PDA

View Full Version : Iranian Student Heckle Ahmadinejad



William Haskins
12-12-2006, 05:01 AM
go get him, kids.


Iranian students have disrupted a speech by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at a prestigious Tehran university, setting fire to his picture and heckling him.

"Some students chanted radical slogans and inflamed the atmosphere of the meeting" at the Amir Kabir University, said the semi-official Fars news agency on Monday, which is close to Ahmadinejad.

"A small number of students shouted 'death to the dictator' and smashed cameras of state television but they were confronted by a bigger group of students in the hall chanting: 'We support Ahmadinejad'," it said.

It was the latest in a series of student demonstrations in recent days, the first time in least two years that such protests have taken place on this scale at Iranian universities.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/12/11/061211130257.ypfkzp5b.html

billythrilly7th
12-12-2006, 05:14 AM
For Christmas, I'm sending all of those students "How to Assasinate a Psychopath Dictator for Dummies."

billythrilly7th
12-12-2006, 05:39 AM
Sounds healthy, especially if there's no arrests. i didn't see any yet.

I'm sure they'll handle things like their arrests, torture and murders pretty discreetly and I doubt after it happens that the story will show up for 72 straight days on the front page of the Tehran York Times, but I'll keep my eyes and ears open for ya, Bird.
:)

greglondon
12-12-2006, 05:39 AM
Sounds healthy, especially if there's no arrests. i didn't see any yet.

They might "drop out" of school though.

and into a burlap bag.

Or maybe get extraordinary renditioned some place.

Probably won't get due process.

probably will be tortured.

confessions under torture will probably be submitted to a military court.

military court will probably be closed.

student will probably be barred from hearing evidence against him.

military court wil probably then convict student in secret

and probably order a secret execution

SpookyWriter
12-12-2006, 05:48 AM
They might "drop out" of school though.

and into a burlap bag.

Or maybe get extraordinary renditioned some place.

Probably won't get due process.

probably will be tortured.

confessions under torture will probably be submitted to a military court.

military court will probably be closed.

student will probably be barred from hearing evidence against him.

military court wil probably then convict student in secret

and probably order a secret executionAre we talking about the NSA here? 'cause I'm like not one to want a secret execution or nothing like that...:rant:

MattW
12-12-2006, 05:51 AM
There was a truckers strike in Iran a few weeks ago. It was a good start, but probably ended up in a recruiting drive at truckmasters Academy of Tehran.

dclary
12-12-2006, 05:52 AM
God help us if the suicide bombers unionize.

Bartholomew
12-12-2006, 06:01 AM
God help us if the suicide bombers unionize.

I think there should be a school for them.

"Okay, everyone--PAY ATTENTION, and come closer. I can only do this once..."

dclary
12-12-2006, 06:06 AM
Yes. I saw that cartoon too.

William Haskins
12-12-2006, 06:25 AM
perhaps this shouldn't be about america at all, but rather on the topic of student unrest in iran.

William Haskins
12-12-2006, 06:44 AM
.
http://62.240.235.205/Multimedia/pics/1385/9/photo/1809.jpg

billythrilly7th
12-12-2006, 06:56 AM
I wonder which job would make me more nervous going to on a daily basis.

Training lions and bears for the circus, transporting sound sensitive ammunitions, or working as a Nuclear technician in an Iranian military facility.

"Goodbye, sweetheart, have a nice day at work!"

"Okay, see ya at 7...I hope."

All day long thinking..."Is today the day?"

William Haskins
12-12-2006, 08:05 AM
here's hoping that these kids can effect some real social reform.

greglondon
12-12-2006, 09:01 AM
here's hoping that these kids can effect some real social reform.

It was Iranian university students who planned and executed the storming of the US embassy in Iran back in 1979 when Carter was president.


The original idea to seize the American embassy was concocted by Ebrahim Asgharzadeh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebrahim_Asgharzadeh) in September of 1979. Then the heads of the Islamic associations (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamic_association&action=edit) of the main universities of Tehran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehran) including University of Tehran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Tehran), Sharif University of Technology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharif_University_of_Technology), Amirkabir University of Technology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amirkabir_University_of_Technology) (polytechnic of Tehran), Iran University of Science and Technology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_University_of_Science_and_Technology) gathered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_hostage_crisis

That wikipedia article also mentions the 1953 overthrow by the CIA, which was why the students did what they did.


