I did find it interesting the take they had on Iran at that time.
Iran was a relatively peaceful country in 1976, and open to Westerners. The first rumblings of revolution were still at least a year away.
Which is hardly accurate lol. It was a despotic puppet dictatorship supported by the west and was 'peaceful' unless you were one of the many thousands incarcerated or oppressed by a notoriously sadistic tyrant. The dictatorship was replaced by a popular revolution which led to free elections and a parliamentary system.
Iran has instigated no aggressive actions in the last 300 years.
Thanks for that although it doesn't really add anything other than maybe 'this' or possibly 'that' all of which is conjecture.
I did find it interesting the take they had on Iran at that time.
Iran was a relatively peaceful country in 1976, and open to Westerners. The first rumblings of revolution were still at least a year away.
Which is hardly accurate lol. It was a despotic puppet dictatorship supported by the west and was 'peaceful' unless you were one of the many thousands incarcerated or oppressed by a notoriously sadistic tyrant. The dictatorship was replaced by a popular revolution which led to free elections and a parliamentary system.
Iran has instigated no aggressive actions in the last 300 years.
Women and the Iranian Revolution
Women participated heavily in the Iranian Revolution of 1979 that toppled the shah.[3][5][6]
Not with-standing this, the Islamic republic of Ayatollah Khomeini severely curtailed rights that women had become accustomed to under the shah.[5] Within months of the founding of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the 1967 Family Protection Law was repealed; female government workers were forced to observe Islamic dress code; women were barred from becoming judges; beaches and sports were sex-segregated; the legal age of marriage for girls was reduced to 9 (later raised to 13); and married women were barred from attending regular schools.[3]
Almost immediately women protested these policies.[5][7] The Islamic revolution is ideologically committed to inequality for women in inheritance and other areas of the civil code; and especially committed to segregation of the sexes. Many places, from "schoolrooms to ski slopes to public buses", are strictly segregated.[8]
What all this has to do with a UFO/F4 dogfight I don't know.
Women and the Iranian Revolution
Women participated heavily in the Iranian Revolution of 1979 that toppled the shah.[3][5][6]
Not with-standing this, the Islamic republic of Ayatollah Khomeini severely curtailed rights that women had become accustomed to under the shah.[5] Within months of the founding of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the 1967 Family Protection Law was repealed; female government workers were forced to observe Islamic dress code; women were barred from becoming judges; beaches and sports were sex-segregated; the legal age of marriage for girls was reduced to 9 (later raised to 13); and married women were barred from attending regular schools.[3]
Almost immediately women protested these policies.[5][7] The Islamic revolution is ideologically committed to inequality for women in inheritance and other areas of the civil code; and especially committed to segregation of the sexes. Many places, from "schoolrooms to ski slopes to public buses", are strictly segregated.[8]
What all this has to do with a UFO/F4 dogfight I don't know.
It has to do with the usual debunker disinfo, exactly along the lines of the bunk you just posted. But no doubt you like to throw in the jewish question (which is utter bunk)... but cannot be disputed otherwise it is anti Semitic (even though that word has been highjacked... just another semantics dispute though)
Womens rights... lol... what has it to do with you. let them get there own Emily Pankhurst? No 'Nuke em... kill millions... its their fault because they don't treat their women the way our women want to be treated.
It has to do with the usual debunker disinfo, exactly along the lines of the bunk you just posted. But no doubt you like to throw in the jewish question (which is utter bunk)... but cannot be disputed otherwise it is anti Semitic (even though that word has been highjacked... just another semantics dispute though)
Womens rights... lol... what has it to do with you. let them get there own Emily Pankhurst? No 'Nuke em... kill millions... its their fault because they don't treat their women the way our women want to be treated.
Bahá'ís as well as the United Nations, Amnesty International, the European Union, the United States and peer-reviewed academic literature have stated that the members of the Bahá'í community in Iran have been subjected to unwarranted arrests, false imprisonment, beatings, torture, unjustified executions, confiscation and destruction of property owned by individuals and the Bahá'í community, denial of employment, denial of government benefits, denial of civil rights and liberties, and denial of access to higher education.
Iran was a relatively peaceful country in 1976, and open to Westerners. The first rumblings of revolution were still at least a year away.
