04 Nov 04
Originally posted by RagnorakDidn't know he was 14...my apologies to him and to anyone else who may consider me a child abuser...farthest thing from the truth...
So Cancremechanic, name calling and bullying 14 year olds, all in the same night. Again, your mother must be proud that she raised an all american hero like yourself.
Did you ever think that the Ayatollah wouldn't be in power if America hadn't deposed the democratically elected government and installed a dictator, the Shah, who killed hundreds of thou ...[text shortened]... d the u.s. be bombed and invaded for sponsoring terrorism? You'd like that wouldn't you?
D
04 Nov 04
abejnood-- I think you are being somewhat naive about the intentions of Iran's government. They repress dissent, correct? They have supported organizations like Hezbollah in the past, true? I don't go in for "axis of evil" talk, but it's hard to argue that Iran's government wants "nothing but good."
Chancremechanic-- regardless of abejnood's views (and his age), it's arrogant and presumptuous of you to say that he is not an American. What exactly do you think gives you the right to decide who is and isn't American? I suggest you leave that judgment to the INS.
On the topic, as I said in the other thread, I'd be quite surprised if we saw another large-scale invasion in the second Bush administration. Despite his "Global Freedom Warrior" rhetoric, Bush is actually much more interested in domestic policy. He wants to change the tax code, reform Social Security, consolidate and expand the Republican majority, and try to resurrect all that "compassionate conservative" blarney that was put aside after Sep. 11. I don't think he'll take decisive foreign policy action of any kind unless events compel him to.
05 Nov 04
Originally posted by chancremechanicWow. Do you think that all these posts are really helping people see and accept your veiwpoint?
Oh, I'm sorry if the truth upset you...I'll get the story (lies and propaganda) from Al-Jazeera next time if it will make you feel better...I'm sure they aren't biased...NOT!!
"Your country(Iran) supports international terrorism".-quote from me
"Excuse me? We do? Let's check the facts"- quoted from you.
See, you are admitting that I ...[text shortened]... ishing
Israel's destruction isn't a walk in the park for a "friendly" nation like Iran...
So you're saying you'll get " biased and false" stories from Al-Jazeer? Oh man. That is sure as heck funny. Reminds me of something too. Bush's statement" Iraq has weapons of mass destruction". I'm sure that quote is absolutely true...
And I here said"we". Yes. I am Iranian. I'm not dening that. But, I am also an American. I'm not dening that either. If, as you siad, the chase gets going, I would defend America. Of course, you would have to also define "defend" as well for me, because going over, bombing and murdering Iraqis, and lying to the public for reasons to steal oil really don't suggest "defend". More like, they suggest" arrogantly and cruelly attack and murder them Arabs and git their oil from'em".Anyway, my point is that you have no right attacking my credability and loyalty.
Now, you believe the word of one person? You believe just becasue he said that Iran will follow? A much more followed idea in Iran is that they will merely develop nuclear power for energy purposes.
And as for your last statement, that "Isreal's destruction isn't a walk in the plank", don't you mean it the other way around? After all, it's Isreal to whom the U.S. sucks up to. And Isreal has total control over everything. They also have over 400 tons of weapons of mass destruction, but nobody wants to stop them, oh no. IN fact, they should have the right to bomb anyone.
-Alborz
05 Nov 04
Originally posted by ReaperAre you saying that not adhering to UN resolutions is a justification for invasion (because it certainly wasn't because they posed a danger to us)?
Remember, contrary to whatever you belive of Bush, military action is the last option. It is very plain to see that with Iraq there was a planned and consistent cheating, fraud etc about adhering to the UN resolutiona.
Perhaps you should go here:
http://bitterfact.tripod.com/israel/unresolutions.html
Israel is in violation of many, many more UN resolutions, you will note.
Military action was NOT the last option here. Any way you slice America's actions, it is terroristic in nature.
Nemesio
05 Nov 04
1 edit
Originally posted by chancremechanicSpeaking as someone who has actually BEEN to Iran this year, I can confirm that you are talking comlete and utter [insert own expletive].
You are NOT an American...you are an Iranian LIVING in America...and in the great state of Tennessee, no doubt! You will NEVER be an American with your attitude, therefore, may I suggest you pack your bags and get the hell out of A ...[text shortened]... iving in Iran....what more can I say?...modern state?...ha, ha....