In 1953, Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh), a nationalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalist) and political enemy of the Shah, nationalized Iran's foreign-owned and managed oil producer, the Anglo Iranian Oil Company. Its furious British owners withdrew employees, and ceased oil production and royalties to the Iranian government. The American CIA and British intellegence launched Operation Ajax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax), helping the Shah and the Iranian military to remove Mossadegh in what was widely seen as a coup d'état (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat), despite the fact that the Shah was legally entitled to dismiss Mossadegh. In subsequent decades, this foreign intervention, along with issues like unequal development, political repression, corruption, pro-Israeli policies, and the unislamic opulent Western (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_culture) lifestyle of the Iranian elite, united radical Islamists and leftists and spurred the overthrow of the Shah's regime in the Iranian revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_revolution). The Shah left the country for exile in January 1979.

Given the international pressure on Iran over its nuclear technology, and given that our invasion of a non-nuclear Iraq basically broadcast to the world the meme "Disarmament is for Suckers", I'm not sure that Iranian students will see the overthrow of their leader as good for their survival overall. But they certainly do have a track record of being able to stand up to the big dogs when they see they've been wronged, so it should be interesting to see how this plays out over the months and years.

Kentuk
12-12-2006, 09:42 AM
They were shills to force moderate support of an extremist leader. They make him seem less extreme and serve notice that politics can get more radical. It is well executed propaganda.

greglondon
12-12-2006, 09:50 AM
I think the students were legitimately operating on their own at the beginning. But I don't think they had any sort of long term plan. They were concerned that the US was going to bring the Shah back, and they didn't want more torture, more secret police, more dissappearings.

once the students initiated their actions, I think some religious extremists saw an opportunity for political power and took it. I've read some viewpoints about the iranian revolution that there were some moderates operating in the beginning, but they got overwhelmed by the zealots.

Kind of like the way certain extremists saw 9-11 as a way to take over moderate america and turn it into a new empire based on unilateral american force.

William Haskins
12-12-2006, 04:44 PM
They were shills to force moderate support of an extremist leader. They make him seem less extreme and serve notice that politics can get more radical. It is well executed propaganda.

an alternate version of this is they are CIA-backed psy-ops meant to agitate. sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

William Haskins
12-13-2006, 02:35 AM
Added: I would not be surprised at all if this latest student heckling had CIA support.

whether or not it does is up for debate perhaps. however, we do the ongoing struggle for human rights a grave disservice if we reduce these students to proxies for american policy and fail to acknowledge that the younger generation in iran has good reason to harbor real grievances against their oppressive rulers.

English Dave
12-13-2006, 02:40 AM
whether or not it does is up for debate perhaps. however, we do the ongoing struggle for human rights a grave disservice if we reduce these students to proxies for american policy and fail to acknowledge that the younger generation in iran has good reason to harbor real grievances against their oppressive rulers.

Chavs and hoodies. The lot of them.

greglondon
12-13-2006, 03:14 AM
iran has good reason to harbor real grievances against their oppressive rulers.

past and present.

William Haskins
12-13-2006, 03:19 AM
again, sir—there is certainly value in discussing the historical oppression in iran by various regimes, as well as the shortcomings of the US, but as this thread is about students in present times protesting the current regime, this particular conversation is best served by discussing the point at hand.

English Dave
12-13-2006, 03:29 AM
I agree, William. Excellent point. However, I harken back to the young Chinese students that protested for democracy in Tiananmen Square: 1989?

It was a courageous, but to no avail. They were punished severely for it, if I'm not mistaken.

I wouldn't say to no avail. The picture of a young student defying a tank is flashed on the psyche of a generation and something that the Republic of China has to live down.

It takes real guts to defy a totalitarian regime. Many times more than students in the West protesting about segregation or Vietnam or Iraq.

We can. Count your blessings rather than looking for conspiricies.

English Dave
12-13-2006, 03:50 AM
Am I looking for conspiracies? I don't think so, ED.

And as far as living it down: tell that to the Republic of China. She hasn't lived down a damn thing. The human rights abuses are flagrant. She just executed 16 or so religious people. I'll find the link if you want.

There is a difference between the people who live in China under a regime where conforming can be the dfference between starvation and eating and China.

It's up to us to gradually change that.

greglondon
12-13-2006, 03:55 AM
again, sir—there is certainly value in discussing the historical oppression in iran by various regimes, as well as the shortcomings of the US, but as this thread is about students in present times protesting the current regime, this particular conversation is best served by discussing the point at hand.

If any guesses were to be made as to where these students would be coming from, a look at their complete history would likely be revealing.

Yes they're protesting the current regime, and it is likely that they won't be embracing the US with open arms either.

English Dave
12-13-2006, 04:02 AM
If any guesses were to be made as to where these students would be coming from, a look at their complete history would likely be revealing.

Yes they're protesting the current regime, and it is likely that they won't be embracing the US with open arms either.


What is the US? Is it a bunch of self seeking politicians or is it an ideal? I'd guess that a vast percentage of Americans believe in the ideal. And that is what is exported.