Which is hardly accurate lol. It was a despotic puppet dictatorship supported by the west and was 'peaceful' unless you were one of the many thousands incarcerated or oppressed by a notoriously sadistic tyrant. The dictatorship was replaced by a popular revolution which led to free elections and a parliamentary system.
Iran has instigated no aggressive actions in the last 300 years.
Interesting that the CIA announced the other day what almost everyone that cared already knew- that they pulled a coup d'etat on the democratically elected Gov of Iran in 1953. Even though fairly well documented, lots of us that tried to spread the word were called "Conspiracy Theorists". Those people (the ones still alive) won't be apologizing anytime soon. That's the way it works.
The Coup wasn't exactly news to BSKYB's Sky News of the UK. The following video has been out for years:
The following Documentary (American Coup-2010) has been on Hulu for free for some time (highly recommended):
Those old enough to remember the 444 day "Hostage Crisis" should also remember that Ted Koppel never mentioned this Coup even a single time during all those Nightline broadcasts. Now who said the Government cannot keep secrets? That's a pretty big secret (not as big as the Manhattan project though)
Seeing as how the Hostage Crisis was a direct result of the Coup, one could say keeping American Foreign Policy secret ends up hurting the American People.
If Iran had been responsible for a Coup d'etat in America every American would be taught about it starting in 2nd grade. But when the opposite is true, first it's classified, then it's forgotten and disappeared.
And even now, after the CIA admitted their "work", many people will refuse to connect the Coup and the 444 day crisis.
It has to do with the usual debunker disinfo, exactly along the lines of the bunk you just posted. But no doubt you like to throw in the jewish question (which is utter bunk)... but cannot be disputed otherwise it is anti Semitic (even though that word has been highjacked... just another semantics dispute though)
Womens rights... lol... what has it to do with you. let them get there own Emily Pankhurst? No 'Nuke em... kill millions... its their fault because they don't treat their women the way our women want to be treated.
I guess its time I came clean - when Cairenn mentions the Baha'is... I'm one of them. If you want to use that to discredit anything that follows, Oxy, feel free, but I will make my judgments of you accordingly. I know this information better than the treatment of homosexuals, women specifically and Iran's use of the "jewish conspiracy", so please don't think that I am marginalising other issues in Iran.
As far as I'm concerned, Iran had its own Emily Pankhurst. Her name was Tahirih, and unlike Pankhurst she was martyred for her beliefs. Iran has a long history of persecuting members of the Baha'i Faith, and it has continued regardless of the international allegiances of the governing regime. I have multiple friends who escaped from Iran, and many more from families who escaped a generation previous. They left because they have literally no rights in Iran. Baha'is can be arrested without charge and held indefinitely. They are forbidden to hold a job or access to public education, and even when they create their own educational institutions to combat this, these are raided and shut down. This is organised at the highest levels of the Iranian government, as was revealed when a 1991 document was uncovered, signed by the Ayatollah himself.
Baha'is are used as a diversionary tactic by the government of Iran. Much like homosexuality and Judaism, they are used to keep the eyes of the people off the government. These things are bundled together as an "international conspiracy", so Baha'is get accused of working as spies for a foreign (typically British, sometimes US, occasionally Israeli) government, and this is used as an explanation for any injustice or unrest in Iran.
To be clear, this has continued through the various changes in rule in Iran from its inception in 1844, through the Constitutional Revolution in 1906, the coup that brought the Shah to power in 1955 and the 1979 Revolution that disposed of the Shah and did away with Iranian relations with the USA. It has been worse than it is now (upwards of 20,000 followers were killed in the early days of the religion) and it has been easier than it is now (the Shah used to vary the level of persecution of the Baha'is depending upon how much pressure he was feeling from the Mullahs), but it has never gone away.
Really? I wonder why I knew about it then? The story that I remember was that it was done by the Brits, because the Anglo Iran oil company had been nationalized, and that there was a fear that the premier had Communist ties and would take Iran into the Soviet sphere of influence,most folks felt that they had had the help of the US and CIA. Since that happened in 1953 and the hostage crisis was in 1979, the 'link' was not strong.
