Iran Right-Wingers Warn About Extermists

I heard a few interesting interviews on CBC radio after the hardline president was elected. For the most part those watching Iranian politcs from inside were suprised he was elected and suprised that he campaigned moderately and then came out so hard line(sounded like a compasionate conservative).

Its hard to sort out who in the Fundamentalist Islamic movements in Iran is who but it isn't a simple monolith. There are lots of tides and currents, and what you may be seeing here is a posturing or power grab.

Is the new President really that hardline? Is he saying what the mullahs who helped him win want to hear or his own thoughts? Who can tell?

James

I predict a political coup d'?tat in Iran, after which a certain Iranian leader will suddenly find himself dead.

When? Within 18 months.

That there is no central authority. An Islamic version of the pope. No-one person (or council) that can say for certain that extremism is right or wrong. So the result of this is that we have multiple interpretations of the same text, some good and some not so. Historically Islam has fought amongst itself (like whets happening in Iraq) over its internal differences. The current problem is that the US (and Israel) are providing more tempting targets.

If you want to stop terrorism you must:
1.) Remove all troops from the Mid-East.
2.) Secure Israel's borders.
3.) Become "islamofriendly" (see below).

To become islamofriendly (think user-friendly) you must make yourself appear to be less of a threat than the other "flavours" of Islam. This can be done through lip service and token gestures quiet easily as well as various other methods which may prove to be more difficult to put into practice. But because all the tried and tested tricks have been tried before by the British (yes sure rise up and you can have a homeland) in WWI and II and the Americans (yes were your friends we'll build roads and give you money) post WWII. So we need to innovate and give them something new.

If we do this (become "islamofriendly") the Mid-East will either have to:
1.) Buy it.
2.) Change to become responsible members of the world.

I'm not the one afraid of Muslims, afraid of Arabs and most certainly afraid of terrorism.

Good sir, I assure you that political fear mongering has no bearing here in the great southern land.

Bold enough to take action? Those are big words when it isn?t your life on the line.

OK the Middle-East IS NOT AMERICA. They do not use the American system. Take a map of the world Maxwell and draw circle around the US and whenever you want to make a prediction REMEMBER THAT THEY DONT WORK OUTSIDE THE CIRCLE.

Jesus H Christ, Ive met some idiots in my time but you definitely are the worst. If you could read in context, that the people in Iran are afraid. How do I know, we have an Iranian working upstairs. I didn?t know he was an Iranian until he told me. This is the result that we need, immigrants that want to be part of our society.

You are a stain on the fabric on society.

The people you choose to place in power?

This is not something you are in a position to say.

"You are a fearful chicken-**** for wanting to cower in fear of what others might do or think."

But then again max you have a history of opening your mouth without consulting your brain, if you even have one.

I fear not for what others might think But i do think carefully before I offend someone deliberately. You god-dammed ultra-right wing arsewipe of a shell of someone pretending to be a human being.

"You can?t please everyone, so choose first who you are going to offend" - Michael James Willox.

First let me congratulate on your new found gift of clairvoyance, which apparently enables you to read the minds of Democrat voters.

However aside from that, I can not see the relevance of your post to this discussion as your country will be led by a Republican President for the next three years (almost).

Oh yes of course I am being disingenuous -- just to save you the bother of reminding me.

Wow, the discussion sure got heated in no-time :-).

I read an article on the subject in the New York review of Books.
I tend to approve Ash's opinion that the next iranian generation will bring about the change. I don't think the U.S. has the means to open another front there especially not with their so called NATO "allies".
Maybe it is best to just sit and wait, Ash spent a few months in Iran, and he saw the seeds of change, there is a new emerging middle-upper class, in the enclosures of their homes there are parties, females are dressed in western fashion ....

For anyone interested :

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18390

to throw in a healthy dose of HATE, as that is the only other emotion that has been mastered by the Democrats.

Pretty funny, coming from the party of "tollerance and understanding".

Who are the US to decide?