The major positive about democracy is that wankers have to account for their actions.

English Dave
12-13-2006, 04:32 AM
I don't, Dave. I only volunteer to account for my actions. The rest of the wankers neither volunteer nor wanker up, particularly the political wankers.
How dare you insult the Volunteer Wankers.

William Haskins
12-13-2006, 04:43 AM
If any guesses were to be made as to where these students would be coming from, a look at their complete history would likely be revealing.

to me, sir, it's obvious that they're coming from a generation whose members have been hanged for homosexuality, executed and otherwise punished for being victims of rape and who have witnessed recent purges of progressive professors from their universities.


Yes they're protesting the current regime, and it is likely that they won't be embracing the US with open arms either.

that is not of concern to me, sir. the eventual overthrow by them of a totalitarian regime that oppresses people at home and exports the absolute worst anti-semitism on the globe today is sufficient.

Kentuk
12-13-2006, 08:59 AM
an alternate version of this is they are CIA-backed psy-ops meant to agitate. sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Dream on. Humit is the agency's weakest area, they probably feel lucky to have one reliable agent in the whole country.

William Haskins
12-13-2006, 09:05 AM
i'm afraid you misunderstood me. i do not believe it is psy-ops. i believe it is legitimate protest.

you posited the theory that iran was engineering the public humiliation of their most public face, which i find ludicrous. if you re-read my post, you'll see that i merely stated the other end of the conspiracy-theory spectrum, that the protest was orchestrated by the CIA.

i believe neither.

my last sentence, "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar", is a freud quote referring to the fact that sometimes over-interpretation or imposition of our own thoughts and emotions aren't necessary. sometimes a thing is simply what it is.

which is my position.

Kentuk
12-13-2006, 09:16 AM
i'm afraid you misunderstood me. i do not believe it is psy-ops. i believe it is legitimate protest.

you posited the theory that iran was engineering the public humiliation of their most public face, which i find ludicrous. if you re-read my post, you'll see that i merely stated the other end of the conspiracy-theory spectrum, that the protest was orchestrated by the CIA.

i believe neither. which is my position.

Sorry wasn't being particularly serious and didn't mean to imply you actually thought the CIA was able to organize on that level.

William Haskins
12-13-2006, 09:17 AM
my mistake, then. sorry about that.

greglondon
12-13-2006, 09:37 AM
What is the US? Is it a bunch of self seeking politicians or is it an ideal? I'd guess that a vast percentage of Americans believe in the ideal. And that is what is exported. The major positive about democracy is that wankers have to account for their actions.

Lots of people come here to pursue their idea of America. Is that what the Iranians are planning? I don't know. I do know we overthrew a democratic government in Iran in 1953 to get their oil. We supported Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war. We shot down the Iran Air Flight 655 killing 290 civilians in 1988.

Now, imagine if Iran had overthrown Eisenhower in 1953 and installed their dictator who ruled ruthlessly until 1980, if Iran had supported insurgents fighting in Iraq (hypothetically speaking), or if Iran had something to do with the airliners crashing into the WTC on 9-11.

Think we'd be cheering them on?

One of the main reasons the US population adamantly supported the invasion of Iraq is that people STILL think that Iraq had something to do with 9-11.

America's reaction to similar actions draws american anger. Why would we expect the Iranians to be any different?

Bravo
12-13-2006, 09:46 AM
again, sir—there is certainly value in discussing the historical oppression in iran by various regimes, as well as the shortcomings of the US, but as this thread is about students in present times protesting the current regime, this particular conversation is best served by discussing the point at hand.

why are you limiting and defining the discussion this way?

what exactly is the point at hand and how far along in this thread should we continue to say "go get em boys"?

for a further this discussion, we can talk about how rick santorum went on tv and talked about how we shouldve supported iran's bus driver strike last week, to overthrow the regime.

Unique
12-13-2006, 10:03 AM
How can a bus driver strike lead to the overthrow of a regime? I'd really like to know. Just in case ... er.. because I collect odd tidbits of information.

billythrilly7th
12-13-2006, 10:45 AM
They have busses in Iran?

Wow.

What are they so angry about?

They have busses. It must be nice.

dclary
12-13-2006, 11:11 AM
They have busses in Iran?

Wow.

What are they so angry about?

They have busses. It must be nice.

I don't know. I can't imagine very many people ride what they call in Iran "moving bomb transporters."

blacbird
12-13-2006, 11:18 AM
Lots of people come here to pursue their idea of America. Is that what the Iranians are planning? I don't know. I do know we overthrew a democratic government in Iran in 1953 to get their oil.

I agree with most of what you say, Greg, but this last is a trifle misleading. We overthrew Mossadegh (sp.?) in 1953 in large part because he seemed to be cozying up to the Soviets, and we didn't want them getting Iran's oil. We weren't importing large amounts of oil back then, or even anticipating the need to do so.