The fear of Communism and the possibility of another world war was a driving factor in US and western politics for over 20 years. Neither side wanted to risk another major conflict, not with nukes among the armaments of both. Fear makes folks do things that are wrong and that often end up hurting them or their cause.
We could debate what this means and how you define this: Baha'is see themselves as an independent religious movement, one which continues the teachings of previous religions but which is its own separate religion with its own Prophet(s). We see ourselves as a "form" of Islam only in the way that Christianity is connected to Judaism or Islam is connected to the both of them. The Iranian government, of course, would have you believe that we are a Satanic corruption of Islam.
The key is, though, even if were we an apostasy of Islam, would that justify the treatment we receive, much like could you justify the actions of the Inquisition just because Martin Luther did challenge the fundamental tenants of the Catholic Church?
The key is, though, even if were we an apostasy of Islam, would that justify the treatment we receive, much like could you justify the actions of the Inquisition just because Martin Luther did challenge the fundamental tenants of the Catholic Church?
The key is, though, even if were we an apostasy of Islam, would that justify the treatment we receive, much like could you justify the actions of the Inquisition just because Martin Luther did challenge the fundamental tenants of the Catholic Church?
AFAIK Islam has at least a strong condemnation of apostasy - one which many modern moslems seem to be accepting of as meaning the death penalty applies - hence the attitude.
I'm not defending it by any means - however the attitude does seen real.
And the allegory is false IMO - the horrors of the reformation, counter reformation, inquisitions and wars of religion notwithstanding, nothing in any of the Christian or Jewish "holy books" comes close to Qur'an Surah 4. An-Nisa, Ayah 89 which specifically enjoins moslems to kill apostates:
They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah . But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper.
We could get into a wider discussion of Islam, but I'm not sure if this is the right place. Generally, the Quran is a record of specific speeches made by Muhammad at specific moments in Islamic history, so often when it talks of "hypocrites" and similar it is referring specifically to people like the Meccans at the time, who were waging war on Muslims .
In this case, though, read the next verse:
"And if Allah had willed, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause [for fighting] against them."
Baha'is have always struck me as a reasonable and in general peaceful religion. I worked as home health aide for around 6 months for an Iranian Baha'i family. They had quite a history of having to flee countries, before they got to the US and settled down in a Dallas suburb.
There were plenty of calls to violence in the old testament, but again, I'm not sure an argument of the relative merits of religious books is a particularly useful argument to have outside of your own personal theology, except to say that there are interpretations of all three holy books that lead to peaceful societies, and interpretations that lead to greater violence. There are certainly examples of Muslims societies during the Middle Ages that put the Christian societies to shame in their pursuit of peaceful coexistence, so saying that any of this is intrinsic to Islam is a bit of a fool's errand.
And even Buddhism, which is probably the most explicitly peaceful of religions, was intimately involved with some of the most explicitly violent eras in Japanese history (see the book Zen at War, for example), which is to say its not so much the religious text which is at stake here so much as the way it is interpreted and enacted.
I am pointing out that the condemnation of apostasy is part of the Qu'ran, but there is no such condemnation in the Bible, nor AFAIK in any other "holy book".
My point has nothing at all to do with whether or not particular individuals at some time in history have decided to be bloodthirsty or peaceful.
Deuteronomy 20:16-18? 1 Sam 15:2-3? 1 Sam 28:16-18?
EDIT 1
Sorry, just to be clear, these are points in the old testament where "God" commands his believers to commit genocide against other tribes, some for past transgressions, some for worshiping false gods like Balaal. There are more if you need them, but there is a lot of context to read as well.
EDIT 2
Oh, and forgot this one, which was used by the Church of England to burn witches all over England:
Exodus 22:18 - "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"
The Koran uses the Old Testament heavily as a source. Kosher and Halal food laws are very close. The world of Mohammed was much closer to the situation that the Jews of the Old Testament, with multiple warring nomadic tribes than then the Roman world of Jesus' time. The Romans enforced the laws, not the Jews.
I think Mick created and named this thread... it wasn't me. But I think the real issue is not to do with 'is it idealised or demonised' but more to do with 'is it a threat to the West' and what justification (if any) is there for attacking it?