It has to be done by the combined action of the UN, however much the US dislikes them. It looks like it might be going that way as even France is onside and then we just come down to Iranian intransigence and that would be a shame.

As for whether the "average Iranian" approves, the Iranian emigrees over here, despite their disapproval of the government in general, seem to be behind them on this one if their posts to the BBC are indicative.

the sanctions are directly and only linked to the nuclear dreams of the iranians.

taking responsibility for their own actions.
If republicans are the biz owners, they are afraid to take responsibility for destroying a towne in the south when a poorly maintained tailings dam gave way. Bush admin squelched the investigation and fines. Several lives were lost.

Afraid of responsibility for destroying the envt in alot of coal mountain 'topping', the new strip mining. they evade and get exceptions to envtl impact studies.

Afraid of responsibility for local destruction: small strip mining companies in Appalachia pollute and give cancer to nearby residents then declare bankruptcy to avoid fines. Same people then re-incorporate and start again.

Afraid to admin they are part of global warming, or even that it exists. Well, Max, even Bush admits it exists. Admitting a problem is the first step. Doesn't mean we share the blame or will have to pay for all of it. Developing countries being exempt from responsibility to reduce pollution is absurd.

Warming probably won't destroy life on earth but it will cause alot of hardships as sea levels rise and weather patterns change on scale unprecedented. You're hiding your head in the sand if you believe this is not happening or it is exagerrated by the 'liberal media'.

The one thing I fear is big govt. There is no effective method in place to keep 1) govt from spending more every year, in fact way more increase in spending than increase in GNP. 2) govt from devaluing our currency, the 'hidden' taxation.

This especially hurts the people who don't have cost of living increases, people on fixed incomes and the poor. Your buddy Bush has increased the budget in record amounts, even more than the scum Clinton. You call yourself a Libertarian? or is it currently a Republican? and you still support this guy?

I suspect we disagree largely because you are from the US and I'm not. Maybe I should start a thread on just how different that makes us.

Anyway, what I posted were not my views but the composite views culled from a couple of discussions, one on the Beebs website, about this issue. The posters were Iran-based Iranians and Iranian emigrees in the UK and elsewhere.

The discussion points seemed to be to be the lack of any semblance of even-handedness of the US and what was perceived as a US instigated attack from the UN. Israel was mentioned many times but as a UN-resolution-flouting rogue nuclear power - something which it undeniably is! North Korea and your complete inaction was mentioned - obviously. Many people, Iranian and otherwise, raised the issue of oil - again.

The biggest issue, however, was one of fear for what you would do next. You are threatening them both by words and by example in order that they [b]not[/b] develop a nuclear weapon. Leaving aside the fact that they say that their nuclear program is peaceful, were they to have a covert weapons program it would be for precisely the reason that they feel threatened!

Back to me! Where we differ - hugely, I feel - is in the illegality (for us) and, above all, the [b]stupidity[/b] of the Iraqi invasion. The Iraqi regime, for all of Saddam Hussein's posturing, was not an Islamo-Fascist state and was a buffer agains Iran. Not any more.

sorry, I obviously meant "tough". I'm hoping my dictionary not the only valid argument you have :-).
I didn't hear China or it's president threatening anybody so far, more than that they seem to nicely adopt western economics, business methods. So please, don't misinterpret what I'm trying to say, it's the COMBINATION of dictator, terroism, non-democracy, threats and so on.

How have the Iranian government threatened me?

...you must really have egg on your face.

You said, [i]"The only possible plus is that... they are not destabilising Saudi Arabia or blowing up more of your skyscrapers."[/i]

That's a pretty big plus, if you ask me!

I'm glad you are finally admitting that our actions in Iraq are having a direct result in reducing or eliminating further terrorist attacks in the United States and elsewhere. (More omelet egg on your face?)