One of the main reasons the US population adamantly supported the invasion of Iraq is that people STILL think that Iraq had something to do with 9-11.


This is dismayingly true, and the Bush Administration, despite knowing better, has played it for all it's worth. A couple of years ago one of the big polling outfits (I don't recall which) ran a poll on this very question, which came out with something near half the American public believing that at least some of the 9/11 hijackers were from Iraq. This was in 2003 or 2004, long after the attacks, and way long after the identity of the hijackers was well-established and widely-publicized in the press.

But more telling was the breakdown the pollsters did of how that public voted in 2000. Something like 90% of the people who said they believed the hijackers were Iraqis also voted for GWB. Meaning that the vast majority of these people who voted for Bush believe an essential untruth.

I haven't seen a similar poll since then, and I'd like to believe those numbers have abated some. The recent election may indicate that. But I'm not convinced, and I remain dismayed at how easily people can be persuaded into believing pure factual falsehoods. It's one thing to back the Bush policies in Iraq because you believe they are the right things to do, given the current situation in the Mideast (Thrillsy does that, and I can respect him for it). It's another thing entirely to back Bush because you believe something that is blatantly and demonstrably untrue. Factual veracity matters, dammit. I will not be persuaded to stray from that principle.

I'm pissed off tonight. I gotta go sit on a wire somewhere and croak at the moon.

caw

MattW
12-13-2006, 04:25 PM
How can a bus driver strike lead to the overthrow of a regime? I'd really like to know. Just in case ... er.. because I collect odd tidbits of information.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity

If we could only get the Iranian longshoremen to strike....

Unique
12-13-2006, 04:32 PM
I see your point, Matt. Kinda, sorta.

William Haskins
12-13-2006, 04:51 PM
why are you limiting and defining the discussion this way?

what exactly is the point at hand and how far along in this thread should we continue to say "go get em boys"?

for a further this discussion, we can talk about how rick santorum went on tv and talked about how we shouldve supported iran's bus driver strike last week, to overthrow the regime.

i'm not limiting anything. i was simply pointing out that there is sufficient discussion material in the simple fact that many in iran's younger generation have seen fit to put their lives on the line to speak out against the injustices of their current regime.

you, or mr. london, or anyone else are more than welcome to branch the discussion in any way you like. at some point, within the context of a thread about the student protest, however, such derivations bring into question whether one has the capacity to see the protests as justified or unjustified or politically healthy or unhealthy without bringing in their standard set of axes to grind.

robeiae
12-13-2006, 05:23 PM
And sometimes not.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Camelot

Operation Camelot was an operation run by the Department of Defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Defense) and the Central Intelligence Agency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Intelligence_Agency) that funded anthropological research. The research was then used to further the goals of the United States government. The project used social scientists in research whose objective was to determine the feasibility of developing a general social systems model which would make it possible to predict and influence politically significant aspects of social change in the developing nations of the world.. Operation Camelot was based at American University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_University) in Washington, DC.

I used this example because it's lukewarm compared to, for example, Allende's demise in Chile. But it does exhibit how elaborate the CIA's planning is, and how it infiltrates even the most inocuous of projects and twists them to its own purpose.Whoaa...hold on a sec.

Project Camelot was Cold-War Era stuff. The Soviets and Red Chinese were more active. They weren't just funding research of this kind of thing. I don't agree with the goals of this project either. But let's give it some context. Many of its critics were locked into their own praxis .

And the CIA of then is gone. Its structures and means of funding have changed greatly.

robeiae
12-13-2006, 05:45 PM
The public still doesn't know. Most of it doesn't want to know. They are too busy watching TV.

greglondon
12-13-2006, 06:06 PM
We overthrew Mossadegh (sp.?) in 1953 in large part because he seemed to be cozying up to the Soviets, and we didn't want them getting Iran's oil. We weren't importing large amounts of oil back then, or even anticipating the need to do so.

I believe there were multiple reasons. Another one was that we wanted to use Iran for its location to establish listening posts that could pick up signals from the Soviets.

The thing is, what we did to Iran in 1953 was for our benefit, not Iran's. And that's what a lot of Iranian's will remember.

greglondon
12-13-2006, 06:08 PM
The public still doesn't know. Most of it doesn't want to know. They are too busy watching TV.

Yes a lot of the public doesn't know. Just like a lot of the public doesn't know that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. Ignorance by a section of the public does not justify it.

William Haskins
12-13-2006, 06:25 PM
The thing is, what we did to Iran in 1953 was for our benefit, not Iran's. And that's what a lot of Iranian's will remember.

actually, sir, it was primarily for the UK's benefit. that doesn't mitigate the wrongness of it, but it is more factually correct.