As stated Iran has not instigated any threat to anyone in the neighbourhood or anyone else for over 300 years. Compare that with Europe, Japan the U.K, U.S, Israel etc.
There is a massive amount of 'behind the scenes' manouvering pressing for war against Iran.
Here Alan Mendoza is strongly advocating attacking Iran on the bold face lie that 'they want to wipe Israel off the map'. He also uses Cairenn and Landru type arguments such as 'they are guilty of human rights abuses' such as citing 'rape in their prisons'... like that doesn't go on in the U.S...
I am not suggesting that they are 'ideal', far from it... but is that reason to go to war? Of course it isn't and the real reason for warmongering is what needs to be looked at.
It is their Country... it is not our business to poke our noses in. Only a few decades ago gays, blacks and other minorities and yes I dare to say the Jews as well, were discriminated against in our own countries and very often still are, (except for the Jews now). Get your own house in order and leave them to sort out their own problems and for their own Emily Pankhurst, Martin Luther king, Mandela or whatever to emerge.
Going back centuries and debating the pro's and cons of Islam vs Christianity has nothing to do with the issues here.
The people spending massive amounts of money, planning and promoting the wars have their own agendas and it certainly has nothing to do with 'freedom of the people'.
I guess its time I came clean - when Cairenn mentions the Baha'is... I'm one of them. If you want to use that to discredit anything that follows, Oxy, feel free, but I will make my judgments of you accordingly. I know this information better than the treatment of homosexuals, women specifically and Iran's use of the "jewish conspiracy", so please don't think that I am marginalising other issues in Iran.
.
Thanks for your honesty E. I had not even heard of the Bha'is before Cairenn mentioned them, let alone what their/your difficulties are/were. But I will say this. It is your problem and not a reason for us to go to war and depose a democratically elected and peaceful, (to the world) Government and do to Iran what was done to Iraq.
It seems to me that your struggle will have to go on, as it went on in S Africa, Australia, Egypt, and far too many other Countries to mention. Seek international aid by all means but I do not believe it even remotely justifiable, (legally or morally), to invade and devestate a Country because of abuses going on in that country. the costs to all are far to high. That goes for Iran, Syria, Latin America, Zimbabwe, Russia, China, Europe, America or anywhere else. Internal problems are exactly that... internal. Let the people sort it out themselves.
Can I ask you, do you honestly think a war such as was forced onto Iraq or Libya would benefit the majority of people in Iran or Syria? Do you see any justification for this self evident warmongering by Neocons?
Another problem I can see is
Concerning the historical context of the persecutions, Friedrich W. Affolter in "War Crimes, Genocide, & Crimes against Humanity" writes:
Bahá’u’lláh’s writings deal with a variety of themes that challenge long-cherished doctrines of Shí‘i‐Islam. In addition to making the ‘heretic’[sic] claim of being a ‘Manifestation of God,’ he suggested that school curricula should include ‘Western Sciences,’ that the nation states (Muslim and non-Muslim) should establish a world federal government
Now if that is not going to cause trouble... I don't know what is! There are millions worldwide who are opposed to that and we are denigraded and persecuted as Conspiracy Theorists... Who is going to war for us?
I did find it interesting the take they had on Iran at that time.
Iran was a relatively peaceful country in 1976, and open to Westerners. The first rumblings of revolution were still at least a year away.
Which is hardly accurate lol. It was a despotic puppet dictatorship supported by the west and was 'peaceful' unless you were one of the many thousands incarcerated or oppressed by a notoriously sadistic tyrant. The dictatorship was replaced by a popular revolution which led to free elections and a parliamentary system.
Iran has instigated no aggressive actions in the last 300 years.
Thanks for your honesty E. I had not even heard of the Bha'is before Cairenn mentioned them, let alone what their/your difficulties are/were. But I will say this. It is your problem and not a reason for us to go to war and depose a democratically elected and peaceful, (to the world) Government and do to Iran what was done to Iraq.
It seems to me that your struggle will have to go on, as it went on in S Africa, Australia, Egypt, and far too many other Countries to mention. Seek international aid by all means but I do not believe it even remotely justifiable, (legally or morally), to invade and devestate a Country because of abuses going on in that country. the costs to all are far to high. That goes for Iran, Syria, Latin America, Zimbabwe, Russia, China, Europe, America or anywhere else. Internal problems are exactly that... internal. Let the people sort it out themselves.