You said, [i]"...they're still blowing up my city, though."[/i]

Well, go kick their ass, man. (I mean, arse, for the sake of our resident Australian jerk-off.) You guys are some tough hombres'. (A little Mexican lingo, there, for the "Undocumented American Citizens who are marching for their civil rights on American soil under the Mexican flag" who are among us!) When did you guys turn into pacifist pansies and daisies?

Spain showed fear in the face of their threats, and they retreated per their demands, only to later be spanked for it.

If you sit on your hands, they're going to slap your face. So get off your friggin' hands and hit back!

I don't care if I come across as the stereo-typical American Cowboy. Don't tread on me or my country, or else I'll hit back, and hit back hard. And I'll keep hitting until you cry Uncle, or Muhammad, or whatever it is you Islamo-Fascists cry when you've had enough. Pacifists among us don't understand that sentiment, but they certainly have us to thank for keeping them from getting spanked, like the Spanish have learned.

If anything, we aren't hitting them hard enough. And if you and the rest of the world would stand up and fight back, it would be very different today. But sadly, there are too many Neville Chamberlains among us, and not enough Winston Churchills.

But you aren't alone, Neil. The Democrats in America are right there with you. It wasn't President Bush who squandered the post 9-11 sentiment in America, it was the Democrats who did it. Democrats and the Spanish -- content to capitulate to their demands, sit on their hands, only to get slapped. Not to worry, however, as long as the pansies and daisies don't get into the White House, we'll be just fine.

As I've always maintained, these Islamo-Fascists terrorists, and those who support them, and those who harbor them, and those who cheer them on, and those who help breed their sentiment, have been slapping and spanking all of us for the past forty years, and we have all been sitting on our collective hands, asking them politely to please stop it. It's about friggin' time somebody did FINALLY start hitting back -- and hitting back hard.

I will say this, however. I know how your parents and grandparents must have felt when the Nazis kept hitting you guys, and no one else would come to your aid, or offered aid too late, or was late getting involved. And now, just like then, total destruction or unconditional surrender should be the ONLY acceptable outcome.

We need the spirit of Winston to come back and spook some sense into you guys. Come on, Neil. Show some of that British gumption, and kick some ass!

(Edited Addition)

P.S. to my message:

My message is what I consider both defining a cause and supporting our troops. The guys in uniform don't want to sit on their ass, but rather kick some Islamo-Fascist ass. I live in a very heavy military community, and I know. And contrary to what the new resident Australian jerk-off might have implied when he said, "Those are big words when it isn?t your life on the line", I know exactly what it's like to be in uniform, because I was, when pacifist pansies like him don't support the troops by not supporting what they do. Moreover, this is an all-volunteer force, and none of them would be there if they didn't want to be there.

(Can you tell that I'm getting really tired of their crap?)

"Well, go kick their ass, man". The guys who actually blew themselves up last year were English born. They gave, as their reasons, the UK's involvement in Iraq. No-one knows when or where they were recruited or trained and, as they are now extremely dead, we cannot ask them. The only (unreliable) information is that one of them travelled to Malaysia and the Philippines to meet leaders of an extremist Islamic group which is closely linked with al-Qaeda. It is thought likely that they were duped into believing that they were arming the bombs and would escape alive whereas the intention was that they were expendable, would die and therefore not talk. But that may just be misdirection by the security forces in an attempt to discourage other bombers.

The continued presence of UK forces in Iraq, especially wuth the publication of reports of mistreatment of prisoners, does nothing to lessen the fears and hatred of home-grown Muslim terrorists. Racial tension is high because of the reciprocal distrust of both Muslims and non-Muslims for each other. I would not be surprised if there were more riots in some cities this summer.

So. Do we invade Bradford? My nephew lives there so I guess not.

Your first point - that the continuing deaths of UK and US soldiers and Iraqi citizens - is a plus point (leaving aside the number or Iraqis killed during the war) saddens me. There are no winners, here.

"stereo-typical American Cowboy" How apt. Iraq reminds me most of a movie bar brawl, people hitting out in every direction with no rhyme nor reason and no real target.