William Haskins
12-13-2006, 06:39 PM
I would not be surprised at all if this latest student heckling had CIA support.


What I'm suggesting is that I'm not sure it wasn't staged by the Iranian government itself, to show how tolerant Iran is to the free flow of ideas.

given this level of vacillation in just a 12 hour period, i can only hope that you will find some room in there to at least consider the application of occam's razor.


I'm sorry. It's the timing. It's odd. There's been no other significant reports of political unrest, although perhaps I just haven't found them.

[1] (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6119289) [2] (http://activistchat.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=5858&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=) [3] (http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=6256) [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_activism#Iran) [5] (http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2284)

William Haskins
12-13-2006, 08:18 PM
i wasn't disparaging your thought processes. hard and fast answers on such issues are definitely elusive. i appreciate the fact that you're willing to address them.

William Haskins
12-13-2006, 08:29 PM
i have no evidence to the contrary and, as the links provided suggest, there has been a great deal of discontent bubbling up for a while now.

i am hopeful that the students can effect real change.

Kentuk
12-14-2006, 06:03 AM
And the CIA of then is gone. Its structures and means of funding have changed greatly.

Don't know about that. It is still fundamentally a political institution. The administration demands proof of WMD and the CIA coughs it up.
The army tries to handle POWs by the book and the CIA lurks in and says that isn't how you're going to do it, treat them like terrorists.
The administration says we have to take Afghanistan quick and easy and the CIA spends a couple hundred million convincing players to change sides not caring that it means politics there continue in the old manner or the parties don't stay bought.

There are still issues of intelligence being centralized because many career professionals don't trust the CIA and feels the nation needs reliable intelligence.

The CIA still can't run human source intelligence.

Tell me what has changed. Has it become an organization that inspires trust?

robeiae
12-14-2006, 06:09 AM
It's weaker. It has less reach. It's subject to more controls. It can't get away with what it once could.

Thirty years ago, OBL would have been dead. And we would never have heard of him. Or he'd be working for the CIA...

For instance, Carter had no clue what was going on. Neither did Congress.

You want to hate it? Go ahead. But don't blind yourself to what has changed.

Unique
12-14-2006, 02:22 PM
It's weaker. It has less reach. It's subject to more controls. It can't get away with what it once could.



Are you saying black ops don't exist any more?

MattW
12-14-2006, 04:18 PM
Thirty years ago, OBL would [...] be working for the CIA...
:D Imagine that!

MattW
12-14-2006, 04:23 PM
Are you saying black ops don't exist any more?They are tougher to arrange in the modern age, and tougher to keep black on the execution side.

Covert funding from arms or opium sales allow for more independent action, but this kind of operation has been cracked down on since Iran-Contra. If funding is direct from the CIA, even if still secretive, the plausable deniability isn't there.

A strike force appears out of nowhere, kills a whole camp of terrorists. A nearby cell comes to visit for tea, sees the bodies, it's on a blog in hours, and al Jezeera in a day or so. If we wanted a strike that public, we'd keep lobbing cruise missiles.

MattW
12-14-2006, 05:10 PM
I am learning more about Iran every day, and typically, it doesn't exactly jive with an ultra- conservative/militant western pov. . . .And that the Ayatollahs can be considered the "reformist" candidates. *boggle*

It would serve us all well to think of other nations as non-homogenous - just like the US, and possibly even more divisive.

William Haskins
12-14-2006, 06:38 PM
TEHERAN - Iranians vote in double polls Friday that are the first test for conservative allies of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and vanquished reformists since the president’s stunning election victory last year.

(snip)

Reformist forces — in disarray after their obliteration in the 2005 presidential elections — will be seeking to win back a half dozen of the council’s 15 seats as a springboard for a resurgence on the national stage.

vanquished, eh? obliterated, huh? not hard when the ruling clerics can disqualify reform candidates before they can even run.



(New York, June 12, 2005) — Iran’s discriminatory election laws and the Guardian Council’s exclusion of candidates prevents Iranian voters from freely electing candidates or standing for public office, Human Rights Watch said today ahead of Friday’s presidential election....Human Rights Watch details how election laws prevent candidates outside the ruling elite from running for high public office. Iran’s Guardian Council, an unelected body of 12 Sh`ia Muslim clerics and religious jurists, had interpreted these laws to exclude all women as well as all candidates whose views are critical of the current leadership.

“Iran’s elections for all practical purposes are pre-cooked,” said Joe Stork, deputy director of Human Rights Watch’s Middle East Division. “The Guardian Council appoints a few candidates, and then Iranians get to choose from this very restricted list.”