Can I ask you, do you honestly think a war such as was forced onto Iraq or Libya would benefit the majority of people in Iran or Syria? Do you see any justification for this self evident warmongering by Neocons?
Another problem I can see is
Now if that is not going to cause trouble... I don't know what is! There are millions worldwide who are opposed to that and we are denigraded and persecuted as Conspiracy Theorists... Who is going to war for us?
No one said it was a reason to go to war with Iran. The argument is that Iran is not a peaceful island of free elections and blissful citizenry. To state that, "As stated Iran has not instigated any threat to anyone in the neighbourhood or anyone else for over 300 years," is not true.
The U.S. State Department's annual terrorism report, released May 30, headlined the "marked resurgence" of Iran's terrorist activities -- and with good reason. "Iran and Hizballah's terrorist activity has reached a tempo unseen since the 1990s, with attacks plotted in Southeast Asia, Europe, and Africa," the report reads. And that's before we even get to Iran and Hezbollah's active support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's brutal crackdown against his own people.
But that's not all. Closer to the United States, Iran not only continues to expand its presence and bilateral relationships with countries like Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, but it also maintains a network of intelligence agents specifically tasked with sponsoring and executing terrorist attacks in the Western Hemisphere.
There are no free elections. Candidates must be approved.
Registration for candidates took place from 7 to 11 May 2013.[20][21] Registered candidates' qualifications were then reviewed by the Guardian Council.[22] On 21 May 2013 eight candidates were approved for placement on the ballot. BBC News commented that all eight approved candidates were "considered hardline conservatives," with reformist candidates, notably former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, having been barred from standing.[23] In contrast, Lebanon's Daily Star newspaper described attempts by former presidents Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami to unite behind one or the other of two "reformist candidates," Hassan Rouhani and Mohammad Reza Aref.[24] Two of the eight, Aref and Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel, withdrew from the race on 10 and 11 June.[25][26]
Gays are not discriminated against in Iran, they are killed.
"There are criminal laws on the books in Iran that allows for people to be killed for being homosexual," said Paula Ettelbrick, executive director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission.
Just how many gays may have been killed — some say the figure is more than 400 — is impossible to determine. Routine harassment and systematic torture of gays in Iran is quite common, charge human rights groups.
Note that word—"eliminated." When Iranians talk about Israel, this intention of a final solution keeps coming up. In October 2005, Mr. Ahmadinejad, quoting the Ayatollah Khomeini, said Israel "must be wiped off the map." Lest anyone miss the point, the Iranian President said in June 2008 that Israel "has reached the end of its function and will soon disappear off the geographical domain."
That was an interesting 300 year period, where is seems that other countries had major roles in the Iranian government. Mainly Russia and the UK, and later on the US.
Karim Khan came to power in 1750, bringing a period of relative peace and prosperity.[75] Another civil war ensued after Karim Khan's death in 1779, out of which Aga Muhammad Khan emerged victorious, founding the Qajar Dynasty in 1794. Qajar rule is characterised as a century of misrule.[74] The Great Persian Famine of 1870–1871 is believed to have caused the death of 1.5 million persons, or 20–25% of Persia's population.[79]
Whilst resisting efforts to be colonised, Iran suffered in the 19th century as a result of Russian and British empire-building, known as 'The Great Game', losing much of its territory in the Russo-Persian and the Anglo-Persian Wars. A series of protests took place in response to the sale of concessions to foreigners by Nasser al-Din Shah and Mozaffar ad-Din Shah between 1872 and 1905, the last of which resulted in the Iranian Constitutional Revolution and establishment of Iran's first national parliament (majles) in 1906, which was abolished in 1908. The struggle continued until 1911, when Mohammad Ali was defeated and forced to abdicate. On the pretext of restoring order, the Russians occupied northern Iran in 1911. During World War I, the British occupied much of western Iran, not fully withdrawing until 1921.