"British gumption, and kick some ass" Gumption, the American equivalent is "horse sense", suggests that we know who where and what our target ass is before we kick it. Iraq was NOT that target.

Now, I'm off to bed.

I know that exists there, just as it does here. Like I said, it's been going on for FORTY YEARS, breeding and festering, and no one has done much more than offer it lip-service. And one way NOT to proceed is the same way that's been tried for the past FORTY YEARS. We have to root them out at home as well, but we have the Democrat pansies crying about that too!

Sweet Dreams, Neil. I hope you dream of Winston and listen to what he would have done.

[b]Democrats in 1993:[/b]
[i]An Iraqi intelligence agency was behind the bombing of the World Trade Center, which was intended to topple the two towers, killing tens of thousands of civilians, amid a cloud of cyanide gas.[/i]

[b]Democrats in 1995:[/b]
[i]The Sunday Times (London) has turned over to the IAEA a four-page document which suggests that Iraq has resumed its clandestine nuclear weapons program. The Democrats in the United States Congress are 100 percent behind President Clinton who vows to prevent that from happening.[/i]

[b]Democrats in 1997:[/b]
[i]Former UN Inspector Scott Ritter today testified in the U.S. Senate that the UN Special Commission on Iraq has intelligence indicating Iraq has assembled the components for three nuclear weapons and lacks only the fissile material needed to set them off. Democrats in Congress support President Clinton who vows to prevent that from happening.[/i]

[b]Democrats in 1998:[/b]
[i]Thank you President Clinton for signing into law the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, because Iraq, undeniably, has weapons of mass destruction that he will make available to terrorists; so we Democrats will vote unanimously (along with all the Republicans, of course, even though it's a Democrat president) to make it the law of the land. "Mark my words", said president Clinton upon signing this act into law, "Saddam will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them and he will use them."[/i]

[b]Democrats in 2000:[/b]
[i]Head of U.K. Defence intelligence says that Iraq "can regenerate biological warfare capability within months." In an interview with the Guardian, Richard Butler alleges that he has evidence from his time in Baghdad that Saddam Hussein had kept weapons of mass destruction from the U.N. and that over the past 18 months he has used the absence of the U.N. to build his arsenal of missiles and chemical and biological weapons. U.S. Department of Defense, in its report Proliferation: Threat and Response, states that "...in the absence of UNSCOM inspections and monitoring during 1999 and 2000, we are concerned that Baghdad again may have produced some biological warfare agents.", President Clinton and Democrats in Congress have warned.[/i]

[b]Democrats in 2002:[/b]
[i]To President Bush: You CAN'T invade Iraq because you will subject American troops to attacks by Saddam with his weapons of mass destruction.[/i]

[b]Democrats in 2004:[/b]
[i]Bush lied about the presence of weapons of mass destruction.[/i]
.
.
.
.
.
.
Is this a crazy world, or what?

While the US needs Arab oil that is impossible. I agree that the best way to deal with lunatics is to remove them but removing dangerous individuals with armies is impossible.

Personally I'm more worried about the loony in the white house. Left, Right it doesn?t matter the guard still needs to be changed on both sides. IMO what America needs right now is a centrist govt.

We need a total trade ban. A naval and Arial denial zone would be good but difficult to organise with the powers in that region.

Putting the pinch on the hip pocket of the average Iranian could turn against us but it?s the best idea I?ve heard yet.

Close your borders and stop importing Arab oil, simple. Of course this would lead to the total economic ruin of your nation but meh.

Can we remove the Amero-facists while we are at it?

He was the British PM in WWII. Although he was lord of the admiralty during WWI, WWI had no major naval engagements (only one in fact was Jutland (spelling may be wrong), and the big ships barely made contact, it was fought mainly with torpedo boats). Churchill was responsible for the greatest military defeat my nation has ever suffered and you are soiling the memory of every brave digger (soldier in our language) which is still there on Anzac cove.