The Guardian Council enjoys arbitrary powers, known as “approbatory supervision ,” allowing it to disqualify candidates even if they meet the discriminatory criteria stated in the election laws.

In practice, the Guardian Council has consistently approved only candidates that are “insiders” from within the ruling circle. More than a thousand candidates registered for the June 17 presidential elections, but the Guardian Council approved only eight, all of whom former or present government officials.


http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/06/12/iran11114.htm




I am learning more about Iran every day, and typically, it doesn't exactly jive with an ultra- conservative/militant western pov. . . .

yes, it's a democratic paradise.

robeiae
12-14-2006, 06:42 PM
But it looks pretty.

So did Rome. Why can we name Rome for what it was? Why can't we name Iran?

William Haskins
12-14-2006, 06:46 PM
Why can't we name Iran?

because the nazis already did?

William Haskins
12-14-2006, 07:33 PM
i didn't mean to be overly flippant. i know you're reading up on this, and it's hard to sort through all the information.

William Haskins
12-14-2006, 07:35 PM
If it's a perceived enemy, William, it's fair game, eh?

ouch. didn't see this edit before i responded. yes, objective reality of iran's rigged system to block reformists from running is merely an outgrowth of my preconceived notions.

William Haskins
12-14-2006, 07:45 PM
eh, i probably did deserve it. no need to apologize.

robeiae
12-14-2006, 07:46 PM
Cut it out, you guys. I'm gettin all misty...

William Haskins
12-14-2006, 07:47 PM
You know, I'm not through. We lost 58,000 men and women in Vietnam. Our president paid a visit the other day. How's that for a democratic paradise?

again, not to stifle offshoots of the topic, but the original point—that i support reformist protest against a rigged system where the slate of candidates is solely determined by an unelected council of fundie whackjobs—has no bearing on the US's diplomatic ties with other countries.

billythrilly7th
12-18-2006, 12:50 AM
It's a shame we're going to have to attack them before the moderates and students and America loving youth can get control of that country from the mullahs, ayatollahs, clerics and Hitleresque leaders.

:Shrug:

greglondon
12-19-2006, 01:54 AM
Rafsanjani wins political redemption in Iran vote

I heard. Interesting stuff. I wonder if George "If I can't bomb it, what good is it to me as president?" Bush will respond to an Iran going moderate by threatening to bomb the hell out of it if it continues its nuclear program. It would be a stupid thing for Bush to do, but that hasn't stopped Bush that last 50 stupid times....

Combine that with Olmert's admission/slip that Israel has the bomb, and it certainly isn't the sort of situation that should be handled by a knuckle-dragging imbecile like Bush.

Hoping we live to see 20 Jan 2009.

billythrilly7th
12-19-2006, 02:04 AM
Sorry, Bt.

You're beginning to annoy me.

If you continue to slander me, and misrepresent or misunderstand my positions you will hear from my lawyers at Levine, Levine, Rosenbloom and Rosenstern.

Thank you.

English Dave
12-19-2006, 02:44 AM
Who's this "we?"

You and me Adrienne. Cut me. Cut me!


Ah looking forward to Rocky V1

alices
12-19-2006, 09:27 AM
Monday December 18, 3:34 PM [US special forces operating overseas on secret missions have clashed with the CIA and carried out operations in countries that are staunch US allies, The Los Angeles Times reported on its website.
Citing unnamed senior intelligence and military officials, the newspaper reported that the clashes had prompted a push for tighter rules for military units engaged in espionage.
The spy missions are part of a highly classified program that officials say has better positioned the United States to track terrorist networks and capture or kill enemy operatives in regions such as the Horn of Africa, the report said.
But the initiative has also led to several embarrassing incidents for the United States, including a shootout in Paraguay and the exposure of a sensitive intelligence operation in East Africa, according to the paper.
In 2004, members of a special forces team operating in Paraguay shot and killed an armed assailant who tried to rob them outside a bar, The Times said.
US officials removed the members of the team from the country.
In another incident, members of a team in East Africa were arrested by the local government after their espionage activity was discovered.
"It was a compromised surveillance activity," the paper quotes a former senior CIA official as saying.
The official said members of the unit "got rolled up by locals, and we got them out." The former official declined to name the country or provide other details.
The paper said that some Central Intelligence Agency officials have complained that special forces have sometimes launched missions without informing the CIA, duplicating or even jeopardizing existing operations.
And they questioned deploying military teams in friendly nations -- including in Europe -- at a time when combat units are in short supply in war zones, the report said.
When asked to comment on the matter, Marine Major General Michael Ennis acknowledged "really egregious mistakes" in the program, but said collaboration has improved between the CIA and the military, the report said.
Special forces troops typically work in civilian clothes and function much like CIA case officers, cultivating sources in other governments or terrorist organizations, The Times said.
One objective, officials said, is to generate information that could be used to plan clandestine operations such as capturing or killing terrorism suspects.
But it is not uncommon, said a former CIA official, for CIA station chiefs to learn of military intelligence operations only after they were under way, the paper reported. . . . .http://sg.news.yahoo.com/061218/1/45ir7.html

This is the kind of thing that I just deplore, and it's business as usual. Nothing is as it seems. Who can be trusted? Who knows the truth?

