Official Iran Thread

Perun said:
*shrugs*

Honestly, have we heard anything substantially different in the past five, ten, twenty or thirty years?
Click to expand...

I took into account with that reaction, so I did my best to emphasize the differences in my post.

Perhaps for you the only substantial difference is news about the actual attack? :D
 
Forostar said:
I took into account with that reaction, so I did my best to emphazise the differences in my post.

Perhaps for you the only substantial difference is news about the actual attack? :D
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. What differences? What attack?
 
Perun said:
What differences?
Click to expand...
The ones you were asking for:
Perun said:
Honestly, have we heard anything substantially different in the past five, ten, twenty or thirty years?
Click to expand...
In my post I used some brown kind of colour to emphasize new aspects (differences), compared with previous threats.
Perun said:
What attack?
Click to expand...
Attack: Israel attacking Iran or the other way around. A real attack would be the only substantial difference for you, I said jokingly ;-).
 
It's still just words. There's been words for ages. Please pardon me if I don't get excited over every new word that gets said. Besides, the Iranian government has said many a times that they would respond strongly to an Israeli or US attack. I can't find anything new or unexpected in these utterings. Just because they mention what weapons they will use does not make it different in substance for me.

Something substantially different would be a statement saying that the Iranian government is trying to build nuclear weapons, that they intend to use them. Or that western sanctions are hitting the people but not the government, and that a solution needs to be worked on that would minimise the suffering of the people (which would betray compassion for the population by the government, which I doubt exists).

This whole"my dick is bigger than yours" talk has been going on for decades.

LooseCannon said:
Maybe you should just keep predicting. Nobody wants a military strike.
Click to expand...

You and me do not. But this detailed coverage and over-analysis of every word an Iranian minister says and of every hypothetical plan an Israeli general has proposed makes me think that the media are thirsting for such a strike. It's like they want a payoff for all the build-up they've generated for a decade now.
 
Perun said:
Something substantially different would be a statement saying that the Iranian government is trying to build nuclear weapons, that they intend to use them. Or that western sanctions are hitting the people but not the government, and that a solution needs to be worked on that would minimise the suffering of the people (which would betray compassion for the population by the government, which I doubt exists).
Click to expand...

That won't happen soon, especially not the first statement (no clear access given -> without clear access, no proof, no statement). Apart from international sanctions: in e.g. Syria and Libya the people have tried to change matters, against all costs. In Iran there were some revolts but it was very shortlived. Sometimes I wonder how much change they really want.
 
Forostar said:
Apart from international sanctions: in e.g. Syria and Libya the people have tried to change matters, against all costs. In Iran there were some revolts but it was very shortlived. Sometimes I wonder how much change they really want.
Click to expand...

What the hell are you talking about? "some revolts"? "shortlived"? Yes, the situation has calmed down lately. But that doesn't mean that there hadn't been major protests for over two years. No, western media did not report that. But just because it was not on television screens in Europe does not mean it did not happen.
Do you know what the major difference between the situation in Syria and Libya is? The people of Iran do not want violence. Note the "not". They are protesting peacefully and want peaceful change. Peace. Not violence. It's really not a hard concept to understand. Peace. No killing. Peace. It's very easy to judge from our comfortable chairs based on the information or lack thereof that is coming to our living rooms pre-digested by media.
Questioning the people's intentions or will for change is paying disrespect for those who became victims of the government. People got shot. People died. We do not know what something like that is like here in our countries that have been peaceful democracies for sixty years or more.
The people in Syria and Libya have been living in relative peace for many decades. The people in Iran who are around thirty now have witnessed war. They saw their cities bombed by the Iraqi airforce. Many had their fathers coming home injured, or not come home at all. Read up on it. Iran-Iraq War. So you can go ahead and blame a generation that suffered through war in their childhood wanting to bring about change in a peaceful way. Or you can consider that Libya, Syria and Iran are different countries.
 
I apologise for the tone of the above post. I should have taken my own advice and let some time pass between reading something that makes me angry and phrasing a response.
 
