Where have you ever seen me defend the actions of Hamas or any other group that launched attacks on Israel ?
you rhetorically asked me, specifying me, and i answered. when you're ridiculous, you get ridiculous responses.
Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps = source of violence in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza, all via vigilante proxy establishments. This way it can pretend it is a peaceful country - except when they murdered peaceful protestors in their streets, that one was hard to hide - and to my surprise, even people here believe that they are so peaceful. The nuclear scientist the Mossad killed was an expert on the foundations of the on-switch in nuclear warheads. While Iran would never dare launch a nuclear attack on a fellow UN member, one of its proxies would have no reservations in doing so. And given the slack much of the world, and much of you guys, give Iran in pretending it has nothing to do with these proxy armies that it actually has everything to do with, they would likely get away with slipping it to one of them. I don't condone violence of any kind, but the proxy armies funded by Iran's elite commando units revere death and martyrdom, and have countless times demonstrated that they would first put their own civilians in harms way simply for PR points. In Lebanon II in 2006, Hezbollah purposefully stored thousands of munitions among the crowded neighborhoods of southern Lebanon. The lebanese themselves have been politically castrated by these fanatics, who have even been indicted by the UN for murdering the Lebanese PM only a few years ago. They don't answer to Lebanese law and are not supported by the population. Even though several hundred thousand Arabs in Israel and Palestine would likely perish in a nuclear attack on Israel, the IRGC-trained death-worshipping cults would not shed a tear. A million more martyrs to name streets after. It is not just in Israel's interest that Iran does not produce nuclear weapons. They could just as easily as handing it over to Hezbollah, hand it over to Bashar Assad and we'll watch him turn Hama into a glass desert. Or they could give it to the Shi'ites they train in Iraq and take out the foremost Sunni strongholds. Nuclear-supplied IRGC could cost, quite easily, over a million lives.
What really gets me is when Iran overthrew our democratically elected government in 1953 and installed their dictator...who ruled over us until 1979 while they were propping him up. Man, did that suck. Wait a minute...did I get that backwards? I'm guessing a few people still remember that. Moreover, I can't find anything similar to ^ around us? Figured with them being the aggressors and all they'd have at least a handful of bases waiting to attack us. Silly me for thinking.
"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to MJU1983 again." Damn your posts are consistently spot on, though we disagree economically in some areas it seems.
US and British involvement in Iranian politics 1953-1979 were truly atrocious. It doesn't quite detract from my comment above, however. Over thirty years have passed, and Iran's funding and training of death-cult proxy armies is indeed quite aggressive in the Middle East today. Not to America, by any means - but to vulnerable nations like Lebanon and Syria, it is self-evident. This movie, Persepolis, is very educational and touching regarding 20th century Iranian politics.
Aaronman, a little OT, but you asked where to read up on the basij a while ago. I am an unashamed fan of wikipedia. Basij - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I don't know what to say to your last sentence. I don't want to insult you, but if you really believe that then one of us is not dealing in the real world.
i think he was suggesting that the emphasis against it means that to go against his teaching on islam would be suicidal politically. shooting civilians is a lovely trait of all dictatorships
I think the hypocrisy is evident within him, as I pointed out with my example of that. A man who orders his own civilians shot (the Basij take orders directly from the Supreme Leader) is clearly deranged and inconsistent with any type of Islam that would hold any dignity. SInce I bet he would claim that his does, his blatant hypocrisy, I infer, can come out in more ways than one. Or else he doesn't think shooting unarmed Iranians is un-Islamic, which I'm sure isn't the case.
It's different. Shooting dissidents inciting violence is Islamic, killing innocent people is not. How would they justify nuclear weapons after explicitly prohibiting them from consideration? What you're suggesting about Iran is a wild theory with no evidence. They are open about their nuclear program, unlike some countries, and they've never invaded or attacked another country in their history as a nation. Starting wars based on such cockamamy ideas is cockamamy.
True shit they haven't attacked any one. They're just chillin then we overthrow them in '53 Then shit gets shitty. I think the US should be disqualified from talking shit about nuclear programs because, well, we haven't the best track record w them. edit: i said shit 4 times in this small post. that is weak of me.
You're right. This man either believes in a very distorted version of Islam or he doesn't act in the name of his religion, but in his own name. There's a reason those protestors stood up in the first place. They wanted to get their dictator out of there, but failed because he shot down the revolution. Those protestors were Muslims too, and by the looks of it, they didn't exactly agree with his actions.
It's the religious leaders that have the power, they're the ones who say nukes are un-Islamic. Not just one man. Their president Ahmidinejad is to Bush what Mousavi is to Obama, their major policies are identical. They both serve the establishment order. The protests were over those two.