery speeches, I really doubt Irani regime is that stupid. What nuclear weapons can do for Iran are greatly increase its stature in the Middle East and make it a much bigger player giving it far more leverage in Mid-Eastern affairs. And here, I agree that this current regime has shown great immaturity and doesn't deserve that extra say in regional matters.

                    And as for Iraq making a case for nuclear weapons, well, its a dominos affect which started from 1945. Following the threat perceptions, the chips fell from US>Soviets>Chinese>Indians>Pakistanis>Israelis>pos sibly Iranis, each going nuclear due to their rival. Its a continuous chain, and everytime a new country goes nuclear, another one can make a case to go nuclear aswell.

                    *Agreed Tronic, but for the very few times we brought this world to that edge it was never based upon religion or anything to do with inillation of another country because of their ethnic backgrounds. It was done to protect the people from nuclear arms pointed at them from very few miles from shore.

                    IMO, Irans regime would never even consider complete intelligent talks before reaching for that extreme and drumming up support by citing a very bent version of religion to whip the people into frenzy. I know it sounds extreme but these individuals can NEVER get their hands on a weapon of such power or the civilized world as we know it will deteriorate very rapidly and before our eyes.
                    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Merlin View Post
                      Good analysis by the Assoc Press writer.

                      Iran's Khamenei may be a casualty in vote crisis
                      If they consider this man "gods representative on earth" then I sure would hate to see what hell is really like given his track record. IMO God would never have chosen such a representative.Not even close.
                      Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
                        Tell me though, why is it that you have a problem with Iran having nuclear weapons, but not Pakistan ? Or China ?

                        *Because Pakistans nukes are somewhat controlled by the Chinese and neither of the two pose a radical religious type threat that Iran does.
                        Dreadnought is correct and I could not have phrased it better.

                        Comment


                        • (CNN) -- Four Iranian footballers have been "retired" from the national side after protesting against the contested election result in the country during a match against South Korea, according to media reports.

                          Members of Iran's national soccer team sported green armbands in their game against South Korea.

                          The players drew attention to the situation in Iran by wearing green armbands during last week's World Cup qualifying match in Seoul.

                          Green was the color used by opposition leader Mir Hossein Moussavi during his campaign for the presidency and has been widely worn by supporters protesting since Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was announced the winner.

                          Six players wore the armbands during the first half of the match, returning in the second minus the accessories.

                          However, according to Iranian news reports four players -- Ali Karimi, 31, Mehdi Mahdavikia, 32, Hosein Ka'abi, 24 and Vahid Hashemian, 32 -- have been "retired" from the sport following the gesture.

                          The pro-government newspaper, Iran, reported the players had received the equivalent of a life ban.

                          Ahmadinejad is a known football fan, and has taken a keen interest in the national team's affairs.

                          Last week he compared protesters in Tehran to fans of a losing soccer team.

                          In 2006 Iran was banned from international competition for a short time by the world governing body FIFA after claims of improper interference by his government

                          *Dam shame he cannot take such a "keen interest" in fair elections or whats for the better good of the Iranian people besides stoking a war that he will never win.

                          *Pretty bad when you have to ban sports players that disagree with the way you run a country and support legal opposition.

                          Poor excuse for a leader not to mention an even poorer excuse of a man. Evil little bastard he is, the world is going to be a much better place when he exits.


                          This ****ing retard would propbably lock up his own mother if she disagreed with him. It's a wonder he still breathes after this week.
                          Last edited by Dreadnought; 24 Jun 09,, 17:50.
                          Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
                            It would likewise be foolish to act on the assumption that it is inevitable, which is what the 'threat to world peace' assumption is all about.
                            The threat to world peace has been explained over and over again.

                            You see, it is surprising that someone as obviously informed as yourself deliberately "forgets" the implications of a Islamic Republic with nukes:

                            - vicious terrorist thugs emboldened under a nuclear umbrella

                            - a nuke race in the Middle East


                            Now, if someone is going to tell me that nuclear proliferation in the Middle East is probably going to be OK, then, I start to get impatient; even outraged about the frivolity of such proposition.


                            And yes, that scenario will probably end in a nuclear exchange. Sooner or later. And even if doesn't, a lot of people, people like you and me Bigfella, will die because of the terrorist surge.
                            L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Oscar View Post
                              That's a keeper Castellano, for future Iran-Israel related threads.;)
                              Keep it, keep it.

                              But please do mention the other part of my statement, which states that it cannot be discarded: "I'm absolutely sure that it would be foolish to discard the possibility"

                              Anyway, we are approaching the time to settle scores, and I'm actually looking for it. I'm thinking of most of the left, who laughably suggested that there will be any kind of "election" in Iran, when any such event was forestalled to begin with.

                              Bring it on.
                              L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
                                There is no point debating notions as absurd as this, and I don't want to pull this thread off course yet again.

                                You appear to have a reflex that requires over the top outrage any time certain people say something you deem critical of Israel (I note your outrage seems to be inconsistently directed on this forum). The issue of Israel pops up in all sorts of threads that aren't specifically about Israel, so if you are going to be consistent you will be dragging a lot of threads of course.

                                Rather than put us all through the tedium this will cause, I have an idea. Set up a thread. Call it something snappy like 'Castellano's Isreal Re-education Thread' or some such. Every time an evil heretic or deviationaist like myself sullies the whiter than white image of Israel you can hold us up to the public ridicule & shame we no doubt deserve. Then, you can just post a link to the thread. That way, those who really want to find out just how horrible people like me are can do so. The rest of us can get on with the discussion at hand undisturbed.

                                How does that sound? You get to vent your outrage & we don't have to constantly pick our way around it. Everyone wins.
                                I'm going to watch football now.

                                For the time being I'll just say that is not a bad idea, but I'm thinking the best title would be:

                                "Israel and the moral and intellectual bankruptcy in the West (including Haaretz)"
                                L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X