In 1921 Reza Khan, Prime Minister of Iran and former general of the Persian Cossack Brigade, overthrew the Qajar Dynasty and became Shah. In 1941 he was forced to abdicate in favour of his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, after Iran came under British and Russian occupation following the Anglo-Soviet invasion that established the Persian Corridor and would last until 1946.
n 1951 Mohammad Mosaddegh was elected prime minister. He became enormously popular in Iran after he nationalized Iran's petroleum industry and oil reserves. He was deposed in an Anglo-American coup in 1953, the first time the US had overthrown a foreign government during the Cold War.[81]
After the coup, the Shah became increasingly autocratic. Arbitrary arrests and torture by his secret police, SAVAK, were used to crush all forms of political opposition. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini became an active critic of the Shah's White Revolution and publicly denounced the government. Khomeini was arrested and imprisoned for 18 months. After his release in 1964, Khomeini publicly criticized the United States government. The Shah sent him into exile. He went first to Turkey, then to Iraq and finally to France. By the mid-1970s, there was growing unrest with the Shah's repressive regime.
No one said it was a reason to go to war with Iran. The argument is that Iran is not a peaceful island of free elections and blissful citizenry. To state that, "As stated Iran has not instigated any threat to anyone in the neighbourhood or anyone else for over 300 years," is not true.
Then why are they doing all the warmongering and have been doing so for decades, even using Iraq as a proxy to fight their war?
Further what exactly is the point of all the toxic tripe below if you are not trying to justify aggression against Iran, (which has been ongoing for decades). What makes Iran so much worse than America... the most violent, expansionist, hegemonic and war mongering Country on the planet at this point in time?
Those who lives in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
The U.S. State Department's annual terrorism report, released May 30, headlined the "marked resurgence" of Iran's terrorist activities -- and with good reason. "Iran and Hizballah's terrorist activity has reached a tempo unseen since the 1990s, with attacks plotted in Southeast Asia, Europe, and Africa," the report reads. And that's before we even get to Iran and Hezbollah's active support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's brutal crackdown against his own people.
But that's not all. Closer to the United States, Iran not only continues to expand its presence and bilateral relationships with countries like Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, but it also maintains a network of intelligence agents specifically tasked with sponsoring and executing terrorist attacks in the Western Hemisphere.
All I see is rhetoric and propaganda. What 'terrorist attacks' are you talking about. Iran has been persecuted, defamed, bombed, economically undermined, spied on and coups staged by the CIA etc for decades. Not to mention having U.S warships parked on their doorstep threatening them 24/7 with their 'war games' and what happens when Iran has the outrageous audacity to send a couple of skiffs out a few miles off it's shores to see what the hell the U.S is up to? It's all over Foxy News how the Iranians are so aggressive and a threat that must be contained. 'Oh says Foxy News, Iran frightened our Navy... We should really invade and civilise them'. 'Yeah we got all these billions of dollars of nice shiny missiles and ships and all these dumb smucks who signed up to get off the unemployment lines... may as well use em to steal some more loot'. Makes me sick.
There are no free elections. Candidates must be approved.
So what is different to anywhere else. In the U.S the candidates have to be 'approved' by the likes of Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs. Are you honestly trying to tell us that the U.S is a democracy? You live a lie. You live in a Kleptocracy run by kleptomaniacs who cannot stop stealing from anyone and everyone and anyone who dares call it as is, is branded a terrorist or CTist.
But all that aside... How is Iran/Syria any worse than the Saudis's or Bahrain or Kuwait or any other of the other states which are your wonderful friends? Ahhh... yes, the leadership is 'friendly to you'... puppet regimes at your beck and call... that is the difference is it not. That is why you don't post about the failings of the 'other M.E States' isn't it?
Gays are not discriminated against in Iran, they are killed.
So they haven't got any gays there then? What has it to do with you or the U.S who run around bugging the U.N meetings and holding people without trial for over a decade and torturing people and abusing it's own citizens by sending them to private prisons/workhouses for life for smoking a few spliffs, sending out drones willy nilly and killing innocent people like it is some playstation game. Put your own house in order. But all that nonsense aside... gays are encouraged (at state expense), to go for gender reassignment so they are not gay any longer.
