Thread: "We must attack Iran."

Originally Posted by Smiler_1985

On the subject of Holocaust Denial............. http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showt...59c89a&t=24177

Some bint in uni other day was preaching her 'god bothering' and gawping at this site during breaks for air. Lol i had a gander on the sneak. Kinda crazy this lot are methinks.

Thank goodness I worship beer instead of gods

Landover Baptist is satire. They aren't serious.

Small step off topic but do we know just what changes Mousavi would bring internally and internationally? Changing one mad tyrant for something similar?

Originally Posted by OldRedCap

Small step off topic but do we know just what changes Mousavi would bring internally and internationally? Changing one mad tyrant for something similar?

posted this on the other thread: his record 'ain't good:

there is nothing in Mussavi's record , or Karrubi's for that matter, to make them more attractive than Ahmadinejad. Mussavi was prime minister during the most repressive phase of Iran's history under Khomeinism. It was under his watch that tens of thousands of political prisoners were executed, often without trial. Karrubi presided over a parliament at a time it passed some of the most repressive laws in the Islamic Republic.

http://www.aawsat.com/english/news.a...ion=2&id=17125

maybe he's changed some?

Originally Posted by gnuorder

Originally Posted by Dashing_Chap

Originally Posted by littlejim

Yes, the Iranians think the Israelis are a bunch of war criminals, but then again, so do I.

Me too, but it wouldn't be my foreign policy to wipe them off the face of the earth as it is for Iran following the Koranic injunction to "destroy the Jews wherever you find them".

Regardless of Ahmadinejad's blistering sword rattling, the rhetoric was aimed at Zionism, not Jews, and it is not Iran's foreign policy to wipe anyone off the face of the Earth. It doesn't do any good to attribute the radical inflammatory and mistranslated statements of a few extremists to the government or population as a whole. I think we all know politicians who say things that make us cringe.

So when Imadinnerjacket openly stated to the world's press that he wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth he actually meant something else? Jack Straw might be a bit of a tit but he has more tact than that.

-DC

Originally Posted by Dashing_Chap

So when Imadinnerjacket openly stated to the world's press that he wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth
-DC

He didn't. He just plain didn't, as has been explained here and elsewhere 1000s of times.

Originally Posted by OldRedCap

Small step off topic but do we know just what changes Mousavi would bring internally and internationally? Changing one mad tyrant for something similar?

Mousavi is part of the establishment. By all reasonable accounts, he came a distant second in the election as Ahmadinejad romped home.

I am concerned that the current unrest in Tehran is a cunning ploy to flush out the 'real' underground opposition, destroy it, and also implicate certain elements of the international community (UK and the US??). I sense an ambush is being laid and I doubt any of the Brownshirts in London have any clue as to how to proceed.

Originally Posted by Rumpelstiltskin

Originally Posted by Dashing_Chap

So when Imadinnerjacket openly stated to the world's press that he wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth
-DC

He didn't. He just plain didn't, as has been explained here and elsewhere 1000s of times.

True. But you mustn't let a little falsehood get in the way of a good rant of pure ignorance. :D

Originally Posted by ALVIN

Never mind about IRAN. But what gives the right for the west to funking chose who to and who not to attack in the world, BEFORE BEING ATTACKED FIRST. ?????????????????????????? Did not Hitler have the same idea?

Iran has already commited 2 acts of war against us, we chose to do nothing. Now that they have expelled 2 diplomats G Broon has been "quick to respond". This could be the wakeup call that Iran needs to get rid of all this theocracy nonsense.

Originally Posted by Tytus_Barnowl

Originally Posted by ALVIN

Never mind about IRAN. But what gives the right for the west to funking chose who to and who not to attack in the world, BEFORE BEING ATTACKED FIRST. ?????????????????????????? Did not Hitler have the same idea?

Iran has already commited 2 acts of war against us, we chose to do nothing.

What? I didn't realise apprehension, detention and release of individuals who had accidentally entered Iranian sovereign territory was an act of war. In fact, The Iranians have a stronger case to claim the UK has committed 2 acts of war against them!

Just because UK Plc seems to allow all and sundry upon our shores regardless of (lack of) right or prior permission, does not constitute an obligation upon another state to do likewise.

Originally Posted by whitecity

What? I didn't realise apprehension, detention and release of individuals who had accidentally entered Iranian sovereign territory

Is this actually the case?

