• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Iran Super Thread- Merged

Xiang said:
Sorry 48th/Bruce... I didn't bother looking through the site thoroughly.  I came across the story and found it interesting.  First time on that site actually.

So basically, your views are based on googleing and finding articles that suit your tastes.

I am not saying there is anything wrong with that, I just hope others are not condemned for doing the same, when their views do not match yours.  Considering that you demanded, with the help of many deity's, for others to not use slanted or Faux news....


Just needed clarification, I am a nitpicky about hypocrisy, is all, I will go back to watching this debate and tend to my plants.

dileas

tess
 
That article didn't "suit my taste".  I simply found it interesting.

As for debating, of course I use google to look for supporting information.  It's the best source out there.

I wouldn't condemn others for doing the same.  In fact, I have actively asked people to support their arguments with sources.  Some refused to do so, which is quite unfortunate.  But I would never condemn someone for it. 

I didn't discourage others to use Fox or CNN (I myself used the Washington Post and other MSM sources).  I was simply referring to some pundits corner who is only out for rating than telling the truth,  to use as a source.
 
However, a lot of my opinions come from personal experience.  I may not be in the "line of fire" as someone else mentioned, but I have traveled, seen things, and met people that have really given me a perspective on things.

Most times it's not all black and white.  There is a lot of gray in between that NEEDS to be taken into account, whether the person I am debating likes it or not.

I also visit a lot of other global military message boards and it helps give a good perspective on things as well.

When you are in the line of fire, you only know what your chain of command tells you.
 
Xiang said:
That article didn't "suit my taste".  I simply found it interesting.

As for debating, of course I use google to look for supporting information.  It's the best source out there.

I wouldn't condemn others for doing the same.  In fact, I have actively asked people to support their arguments with sources.  Some refused to do so, which is quite unfortunate.  But I would never condemn someone for it. 

I didn't discourage others to use Fox or CNN (I myself used the Washington Post and other MSM sources).  I was simply referring to some pundits corner who is only out for rating than telling the truth,  to use as a source.

Xiang said:
However, a lot of my opinions come from personal experience.  I may not be in the "line of fire" as someone else mentioned, but I have traveled, seen things, and met people that have really given me a perspective on things.

Most times it's not all black and white.  There is a lot of gray in between that NEEDS to be taken into account, whether the person I am debating likes it or not.

I also visit a lot of other global military message boards and it helps give a good perspective on things as well.

When you are in the line of fire, you only know what your chain of command tells you.

clap2.gif



I commend you in your explanation, on how you gather information and why.

However, you set the parameters of what resources people may use, then broke those rules.  Even as far as to admitting that it was the title that caught your eye, and did not even look into the website.  Am I to believe you even read the article?

You no doubt would have jumped on someone else who did that, would you not agree?

I just wanted to point that out to you, that's all, as I said I am not of fan of people talking from the side of their mouth.

dileas

tess
 
Xiang said:
However, a lot of my opinions come from personal experience.  I may not be in the "line of fire" as someone else mentioned, but I have traveled, seen things, and met people that have really given me a perspective on things.

Most times it's not all black and white.  There is a lot of gray in between that NEEDS to be taken into account, whether the person I am debating likes it or not.

I also visit a lot of other global military message boards and it helps give a good perspective on things as well.

When you are in the line of fire, you only know what your chain of command tells you.

Ah yes,... we only know what our chain of command tells us,... because we are just unthinking automations and can't read or use the internet or anything, see in any shade beside black and white or gain any perspective from our own personal experience, well unless the the chain of command provides it for us!

We certainly aren't as capable as the likes of YOU to find alternate sources of information and news beyond our chain of command,....

You are a twat and I cite your own comment as my proof of that statement!
 
I was speaking literal sense.  When you are in the line of fire, you only know what your chain of command tells you (Speaking directly from the previous comment made)

In other words, I am in front of a computer right now, so I have the luxury of looking things up in detail.  Those in the line of fire do not have that luxury and are required to think fast and carry out orders, or you die.

I was commenting on how that statement made no sense in terms of the debate.

I would appreciate it if you refrain from personal insults.  Thanks  ::)
 
I also would appreciate it if you would refrain from tossing out generalized insults or at least that's what my chain of command has informed me that I would appreciate
 
If you can quote something I said that was a generalized insult (I did not insult anyone in this thread, even when personally attacked on multiple occasions) I will certainly try my best to refrain from any future infractions.

And you can let your chain of command know as well...
 
I already did quote it, you said:

When you are in the line of fire, you only know what your chain of command tells you.

Which to me is a generalized insult to combat arms types inferring that we are incapable of independent thought, only knowing what our chain of command tells us.

Kind of hard to read it any other way regardless of your perspective

I would insert the stupid little rolling eyes smiley here for you but I try to avoid using toys

 
When you are in the line of fire, you only know what your chain of command tells you.

And I made it clear after that I said it (and meant it) in literal terms, so that should have cleared it up right there.  I'm not sure why you want to keep going on about it.