No prob mate. Accepted of course! I do confess that my post can be seen as a provocation. I actually find your reply very insightful and we can only learn from it.

But how then would you explain why country A does it with violence and country B (rather) not?
Perhaps then the current situation is easier for me to understand.
 
In my opinion, it is as I said: Country A (let's call it Syria) has not experienced what it is like if the whole society is engaged in a destructive war in the middle of society. Sure Syria has been in armed conflicts in the past decades, but these have not involved millions of soldiers from all the country and bombing raids on their cities. Country B (let's call it Iran) has. The memory is still alive in the minds of the people, but they have also known two decades of peace, so they come from experience when they prefer peace to war. Hence, the people of Country B are much less willing to experience it again and will try everything to bring about a peaceful solution before resorting to violence.
 
Looks like Iran is getting it's own internet ...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...458194-01c3-11e2-b260-32f4a8db9b7e_story.html

Long article, but this is the gist of it. So no maidenfans for those in Iran and I guess back to DVDs for porn



The Iranian government, determined to limit Western influence and defend itself against cyberattacks, appears to have laid the technical foundations for a national online network that would be detached from the Internet and permit tighter control over the flow of information.

The concept of a self-contained network has been reverberating within Iran for almost a decade and has often been treated with skepticism, given the significant investment in infrastructure and security that would be required. But Iranian officials and outside experts say that development of the network has accelerated following cyberattacks aimed at the country’s nuclear program.
Click to expand...
 
Meanwhile, the population still suffers.

Metal drummer flees Iran danger

Could Australia soon have its first heavy-metal refugee? A 28-year-old man detained at Manus Island says he fled to Australia after being an underground metal drummer in Iran, where executions are ''as common as eating a piece a cake''.

(Read on in the link)
 
Theocracy's finest moments.
While I agree about western media being a big threat to Iran, banning doesn't work. It never worked, it never will. Give that mechanism to the ruling class, and it's going to backlash, big time. Resulting in bullshit like this.

I would opt for Iranian revolution any-day, if it weren't sponsored by USA/Israel/affiliates.
 
What do you mean with "weren't"? Are you honestly telling me that the millions who went out on the street in 2009 were US agents?
 
Hell no.

But there's no way they would form a democratic government without foreign interference. Western pressure on Iran has got little to do with human rights. See records for Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and a few dozen of African countries.
However, if that would happen (which I disbelieve today, but tomorrow might change), Russia and China could force sanctions down. Currently the regime is shooting in it's own foot by being a tyrant. If normal people came to power, the "presented" reason for sanctions becomes invalid.

It's useless (and wrong) for anyone to fiercely defend Iran's current government by barking about devious economic plots, while that same government is imprisoning and killing their own people.
So let's just hope that people really seize power without anyone using them, and sanctions get lifted. But I won't be holding mine too high.
 
Wait, so you support the Iranian people fighting for a democratic government but you oppose it if it's done with western support and you don't think that it will happen without western support?
 
I oppose USA/Israeli strategy in this situation. That's it. I want them to get rid of both Mahmoud and Ali Hamnei and United States and Israel.
As I've said, I don't see it happening today, future might be different story.
 
If I went by the analysis of a friend of mine, Rafsandjani has the biggest shot at becoming president.
 
So, presidential elections are coming up next month. Maybe some remember the 2009 elections, which resulted in mass protests following election fraud. That thing that happened just before Michael Jackson died.

So, Ahmadinejad is not eligible for a third term, and most progressive Iranians gather around Hashemi Rafsanjani, who had been president from 1992 to 1997, and lost the 2005 elections to Ahmadinejad. He has never been particularly popular, but if I can believe my friends, most people in the country prefer him to another one of Mahmoud's kin. Here's an article from an oppositional website:

Iran's reformists rally behind former president Hashemi Rafsanjani
 
Update: Rafandjani was not approved by the Guardian Council. That leaves us with eight candidates I have never heard of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top