I like Winston Churchill, he was a great [b]political[/b] leader we need more Polly?s like him (and fewer like GWB). As for military leaders we need more that can stand up to the govt controlling them and go "this is stupid, it can?t be done". I'd settle for a Nelson, Ike or Patton men who understood the operational art of war.

Terrorist organisations have repeatedly offered Australia (and Brittan) peace in exchange for ceasing our support for the War on Terror. We refused, and this is the thanks we get, Arse. Some of Australia?s left-wing parties (I'm a centrist myself neither left nor right but our political systems different to yours) have demanded that we tear up the ANZUS treaty (Australian, New-Zealand, United States, although I don?t think NZ is apart of it any more) but mainstream Australia have said no.

Max, you are an ungrateful arse.

Don't you think I realize that Winston Churchill was the British PM in W.W.II. What a stupid thing to say.

The decision to wage war is not, at its conception, a military strategy, but rather a political strategy. When reasonable negotiations fail, war is the political outcome that results.

To retort that Churchill was a political leader, not a military leader, is stupid. All wars, at least involving the United States, are never started by military leaders, but rather political leaders. And this war takes just as much political courage to wage as military might to win. And in my opinion, much of the world lacks the political courage to wage this one.

You should really be embarrassed for posting such a stupid message.

You've proven what you are for all to see.

I believe it was the right thing to do by removing Saddam Hussein from power. You can disagree all you want. I don't care. Like I said, we all know what you are.

http://tinyurl.com/6wbv

Oh, sorry, I didn't realize that it's about you personaly :-). So, as long as yu're OK the rest can go to hell ? How did Bush personaly threat you in this case ?

Oxymoron.

By definition, if he shouldn't have been removed, then he should be put back. If he shouldn't be put back, then he should have been removed.

I love it when you guys try to have it both ways. You really do look silly.

I wonder, by the way, if people would have had this kind of discussion in 1940 if the world, or even some country unilaterally, had removed Adolph Hitler from power in 1936-37 after he openly defied the military limitations set by the Treaty of Versailles?

...authority to tell the average Muslim that something is wrong? Does it mean that an average human being needs someone (all the time) to remind them of what is wrong and right?

And to add to the growing list, of religioius/cultural institutions that do not have a central figure, please add Hinduism too :-)

I agree pretty much with every thing you say about Saddam but you seem to be overlooking one tiny item. [b][i]Saddam was running around rattling the NBCW sabre. (nuclear, biological, chemical, warfare) All evidence pointed to the possibility that he had WMD. The US could not and would not run the risk, that his arsenals were full of WMD and that he [u]might[/u] make good on his threats.[/i][/b] Forget all the hooey about toppling a repressive dictator to bring democracy to the Iraqis, that was the major reason for going after Saddam.

The UN is contolled by a pack of repressive and reactionary third world nations, suborned by Islamic fundamentalists; an excellent reason for the US not to place much store in expecting much from the UN. It is also one of of the reasons the US would like to send the UN packing from its shores, which IMO would be no great loss. BTW speaking of Churchill, he was against granting France any right of veto in the UN but the US insisted; look what that has brought you in terms of gratitude.

Now back to the Middle East and the Iran problem. The world is now being presented with a similar problem with this clown the Iranians have chosen in a moment of misguided stupidity, who is doing almost the same thing that Saddam did, rattling a nuclear sabre, which is empty for now. I have already posted an article that Iran isn't ten years from having a nuclear capability for weapons but in actuality is only three years away.
IMO take the SOB and his fanatical Islamic fundamentalists off the board now before they can make good on their threats. Still think I'm being too extreme. BTW they are threatening nuclear action; it seems only just they be taken out by the same methods.

Think back and perhaps you will remember the Israelis took out an [b]effing French built[/b] power station that would have given Iraq a potential nuclear capability. That was over twenty-five years ago and everyone, especially the effing frogs, took Israel to task for that. It's starting to look like we should be thanking the Israelis for doing that and prepare to do the same once again before it is too late. Still think I'm being too extreme???