More fear mongering bunk. Yes Iran and a lot of other countries are against Zionism... that is not anti Jewish. They would like to see Israel returned to it's rightful people, (who are currently held in an open prison camp and starved of all basic amenities whilst Zion creeps ever further over the land building illegal houses and claiming the land for itself). Never mind about the 'Rainforests disappearing in a few decades... at the rate the Zionists are moving the Palestinians better start evolving gills.
Ahmadinejad's words were blatantly misinterpreted. He said nothing about attacking Israel but Israel repeatedly runs around attacking it's neighbours all the time.
Note that word—"eliminated." When Iranians talk about Israel, this intention of a final solution keeps coming up. In October 2005, Mr. Ahmadinejad, quoting the Ayatollah Khomeini, said Israel "must be wiped off the map." Lest anyone miss the point, the Iranian President said in June 2008 that Israel "has reached the end of its function and will soon disappear off the geographical domain."
And whilst we are on the subject of the Iranian persecution of the Jews... I find it very telling that the Persian Jews were the wealthiest immigrants to ever settle in the U.S... Now how did that happen in such a hostile environment.
But reading the introduction, I learn that these aren’t just any Persians W is profiling—they’re Persian Jews, who are a large part of Los Angeles’ huge Iranian diaspora.
The use of the term “Persian” didn’t surprise me much. A large segment of Iranian immigrants and subsequent generations use “Persian” rather than “Iranian,” for varying political, ethnic, and ideological reasons. But with Persian Jews, the use is given another dimension: “Persian” does not connote any specific religion, whereas the term “Iranian” definitely conjures images of Shi’a Islam: ayatollahs, chadors, and the Islamic Revolution of 1979. “Persian” also conjures images of lazy cats, sumptuous carpets, and fat sultans surrounded by glittering palaces—stereotypical images of an Orientalist fantasy, but one that most likely suits Persian Jews better than menacing stereotypes of dour women in chadors and grim-faced Khomeini.
The story, written by Kevin West, gives a brief history of Persian Jews’ presence in L.A., from when many families first fled to the city during and after the Islamic Revolution, to the present day, when the Persian Jewish community wields serious business and political clout. But for the most part, this isn’t a rags-to-riches story
The story, written by Kevin West, gives a brief history of Persian Jews’ presence in L.A., from when many families first fled to the city during and after the Islamic Revolution, to the present day, when the Persian Jewish community wields serious business and political clout. But for the most part, this isn’t a rags-to-riches story: West notes that,
“Although disposed, the thousands of Iranian Jews who flocked to Beverly Hills in the coming years had assets most immigrants lack: advanced education, business experience and, in the majority of cases, some cash in overseas accounts.”
The embarrassment of riches image is fortified with lavish pictures of local heavyweights and symbols of the fortunes they’ve amassed. One image shows a “Persian Palace,” the nickname given to huge, ostentatious houses built and designed by Persians in their new home. Another image is the sweeping view of Los Angeles from Sam Nazarian’s penthouse, or his “$1.6 million Bugatti Veyron”.
That was an interesting 300 year period, where is seems that other countries had major roles in the Iranian government. Mainly Russia and the UK, and later on the US.
Whilst resisting efforts to be colonised, Iran suffered in the 19th century as a result of Russian and British empire-building, known as 'The Great Game', losing much of its territory in the Russo-Persian and the Anglo-Persian Wars. A series of protests took place in response to the sale of concessions to foreigners by Nasser al-Din Shah and Mozaffar ad-Din Shah between 1872 and 1905, the last of which resulted in the Iranian Constitutional Revolution and establishment of Iran's first national parliament (majles) in 1906, which was abolished in 1908. The struggle continued until 1911, when Mohammad Ali was defeated and forced to abdicate. On the pretext of restoring order, the Russians occupied northern Iran in 1911. During World War I, the British occupied much of western Iran, not fully withdrawing until 1921.