( Don't think so. )

Originally Posted by Bravo_Bravo

Originally Posted by whitecity

What? I didn't realise apprehension, detention and release of individuals who had accidentally entered Iranian sovereign territory

Is this actually the case?

( Don't think so. )

Somewhere inbetween the two:

In April 2008 redacted documents from the initial MoD inquiry[2] for Chief of the Defence Staff Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup were released to The Times under Freedom of Information laws. The Times states that the British sailors captured by Iran were "in internationally disputed waters and not in Iraq’s maritime territory as Parliament was told", that the US-led coalition had drawn a boundary line between Iran and Iraq without informing the Iranians, that Iranian coastal protection vessels regularly crossed this coalition defined boundary, and that the British were first to raise their weapons in the incident before the Iranian gunboats came alongside

That's Wiki, but see also: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3761058.ece

Originally Posted by whitecity

Originally Posted by OldRedCap

Small step off topic but do we know just what changes Mousavi would bring internally and internationally? Changing one mad tyrant for something similar?

Mousavi is part of the establishment. By all reasonable accounts, he came a distant second in the election as Ahmadinejad romped home.

I am concerned that the current unrest in Tehran is a cunning ploy to flush out the 'real' underground opposition, destroy it, and also implicate certain elements of the international community (UK and the US??). I sense an ambush is being laid and I doubt any of the Brownshirts in London have any clue as to how to proceed.

And I thought it was just me that thought the 'opposition' was orchestrated by the winning side, to show how 'democratic' Iran actually is? "See . we're not gunning down students and protestors , like Burma or China"..

I can't help wondering how representative the Iranian talking heads we see on the media are. Or more accurately, the English speaking media.

Some of them appear to me as elitist metropolitan intellectuals - the equivalent in this country would be a muesli munching Islington dwelling Guardian reader with a job in Diversity Studies with the council. The prevalence of Web 2.0 twittering blogosphere circle jerk inanities on the subject merely confirms my prejudices in this area.

And then there are the professional lobbyists - who make a living telling their sponsors what they want to hear. They didn't prove to be particularly accurate about Iraq. I see some comments that say more about how some Americans would like the world to be than about reality. The belief that dropping a few bombs will sort things out is the obvious example.

What I don't see is the average Iranian - because they don't speak English or use the new, trendy media. I strongly suspect that your average Iranian sees the woman who got shot not as a martyr but as someone from the privileged elite too stupid to run away when things kicked off. (Just look back at the debate over Ian Tomlinson's death during the demo in London for examples of differences in opinion.)

And that's why I don't think Ahmadinejad lost; he plays very well to the home crowd. That said, it does beg the question why the election was rigged in such a public manner when there was no need for it to be ? Wheels within wheels indeed, and unless you speak the language and know the human terrain inside out you, like me, are just guessing.

Originally Posted by PartTimePongo

Originally Posted by whitecity

Originally Posted by OldRedCap

Small step off topic but do we know just what changes Mousavi would bring internally and internationally? Changing one mad tyrant for something similar?

Mousavi is part of the establishment. By all reasonable accounts, he came a distant second in the election as Ahmadinejad romped home.

I am concerned that the current unrest in Tehran is a cunning ploy to flush out the 'real' underground opposition, destroy it, and also implicate certain elements of the international community (UK and the US??). I sense an ambush is being laid and I doubt any of the Brownshirts in London have any clue as to how to proceed.

And I thought it was just me that thought the 'opposition' was orchestrated by the winning side, to show how 'democratic' Iran actually is? "See . we're not gunning down students and protestors , like Burma or China"..

Do you also share my reservations that the young chap currently masquarading as the FM is at a significant disadvantage when talking to Iran? I mean, he is Jewish and comes from the greatest imperialist Satan of all; his father was a Jew and a Marxist; and his grandfather was a Jew, a Marxist and a Red Army volunteer from the very beginning! I'm struggling to see - from the Islamic State of Iran's perspective - any positive traits at all.

Originally Posted by whitecity

Originally Posted by Rumpelstiltskin

Originally Posted by Dashing_Chap

So when Imadinnerjacket openly stated to the world's press that he wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth
-DC

He didn't. He just plain didn't, as has been explained here and elsewhere 1000s of times.

True. But you mustn't let a little falsehood get in the way of a good rant of pure ignorance. :D

I stand corrected & lose a little more faith in the veracity of Western reporting.

-DC