Whilst in Iran, I had regular access to the internet at both internet cafes, and at my colleagues home. Within Tehran, there is an Armenian Christian neighbourhood which we visited on a couple of occassions (you can get bacon there!). The christian-muslim relationship is entirely peaceful.
Admittedly Iran has numerous social issues, especially regarding the treatment of women. However, if you actually took the time to meet and talk to Iranians you would realise that the rules are constantly relaxing, and that if societies are left to run their natural course many of these issues will be ironed out.
However, many of Irans social issues are a direct response to their welcoming of over 1.5 million Afghan refugees (plus an unknown amount from Iraq) after the so-called "liberation" of their country. The Iranian governemnt has had to rehouse these people - often in conditions you would not let your dog live in. They could easily have refused them aid, but you know- maybe the Iranians do have a heart.
As for being Bin Ladens bedmate, your understanding of the Islamic world is minimal. Bin Laden is a sunni muslim, whilst the majority of Iranians are shia muslims. And before you suggets that either was in league with Saddam just stop. Both Bin Laden and Iran hated Saddam because he ran effectively a secualr Muslim country.
Before you go spouting off rhetoric about the evils of other countries, and how they oppress their citizens, maybe you should re-read the Patriot Act. And if you dare call me a commie or America-hater I will personally hunt you down and [insert own revengeful tactic]!!!
Mark
05 Nov 04
Originally posted by mmanuelOk, I apologize for my lack of preparedness when addressing the situation in Iran. If what you say is true, then what you describe is heartening. If abejood reads this, my apologies to him also. However, I cannot dismiss the source of information that I receive on Iran, which goes to show that there are 'two sides to evey coin'...I hope that the scenario you describe remains and only gets more open and recognized...Ok, Mark, thanks for opening my eyes a little...as for your threat to hunt me down...well, come on over to NJ...I have some folks named Soprano I'd like you to meet....😉
Speaking as someone who has actually BEEN to Iran this year, I can confirm that you are talking comlete and utter [insert own expletive].
Whilst in Iran, I had regular access to the internet at both internet cafes, and at my colleagues home. Within Tehran, there is an Armenian Christian neighbourhood which we visited on a couple of occassions (you can ge ...[text shortened]... America-hater I will personally hunt you down and [insert own revengeful tactic]!!!
Mark
06 Nov 04
1 edit
no hard feelings chancre...
...it's just that the media portrayal of Iran is so biased - most of the journalists/politicians have never set foot there...
...although my outburst it proabably has more to do with the fact that I am stuck in the only dry state in india, and consequently haven't had a beer for 11 days. Still 17 days of my record that I set whilst in Iran
Hey, I was over in NY earlier this year (i've been travelling around a lot), and might go again next year. If so, I'll have a look for those nice chaps you mentioned 😉😉
06 Nov 04
Originally posted by mateuloseYo, metal, my last post should open your eyes to the fact that I can admit when I may be wrong....i'm not the ridgid 'Bushophile' that you seem to think I am...and I can APOLOGIZE if I insult someone unthinkinlgy, as I have been known to do in the heat of battle. You should take a lesson from this and apologize for some of the things you have said, oh, and I apologize to you for some of the things I said in PMs...
So chancre admits to being brain washed and misled by Bush? Interesting. . . What will you do if Bush actually invades Iran? (which will happen) Will you be a good willed concious human being, try to stop it, and save lives? Or continue to post rethoric on RHP about how evil Iran is?
07 Nov 04
Originally posted by ivanhoeOnly if there's some oil there, and a crap army that cant fight back.
Lots of speculation is going on about this. The hawks in Washington lead by the neo-cons are said to advocate this.
Do you think Dubya & Friends are making any plans to invade, say Iran, North Korea, or Syria ?
I don't think so. He's having enough trouble as it is now in Iraq. Besides he went to war to open a new front in the war on terror. A front t ...[text shortened]... l George W. & Friends invade another country within the framework of the War on Terror and why ?
Dont you just long for the good old days, empire building, all that stuff, titans clashing with titans, thousands getting slaughtered for a little scrap of land, had a certain charm to it, nothing underhand about it, just one country saying "I want your country, and im gonna take it by force". Now all we have is boring economics, fear used to manipulate the price of oil.
07 Nov 04
Originally posted by no1marauderIs it morally acceptable to support an organisation that deliberately targets civilian men women and children as the IRA did? I don't care what your view of the legitemacy of British occopation of Northern Ireland is, those actions are indefensible. People who funded the IRA through Noraid are therefore equally culpable and should hang their heads in shame. What have they achieved? NOTHING. The IRA have been forced to capitulate and their dream of a United Ireland is still a long way off.