No one. Not journalists; they don't get the truth. We need to take the country back. If no one knows the truth then this could be false, could it not?

Don’t you have to know where you are, before you take it back, or are talking about a people’s revolution?

alices
12-19-2006, 11:17 AM
Certainly you are not trying to insinuate this is a new phenomenon, are you?
I believe history would show this has been going on forever, in all administrations.

alices
12-19-2006, 11:22 AM
When was the OSS formed?

It "officially" dates back at least that far.

William Haskins
01-18-2007, 07:45 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070117/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_ahmadinejad_s_woes

TEHRAN, Iran - Prices for vegetables have tripled in the past month, housing prices have doubled since last summer — and as costs have gone up, so has Iranians' discontent with hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his focus on confrontation with the West.

Ahmadinejad was elected last year on a populist agenda promising to bring oil revenues to every family, eradicate poverty and tackle unemployment. Now he is facing increasingly fierce criticism for his failure to meet those promises.

He is being challenged not only by reformers but by the conservatives who paved the way for his stunning victory in 2005 presidential elections. Even conservatives say Ahmadinejad has concentrated too much on fiery, anti-U.S. speeches and not enough on the economy — and they have become more aggressive in calling him to account.

Bravo
01-18-2007, 07:46 AM
alices got banned?

hmm, now im curious about who she was....

William Haskins
01-18-2007, 07:47 AM
probably a dclary sockpuppet.

Bravo
01-18-2007, 07:48 AM
lol!

Papa'sLiver
01-18-2007, 10:22 PM
That's cool the students were able to do that. Over here, the protesters are kept blocks away from The Leader, who will only talk to a hand picked audience.

Cool for Iranian students!!

Bravo
01-21-2007, 07:26 PM
Iran’s strongman loses grip as ayatollah offers nuclear deal:


Khamenei rarely speaks in public, but the Islamic Republic, a newspaper he owns, launched a strong attack on Ahmadinejad’s “personalisation” of the nuclear issue. In an editorial, it stated: “Our advice to the president is to speak about the nuclear issue only during important national occasions, stop provoking aggressive powers like the United States and concentrate more on the daily needs of the people, those who voted for you on your promises.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2557946,00.html#

billythrilly7th
01-21-2007, 11:08 PM
IRAN’S supreme leader is considering a change of policy on the country’s nuclear programme in an effort to defuse growing tension with the West, according to senior sources in Tehran.

Alarmed by mounting US pressure and United Nations sanctions, officials close to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei favour the appointment of a more moderate team for international negotiations on the supervision of its nuclear facilities.

The move would be a snub to the bellicose president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose threats to destroy Israel have left Iran increasingly isolated and facing a serious economic downturn.

Wow.

Khamenini is the real leader of Iran and for him to say this is quite interesting.

Maybe they're coming to their senses.

We'll have to see.

Bravo
01-22-2007, 12:30 AM
ive actually been telling you that for quite awhile.

the last thing the mullahs want is an actual confrontation w america.

theyre the ones in charge, not the president.

billythrilly7th
01-22-2007, 12:35 AM
ive actually been telling you that for quite awhile.

the last thing the mullahs want is an actual confrontation w america.

theyre the ones in charge, not the president.

I know they're in charge, but what I've been saying to you is that everything that Ahminidjhead has said was with the blessing if not by direct order of the Mullahs.

It has to be.

They're in charge. You don't think they take a look at his speeches before he makes them?

Everything he's said, done and all public policy including the desire for nukes was done with the blessing and/or by direct order of the mullahs.

Now they are having a change of heart, MAYBE, and are coming out to spank Ahminijead. Poor hump.

He's just a patsy like Oswald.