I myself am in the combat arms as well (RCAC)
 
I have been following the news from Iran and the thread with m ore than a passing interest, having spent some time in Iran in 1988 while part of UNIIMOG.

This only a personal perspective and observation.

The people of Iran are no different than any other population of any other country.  They simply want to live their lives as they see fit.  To a great many of them there is no separation between the Secular and Religious worlds.  They have the government that they choose.  Will things change as a result of the “Election”, and the societal upheaval it’s causing?  Probably.  Will it get rid of the Theocratic system that they have now?  Probably not.  Will it reform or change the balance of power within the system? Who knows?  We can only hope that it does.  In the end Iran will get the government that they decide that they want.  It is no different than any other country in the world.

There are comments here about whether the president of Iran threatened to “Wipe Israel from the pages of history”  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/86633.75.html

Ahmadinejad's statement literally translated says that "the Zionist regime should be wiped from the page of time" (بايد از صفحه روزگار محو شود). According to Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, Ahmadinejad's statement should be translated as: The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).

The wording above is semantics at best.  Very, very rarely will you ever hear of Israel being referred to directly in Iran, and on those occasions when it is, it is almost always a precursor to a diatribe calling for a Jihad against occupiers and infidels.  The GOVERNMENT of Iran is about as anti Israel as you can get.  The perverse thing about this is that they are not domestically anti Jewish.  In downtown Tehran there is an intersection that has a Mosque on one corner, a Synagogue on another and a Christian Church on a third and Souk occupying the fourth.  Even the Jewish population of Tehran that I meet were vehemently against the state of Israel’s existence.  The government of Iran has made no secret of its desire to destroy Israel itself or to see it destroyed by proxy, they don’t much care.  For them it is a means for maintaining power for the sake of power.

Too the people of Iran, I wish you the beat of luck in determining the path to follow, To Ahmadinejad and Ali Khamenei, that light you see isn’t the end of the tunnel, it’s the train.
 
Yea, Iran is a rather interesting country.  I was there for almost a year back in 2004.  One thing that struck me was the demographics of their population age. IIRC, 70% of the population was under 30, and nearly all of them were much more moderate than their more conservative government.

Whether the Mullas want it or not, a revolution will eventually come over Iran.
 
Xiang said:
However, a lot of my opinions come from personal experience.  I may not be in the "line of fire" as someone else mentioned, but I have traveled, seen things, and met people that have really given me a perspective on things...

...I also visit a lot of other global military message boards and it helps give a good perspective on things as well.

For someone who has such an awsome perspective on things, I'd say you've been argued into the ground pretty effectively.

...that is, unless you're willing to actually address the issues at hand:

Wonderbread said:
- You made the assertion that Iran was not out for the destruction of Israel.  I think given Iran's longtime support for Hezbollah, we've shown that to point to be false.

- You made the assertion that Iran does not pose a security threat to us.  Given information for the same sources you use (and therefore you must consider reliable and accurate), we've found that Iran is providing insurgents in Afghanistan weapons to kill Canadian and coalition soldiers.  Given that this undermines Canadian security, we've shown your assertion to be false.

- You've made the assertion that Iran is in full compliance with IAEA inspections and Security Council resolutions.  Given the IAEA Board of Governors Report released only a week ago (your own source), we've proven that your assertion is false.

-And as George just pointed out (again), pressure must be put on Iran to limit their potential for nuclear weapons, for the reasons stated above.

Wonderbread said:
All you have left is to say that Iranian government should be given the benefit of the doubt, in spite of their hostile intent and the grave risk to our security. It's naive in the most dangerous way possible.
 
WOW!  I now wonder if we should change the title of this thread to:  "How to discredit one's self in five easy steps"
 
It would be nice to see this thread get back on track instead of being used by a troll with an agenda and everybody feeding him/her/it.....
 
Another update: now at least one Iranian cleric is calling for the execution of the rioters.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/090626/world/international_us_iran_election

1 hour, 15 minutes ago


By Parisa Hafezi
 
TEHRAN (Reuters) - A hardline Iranian cleric on Friday called for the execution of "rioters," in a sign of the authorities' determination to stamp out opposition to the June 12 presidential election result.


(EDITORS' NOTE: Reuters and other foreign media are subject to Iranian restrictions on their ability to report, film or take pictures in Tehran.)


Iran's top legislative body, the Guardian Council, said it had found no major violations in the election, which it called the "healthiest" vote since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.


The council had already rejected a call for the annulment of the vote by moderate former Prime Minister Mirhossein Mousavi, who has led mass protests since he was declared a distant second in the election behind incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.


"I want the judiciary to ... punish leading rioters firmly and without showing any mercy to teach everyone a lesson," Ahmad Khatami told worshippers at Tehran University.


Iranian state television said on Thursday eight Basij militiamen were killed by "rioters" during the protests. State media previously said 20 people were killed in the marches.