Remember what I said about Denver being an ideal target to present as an example of nuclear capability. It doesn't have be a thermo nuclear device, in fact probably won't be but looking at Denver in terms of its topography and using a "dirty bomb" it is ideal. What I hate about this; is too many of my direst predictions seem to be coming true. Think about it and then think about calling me an extremist. Not so extreme now, am I???

[b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

And I think you are taking my extreme comment a little to the extreme. I replied to a comment you made about killing ALL Muslims, or something like that. Yes, I agree that there's a huge faction of Muslims that meet your description, and rightfully so; you are right-on about that. But I just can't go along with the ALL Muslims sentiment. Unfortunately, the ones who actually DO want to live in peace with the west aren't the ones in power in many countries.

I have yet to see any Muslims of power come out in comdemnation of these fanatics. In my opinion, if you aren't against them, then you are for them and all my past experience with Muslims, especially the Arab, Iranian, African and Pakistani varieties, holds this to be true. Sorry Max, but that is the conclusion I have drawn based upon the scars I got, living amongst them for over two years. Top that off withthe business dealings I've had in that corner of the world and you will pardon me, I hope, for remaining very skeptical of them. Until their leader offer up open comdemnation and take overt action against the terrorists, I'm keeping my guard up.

[b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

Because you are acting [b]before[/b] you think. I can?t say it any more clearly or simply than that.

I (for the third time) said don?t put him back, you cant put him back its too late. GWB should have thought [b]before[/b] he went off half-cocked and dragged the one of the few semi-stable Mid-East countries into sectarian violence.

As for WMD's, Iran, the UN and our respective govts. I will address in another post. This one is just for TR's most dense member (you missed the point three time's max and by two different people).

In that order.

WMD - a media created buzz word meant to instil (monger) fear. Please try to see past that. Let?s look at the facts. Did Hans Blix find any WMD's, no. Did you (US armed forces) find any WMD's, no. Did you find any WMD manufacturing facilities (in production or recently used), no. What Evidence did you find of WMD's, a few rusted arty shells that [b]could[/b] be used to carry chemical or bio weapons. Nothing was found before or after invasion so your reasons for going are invalid, now you need to admit that (that?s all, just take some damn responsibility).

Iran, this is a whole different kettle of fish. They want nuclear power (if you want me to take US claims at face value I will accord the same courtesy to the Iranians) but I realise the dangers of this. Especially when Iran has other power options, including wind and solar and if Iran wants wind power we or possibly the Dutch could help them. The US could go to war with Iran, in the process you would loose all international backing, send your slowing economy into a downward spiral and get hundreds of thousands killed fending off trademark Iranian human wave attacks (if you want to know more about fighting human wave attacks talk to the Iraqi under your jackboot). Neil suggested an excellent idea of putting pressure on the Iranian hip pocket, while this plan is not perfect (what is?) it still the best idea I?ve heard (if you?ve got a better one lets hear it, INNOVATE people).

The UN was a good idea, it still is but it suffers from two problems. The first is bureaucracy but this is problem anywhere and no-one is yet to find a solution. The second and bigger problem is that Americans tend to view the UN as their organisation. Let me say this for the record [b]The UN does not exist to serve American interests[/b] its meant to be an INTERNATIONAL organisation used to prevent major wars and human rights abuses (a job the US makes harder by using its veto's and refusing to help on peacekeeping missions to no-oilistan). BTW the UN was designed with bureaucracy and without an army of its own so it doesn?t become the first one world government.

Our Governments, All three of our govts (US, OZ and UK) need to be replaced because all three have failed us (the people, you know the ones they are MEANT to represent). Both parties need to be sacked and replaced with newly elected representatives. The current electoral systems are designed to maintain the status quo not to stimulate political change, this system needs to be overhauled. The US needs to come in from the extreme edges (left and right) and make use of the middle ground. Democracy was never meant to be stagnant for so long, times have changes we need to change with them.