In 1921 Reza Khan, Prime Minister of Iran and former general of the Persian Cossack Brigade, overthrew the Qajar Dynasty and became Shah. In 1941 he was forced to abdicate in favour of his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, after Iran came under British and Russian occupation following the Anglo-Soviet invasion that established the Persian Corridor and would last until 1946. n 1951 Mohammad Mosaddegh was elected prime minister. He became enormously popular in Iran after he nationalized Iran's petroleum industry and oil reserves. He was deposed in an Anglo-American coup in 1953, the first time the US had overthrown a foreign government during the Cold War.[81]
After the coup, the Shah became increasingly autocratic. Arbitrary arrests and torture by his secret police, SAVAK, were used to crush all forms of political opposition. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini became an active critic of the Shah's White Revolution and publicly denounced the government. Khomeini was arrested and imprisoned for 18 months. After his release in 1964, Khomeini publicly criticized the United States government. The Shah sent him into exile. He went first to Turkey, then to Iraq and finally to France. By the mid-1970s, there was growing unrest with the Shah's repressive regime.
So your point is what? You have proved what I said with your own quote... end of story. Far from being the aggressor they have been systematically overun and used and vicious dictator installed as a puppet for your (lovely , wonderful , caring ) government.
Because you are not an objective observer. Your bias and bitterness towards US policy leads you to believe facts are "propaganda"
EVERYBODY has blood on their hands...if you think Iran is simply a victim without other's blood on its hands than you either haven't been paying attention or are simply blinded by bias.
Because you are not an objective observer. Your bias and bitterness towards US policy leads you to believe facts are "propaganda"
EVERYBODY has blood on their hands...if you think Iran is simply a victim without other's blood on its hands than you either haven't been paying attention or are simply blinded by bias.
Well that is simply more propaganda. Of course the U.S calls Iran a terrorist state... It is getting ready to invade it and needs to demonise it to the American public and the West to at least give it some semblance of legitamacy ... even if it is a totally unprovoked act of war which is illegal and immoral.
You won't be happy til you have them like a bloody doormat like Iraq and you couldn't give a damn how many millions die while you are about it.. The biggest terrorist state is the U.S deny as you will... in your heart you know full well I speak the truth.
I have no doubt they have done some pretty unsavory stuff but compared to the U.S and Israel, it would be a drop in the ocean.
So what if they support Hamas... what about the tyrants you support.
Oh shit... the bloody SWAT team... 'Team America' just sealed off my road... I spect they after some 15 yo kid with a joint tho.
Yes in varying degrees every nation has blood on its hands but yes this is about comparison ... it is about comparing those who sanctimoniously and for their own agenda, accuse others of terrorism so that they have an excuse to invade and subjugate them.
this thread is about Iran not about Oxy's hatred of the US.
Again with the false allegations. I do not hate America... I hate what a small but powerful section of American Government/big business is doing to innocent civilians... including U.S citizens and Western citizens.
I agree with SR1419. Are the protestors like Nedā Āghā-Soltān not also innocents? Or the women, and gays ans others KILLED by the Iranian government you are defending?
Tell us that you would be allowed to post negative comments about the government in Iran, or Syria, or Sadam's Iraq, or Putin's Russia or China or almost any non Western country?
I have a RIGHT to speak my mind, to vote and to run for office. Just like you do.
Yes in varying degrees every nation has blood on its hands but yes this is about comparison ... it is about comparing those who sanctimoniously and for their own agenda, accuse others of terrorism so that they have an excuse to invade and subjugate them.
Again with the false allegations. I do not hate America... I hate what a small but powerful section of American Government/big business is doing to innocent civilians... including U.S citizens and Western citizens.
Oh right...sorry...you don't hate the US - just its policies- and wouldn't want to visit for fear of getting beaten to death for jaywalking- right- got it.
I agree with SR1419. Are the protestors like Nedā Āghā-Soltān not also innocents? Or the women, and gays ans others KILLED by the Iranian government you are defending?
Tell us that you would be allowed to post negative comments about the government in Iran, or Syria, or Sadam's Iraq, or Putin's Russia or China or almost any non Western country?
I have a RIGHT to speak my mind, to vote and to run for office. Just like you do.
So out with it ... do you support America attacking Syria and Iran... as they did with the Iraq and Libya. That is what all this is about. Why not honestly nail your flag to the flagpole? Same to SR
No. I do not support attacking Syria or Iran. Nor did I support Iraq.
You really have very little understanding of my political views. You simply kneejerk to some cliche image in your head when ever I point out you are wrong. You are rampant with emotion and it leads to many failures on your part.
Who is going to war for us?