The "terrorists" the United States was supporting and continues to support in Ireland is the government of Great Britain in their immoral occupation of Irish soil. As a person who supported and still supports whatever resistance is necessary to free Northern Ireland from British occupation, your idea that the US supported the IRA is laughable. ...[text shortened]... thern Ireland and still do; that is not government "sponsorship" but support for a just cause.
07 Nov 04
1 edit
Originally posted by ianpickeringThe struggle continues. The IRA primarily targeted military and paramilitary forces, but did on rare occasions target civilans. Has I've stated before, occupied populations have little choice as to their tactics given their massive military inferiority and the refusal of occupiers to negotiate in good faith. The IRA did not capitulate; they entered an agreement that the British have repeatedly violated. Therefore, it is the British position that is morally indefensible, not the IRA's.
Is it morally acceptable to support an organisation that deliberately targets civilian men women and children as the IRA did? I don't care what your view of the legitemacy of British occopation of Northern Ireland is, those actions ar ...[text shortened]... ulate and their dream of a United Ireland is still a long way off.
PS In case ya missed it, the IRA did acheive freedom for most of Ireland; so that would be SOMETHING (if not enough).
07 Nov 04
Originally posted by no1marauderBelow is an article detailing the figures. 'Rare occasions' ? Targetting people just because they happened to be protestant? Bombing innocent men women and children on the mainland? NO EXCUSE
The struggle continues. The IRA primarily targeted military and paramilitary forces, but did on rare occasions target civilans. Has I've stated before, occupied populations have little choice as to their tactics given their massive military inferiority and the refusal of occupiers to negotiate in good faith. The IRA did not capitulate; they ent ...[text shortened]... it, the IRA did acheive freedom for most of Ireland; so that would be SOMETHING (if not enough).
Do you approve of suicide bombimgs in Israel and elsewhere because 'occupied people have little choice'? Do me a favour!
archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2002/07/16/story59973.asp
The IRA tonight apologised for the killing of all ‘‘non-combatants’’ who died during its campaign of terror.
In an unprecedented statement, the republican terror group offered its ‘‘sincere apologies and condolences’’ to the families of victims during 30 years of violence.
At the same time it said it acknowledged the grief and pain of the families of the combatants - police, soldiers and loyalist paramilitaries - killed during the violence.
Records show the IRA killed nearly 1,800 people during its terror campaign, close on 650 of them civilians.
The apology came ahead of the anniversary this week of one of the IRA’s worst acts, the killing of nine people and injury of over 130 when terrorists blitzed Belfast with 27 bombs on the afternoon of July 21, 1972, - a day which became known as Bloody Friday.
It is the first time the leadership of the terror organisation has offered a straight apology for any of its acts.
The IRA statement said Sunday, July 21, marked the 30th anniversary of an operation in Belfast which resulted in the nine people being killed and many more injured - Bloody Friday.
Those who died included seven civilians and two soldiers.
The statement, signed by P O’Neill, as in all statements from the IRA leadership, said: ‘‘While it was not our intention to injure or kill non-combatants, the reality is that on this and on a number of other occasions, that was the consequence of our actions.’’
It added: ‘‘It is, therefore, appropriate on the anniversary of this tragic event, that we address all of the deaths and injuries of non-combatants caused by us.
‘‘We offer our sincere apologies and condolences to their families.
‘‘There have been fatalities amongst combatants on all sides. We also acknowledge the grief and pain of their relatives.’’
The IRA said the future would not be found in ‘‘denying collective failures and mistakes or closing minds and hearts to the plight of those who had been hurt. That includes all of the victims of the conflict, combatants and non-combatants.
‘‘It will not be achieved by creating a hierarchy of victims in which some are deemed more or less worthy than others.’’
It said the process of conflict resolution required the equal acknowledgement of the grief and loss of others.
‘‘On this anniversary, we are endeavouring to fulfil this responsibility to those we have hurt.’’
The statement said: ‘‘The IRA is committed unequivocally to the search for freedom, justice and peace in Ireland.
‘‘We remain totally committed to the peace process and to dealing with the challenges and difficulties which this presents. This includes the acceptance of past mistakes and of the hurt and pain we have caused to others.’’