Bravo
01-22-2007, 12:47 AM
I know they're in charge, but what I've been saying to you is that everything that Ahminidjhead has said was with the blessing if not by direct order of the Mullahs.


no that's not true at all.

they had a lot of trouble w the president before him, khatami, b/c he was too liberal for them. he said & promised reforms that they did not support.

in a way, you can look at their president as just a mouthpiece for the ppl. this new guy was completely ill-prepared for the job, he had nowhere near the level of charisma as khatami and so he chose to be a populist who diverted attention from the internal problems of iran to the external threat of america and israel.

his statements were explained the ayatollah who has the final say on what iran's position is w/ israel (as ive shown you before):

In November 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2005) Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayatollah_Khamenei), rejecting any attack on Israel, called for a referendum in Palestine:
We hold a fair and logical stance on the issue of Palestine. Several decades ago, Egyptian statesman Gamal Abdel Nasser, who was the most popular Arab personality, stated in his slogans that the Egyptians would throw the Jewish usurpers of Palestine into the sea. Some years later, Saddam Hussein, the most hated Arab figure, said that he would put half of the Palestinian land on fire. But we would not approve of either of these two remarks. We believe, according to our Islamic principles, that neither throwing the Jews into the sea nor putting the Palestinian land on fire is logical and reasonable. Our position is that the Palestinian people should regain their rights. Palestine belongs to Palestinians, and the fate of Palestine should also be determined by the Palestinian people. The issue of Palestine is a criterion for judging how truthful those claiming to support democracy and human rights are in their claims. The Islamic Republic of Iran has presented a fair and logical solution to this issue. We have suggested that all native Palestinians, whether they are Muslims, Christians or Jews, should be allowed to take part in a general referendum before the eyes of the world and decide on a Palestinian government. Any government that is the result of this referendum will be a legitimate government

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#See_also

billythrilly7th
01-22-2007, 12:54 AM
One of my New Year's resolutions is to not talk about Israel/Palestine so I will resist talking once again about that paragraph. It's in the archives anyway.

So, let's move on...

You say the mullahs have the power yet they have trouble with the Presidents.

So, which is it? Who has the power?

Very simple question.

Who has control over the military and the future nukes?

The mullahs or the Presidents that they can't control the way they'd like?

Bravo
01-22-2007, 01:07 AM
the ayatollah ultimately controls iran.

even if he doesnt cant control everything the president says he has ultimate say in things:


According to the constitution, the Supreme Leader co-ordinates and solves disputes between the three branches of state (executive, legistative, and judicial). The constitution gives the Supreme Leader vast powers, including:

* Appointing head of Judicial Branch
* Supreme command of armed forces
* Issuing decrees for national referenda
* Declaration of war and peace
* Mobilization of the armed forces
* Dismissal of the President, after the Supreme Court holds him guilty of the violation of his constitutional duties, or after a vote of the Parliament testifying to his incompetence on the basis of Article 89 of the Constitution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Iran


he's the guy in charge.

billythrilly7th
01-22-2007, 01:10 AM
he's the guy in charge.

Cool.

Then in the course of one month we have Saddam dead, Castro on his death bed, Assad and the Supreme Leader of Iran seeming to blink a little bit.

We're on a roll.

I give credit to the newly elected democratic congress. Kudos.
:)

robeiae
01-22-2007, 01:24 AM
Plus, he has Boris and Natasha to do his dirty work...

billythrilly7th
01-22-2007, 02:43 AM
Cool.

Then in the course of one month we have Saddam dead, Castro on his death bed, Assad and the Supreme Leader of Iran seeming to blink a little bit.

We're on a roll.

I give credit to the newly elected democratic congress. Kudos.
:)

And Sadr may be coming around just a bit too in an effort to keep his shell game going that will ultimately lead to him being the Supreme Leader of Iraq.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6283975.stm


The political followers of Iraq's radical Shia cleric, Moqtada Sadr, say they are ending a two-month boycott of Iraq's parliament and government.

The boycott was imposed as a protest over a planned meeting between Iraq's prime minister and President Bush.

Correspondents say the move signifies an easing of tensions among Shia groups in Iraq's government.

The anti-US group, a key member of PM Nouri Maliki's coalition, has 32 MPs in the 275-seat parliament.

The Mehdi Army, the Shia militia loyal to Moqtada Sadr, has fought sporadic battles with the US since 2003 and has been identified as a disruptive force within Iraq by Washington.

'New beginning'

The Sadrists announced their decision at a news conference with senior figures from the umbrella Shia alliance.

"Since there has been a response to our demands, we declare that we will attend parliament today," said Bahaa al-Araji, a Sadrist spokesman.

Opposition to the continued US presence in Iraq has been a key feature of the group's demands.

At the news conference, parliamentary speaker Mahmoud al-Mashadani said all parliamentary parties would now form a committee to discuss the reasons for the boycott and resolve the issues.

"This is a new beginning," he said.

"We want to say to the world that an Iraqi solution for Iraqi problems is the key, and others must support these solutions."

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

No matter what happens with Iraq, if we have to leave in failure, please, please right before the last helicopter and transport plane takes off, put a bullet in this guys head or we will have to deal with this moron for decades.

BUT...in the immortal words of BoP, "Let's give him a chance."

And yes, this is a positive step.