The Group of Eight foreign ministers, meeting in Italy, said they "deplored" the post-election violence and called on Iran to settle the crisis soon through democratic dialogue and peaceful means.


"The crisis should be settled soon through democratic dialogue and peaceful means on the basis of the rule of law," said a final draft statement by the G8 ministers. "We call on the Iranian government to guarantee that the will of the Iranian people is reflected in the electoral process."



HARSH PUNISHMENT


Iranian authorities have accused Mousavi of being responsible for the bloodshed, while the moderate former prime minister says the government is to blame.


Khatami, a member of the Assembly of Experts, said the judiciary should charge the leading "rioters" as being "mohareb" or one who wages war against God.


"They should be punished ruthlessly and savagely," he said. Under Iran's Islamic law, punishment for people convicted as mohareb is execution.


Mousavi's supporters plan to release thousands of balloons on Friday with the message: "Neda you will always remain in our hearts," in memory of Neda Agha Soltan, the young woman killed last week who has become an icon of the demonstrations.


Khatami said Neda was killed by the rioters themselves for propaganda purposes. "By watching the film, any wise person can understand that rioters killed her," he said.


Britain's Times newspaper quoted Dr. Arash Hejazi, an Iranian who appeared on Internet videos helping Neda, as echoing opposition charges the 26-year-old music student was killed by a government militiaman.


"She was just a person in the street who was against the injustice going on in her country, and for that she was murdered," he said. Hejazi said that after the protest he left Iran for Britain, where he is resident, fearing arrest.


The authorities have used a combination of warnings, arrests and the threat of police action to drive large demonstrations off Tehran's street since Saturday with small gatherings dispersed with tear gas and baton charges.

Russia, which along with China congratulated Ahmadinejad on his re-election earlier this month, said on Friday it was seriously concerned by the use of force in Iran.

"We naturally express our most serious concern about the use of force and the death of civilians," Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was quoted as saying on the sidelines of the G8 meeting.

Russia was among countries at the G8 anxious not to slam the door on possible talks with Iran, the world's fifth largest oil exporter, over its nuclear program.

"I think there is unity here that it is for the Iranian people to choose their government but it is for the Iranian government to protect their people," British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said after the foreign ministers' meeting.

The 12-man Guardian Council's statement leaves little scope for more legal challenges to the election result, short of an attack on the position of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has expressed strong support for Ahmadinejad.

"The Guardian Council has almost finished reviewing defeated candidates' election complaints...the reviews showed that the election was the healthiest since the revolution ... There were no major violations in the election," said Abbasali Kadkhodai, spokesman of the council.

Former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a Mousavi ally, chairs the Assembly of Experts which has the constitutional power to depose Khamenei. The assembly has never tried to do so and Rasfanjani is seen as unlikely to take such a radical step.

Mousavi said he was determined to keep challenging the election results despite pressure to stop. He called on his supporters to continue "legal" protests and said restrictions on the opposition could lead to more violence.
 
If that 'opinion' becomes too prevalent, then it may backfire on them and the demonstrators will arm themselves.  This could encourage armed rebellion as opposed to the 'peaceful' (relatively) demonstrations that are occuring now.  This cleric may find that it is his life on the line, not those of the citizens.
 
GAP said:
It would be nice to see this thread get back on track instead of being used by a troll with an agenda and everybody feeding him/her/it.....

Most agreed. 

Xiang, why don't you start a dedicated thread to "Iran is a benign nation that is the victim of a global conspiracy" thread?  Then anyone who goes there to engage you can endlessly talk in circles and we don't junk up an existing, unrelated topic?  That seems fair and civilized right? 
 
George Wallace said:
If that 'opinion' becomes too prevalent, then it may backfire on them and the demonstrators will arm themselves.  This could encourage armed rebellion as opposed to the 'peaceful' (relatively) demonstrations that are occuring now.  This cleric may find that it is his life on the line, not those of the citizens.

This presumes the citizens have access to arms. Like the Chinese before them, and the various Eastern European nations before them, and peasants for all of history, a disarmed population is helpless before the armed might of the State. It is very instructive to remember that Romania had several mass movements that were snuffed out by the security forces, only when the Army abandoned the regime of Nicolae Ceauşescu did it succeed. The various "Velvet", Rose, Orange, Cedar, etc. revolutions were only possible because the government was unwilling to use force to suppress the crowds. (This is where the theory that mass communications via the Internet can assist freedom)

If the government has no fear of international consequences (and face it, "we" haven't shown a resolute face towards various thugs and dictators), then they can pretty much carry out whatever actions they please to maintain power.

Taking one of Edward's earlier posts as a jumping off point, if Khatami were to loose his luster as "Supreme Ruler" by getting too partisan, or the Revolutionary Guard or Basji were too violent, elements of the security forces or Army might chose to side with the crowds, in which case it becomes open season. The only other lever the crowds have (IMO) is economic, a prolonged mass strike that shuts down the economy might also finally drive the Theocracy from power.
 
Back
Top